Day 64 of a broken background sim
- Thread starter Schlack
- Start date
I'll just leave this one here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/472325-Time-to-buff-antagonistic-PvE
Acknowledging the numbers were skewed because of the now-fixed mission impacts, there's still a disproportionately low amount of activities with negative effects. That increasing that would be preferable to any "age-off" effects or similar.
Last edited:
I've asked this before, but in light of Adam's recent post (some of which I didn't understand as a BGS noob), is the Thargoid aspect of the BGS working or broken? Right now defending Sol neighborhood from Thargoid incursions is my top priority, but I don't want to waste my time killing scouts if the system is broken.
That was unpleasant read. Social Media and the perceived invulnerability it gives some people really does have a lot to answer for.
In my limited experience it appears to be working correctly. You can check progress of incursion state in station news. I have seen reports of bugged kill infested ships missons, but that would appear to be a mission bug and not a BGS mechanics issue.
The worst bit is how familiar it all sounds.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
There is lots I like about the new wars/elections, but it a bit daft that you get the same outcome from dropping a single bounty on two days as you do with 100s of bond drops and scenario completion for seven days - we win most of our wars after two days with the minimum of effort, add another day for safety then coast in. Since there is no incentive at all for doing any more. Wars take longer but also take a lot less effort than in 3.2. 60 at once isn't really much of a challenge - ot take more effort to monitor them than win them
Last edited:
Influence adjustments should scale based on population and nature of victory. Using the current baseline of 4%, would be something like
2% - close victory
4% - victory
6% - total victory.
Thing with system sizes though, influence changes should only be inclusive of shared influence of the combatants. If a war in a tiny system breaks out between two factions with 8% influence, it'd be dumb for the victor to gain 20% because it was a small system, witch is probably why it's 4% across the board (due to the triggers for war)
Personally, i still think bonds/ship kills should not affect war outcomes at all, but should instead affect influence. Meanwhile, winning war zones and missions should affect the outcome of the war. The difference between tactical and strategic victories, and allows pyrrhic victories.
Your top priority should be saving the galaxy from EBL!!!
Someday...
As a BGS noob, all I can say is that I've been killing scouts in HIP 23395 and have seen the level drop from "massive" to "significant", so in that aspect it seems to be working.
I generally agree with that, but I've been thinking about this a bit, and it occurred to me that the intention might be that groups/factions will fight more and/or prefer to target large systems, vs. small ones - especially in player vs player conflicts. Pre 3.3, such conflicts could result in repeated weeks of flipping small population systems with murder, whereas big systems were pretty much out of reach for attack against any faction that paid enough attention to notice and put in a defense.
With this mechanic, conflicts could end up concentrating on important, high population systems instead, even when multiple conflicts run simultaneously as groups need to make choices where to put their resources. Whether attacking or defending, if you're short on resources, you'll likely push the higher population system, as the pay-off will be higher. And with high population systems likely to have multiple assets, conflicts could go back and forth for a while in an interesting/meaningful system. In addition, traffic would likely play a factor as well, throwing an element of uncertainty into the mix, and potentially bring in the wider community should the system control somehow be important for them, be it for trade profits, availability of rares or otherwise illegal goods, allegiance, power play, lore, whatever.
I think that makes conflicts more meaningful and involved. And a reason to target high population systems in directed expansions.
Last edited:
How is the BGS bugged? I have not done any background Sim work in a while. I was considering a project, but I will hold off if I would just be wasting my time.
Exactly how it's gone for my group since the new mechanics dropped. New conflict mechanics have been nothing but a positive for us, despite causing a couple losses initially
Last edited:
You are investigating… You can rename the company to *Royal Bureau of Investigations* since I’m seeing investigations only. You literally do not understand how a multiplayer game works. A lot of people are trying to find a reason to play your game, they are playing even such nonsense as BGS and with one swing you screwed up all their countless hours in the game, and now you are investigating for two months what went wrong. Do you know what went wrong? Your basic misunderstanding what the players expect from a MMO game. The whole BGS drama was pledged four years ago with PMF and it will continue unless you do not change the principles of the players’ integration into the BGS. It’s not enough that any effort put into the BGS is a waste of time, but we don’t even know what and how affects the BGS.
You are just saying to us: don’t bother with BGS; we will shape it as we want and all your actions are meaningless anyway.
The problem they are having is they ask us for specific information whilst trying to fix issues and the reply they get is :
"I'm not submitting detailed bug reports helpfully telling you what the problem actually is, I'd rather do toxic ranting instead whilst complaining its not been fixed now if not sooner. Why don't FDEV talk to us, it is a mystery and all their fault"
Rant on commander :S[up].
Toxic is a strong word. Toxic is what some griefers are, it's hard to use as a term for people who are normally quite reserved and cerebral, as BGS players generally are. Some are acting rather entitled, but hey man, people are losing HOURS of their time spent and no explanation why. It's understandable that they get upset, calling them 'toxic' isn't fair. FD have made their own bed in many ways, they have to take some flak. The BGS reset is the big thing I'm struggling with, what a horrible decision, I only hope it was absolutely necessary.
FDEV made them do it by wearing provocative clothing.