Day 64 of a broken background sim
- Thread starter Schlack
- Start date
We've already had *two* official confirms today, one for BGS, another for bindings, that the problem is on Frontier's side. Check the relevant threads.
That's nice. I'm not sure what you think it has to do with my post though.
Yes, yes, i know that - when somebody tells inconvenient truth, call him toxic and keep rose colour on your glasses
Denial of problem existence is the best way to ruin the product.
Last edited:
Yes, yes, i know that - when somebody tells inconvenient truth, call him toxic and keep rose colour on your glasses
Denial of problem existence is the best way to ruin the product.
Yes, people liking video games is certain doom [wacky].
The faction I support in an election today went from "two days dominated the conflict" and "close victory" to "four days dominated the conflict" and "total victory" - in one day.
Not to mention that "the tick" ™ is more of a shallow tide spanning hours (slightly exaggerated for dramatic effect).
The BGS is broken since 3.3.
Not to mention that "the tick" ™ is more of a shallow tide spanning hours (slightly exaggerated for dramatic effect).
The BGS is broken since 3.3.
I quite understand that Frontier wants examples of where it goes wrong, so I would still encourage everyone to submit bug reports as requested, however...
People would be a lot more willing to do it (again and again):
What I have a bit more problems with, and unfortunately I've run into this with Frontier multiple times, is that they are entirely reactive in these things, and can't seem to figure out ways to find such instances themselves, yet are asking people for info they already have and in much greater detail.
Because here's what I would do, if I knew there were issues with conflicts, or trade, explo and mining to give inconsistent results. It's not hard. But we saw the same lack of pro-active action in issues around automated accounts, for instance.
Issues reported around conflicts giving effort to the wrong faction
Explo gives inconsistent results
Since we don't know the intended behavior of the new BGS mechanics (necessarily) these may just be examples they can adjust. But this is not hard. It just requires the will to do so. Waiting for bug reports causes unnecessary delays (a CMDR needs to make the bug report, QA needs to see it, and pass it on. Dev needs to be assigned and pick it up from the queue. Which may well be after the conflict has already ended) and asks for things Frontier already has the data for.
And don't get me wrong. Every interaction with Frontier developers, support and QA tells me these are passionate people who care about what they do. But organizational structures and management decisions dictate these people's priorities, even if they are concerned about issues and would love to help, if the issue was prioritized internally. You can't expect devs and QA folks to work on these things in their spare time... So my criticism is not to them. It's with a failure of management to demand pro-active investigation and genuine engagement with the community beyond Triple E.
I myself have been able to get a lot of information out of public data sources like EDDB and EDDN. I could only imagine what I or Frontier could get from their data. It's not even hard technically. It just requires the will to invest the time into. That's a management decision.
People would be a lot more willing to do it (again and again):
- If previous ones weren't simply closed with "if you're still seeing this, log a new report" well after the actual conflict has ended, and
- If reports were private. For operational security and not warning people all over the forums what systems you're fighting in, how much effort you're putting in and by which CMDRs, I am reluctant to provide full details. I'd be happy to provide such details if we could report bugs on https://support.frontier.co.uk/topic.php, privately, rather than in a public subforum anyone can read. You can report possible exploits there, but bugs direct you to this forum.
What I have a bit more problems with, and unfortunately I've run into this with Frontier multiple times, is that they are entirely reactive in these things, and can't seem to figure out ways to find such instances themselves, yet are asking people for info they already have and in much greater detail.
Because here's what I would do, if I knew there were issues with conflicts, or trade, explo and mining to give inconsistent results. It's not hard. But we saw the same lack of pro-active action in issues around automated accounts, for instance.
Issues reported around conflicts giving effort to the wrong faction
- Run a query post-tick over the populated galaxy for systems where:
- factions are in conflict
- contributions were made by CMDRs
- the balance of the contributions for and against the conflict parties does not match/is reversed from the calculated result
- Analyze those systems why things went wrong
Explo gives inconsistent results
- Run a query post-tick over the populated galaxy for systems where:
- exploration data was sold
- faction owning the station is not in conflict
- no to next to no other activity
- the faction to whom exploration data was sold dropping in influence
- Analyze those systems why things went wrong
Since we don't know the intended behavior of the new BGS mechanics (necessarily) these may just be examples they can adjust. But this is not hard. It just requires the will to do so. Waiting for bug reports causes unnecessary delays (a CMDR needs to make the bug report, QA needs to see it, and pass it on. Dev needs to be assigned and pick it up from the queue. Which may well be after the conflict has already ended) and asks for things Frontier already has the data for.
And don't get me wrong. Every interaction with Frontier developers, support and QA tells me these are passionate people who care about what they do. But organizational structures and management decisions dictate these people's priorities, even if they are concerned about issues and would love to help, if the issue was prioritized internally. You can't expect devs and QA folks to work on these things in their spare time... So my criticism is not to them. It's with a failure of management to demand pro-active investigation and genuine engagement with the community beyond Triple E.
I myself have been able to get a lot of information out of public data sources like EDDB and EDDN. I could only imagine what I or Frontier could get from their data. It's not even hard technically. It just requires the will to invest the time into. That's a management decision.
Last edited:
he's stating facts in a cheeky way, way less aggressive than you btw. The game is a buggy mess/not what one would expect from a mature 5yr old title. Are you forgetting what happened in December? the game was literally unplayable for weeks, constant disconnects, the game would freeze for half a minute, lag and fps issues - it took almost 3 months to get to something decent-ish
there's so many people reporting issues daily and the attitude is nothing to see here, pebkac, move on - it's the toxic 0.1% apologetic cobblers like that who make all consumers look bad - there's so many threads/posts with complaints/issues being reported and some cobblers in denial have the nerve to tell people off when they voice their concerns
If you win three days on the trot, you get given an extra day's victory. It confused the hell out of me too.
It was never unplayable for me, it was fine with some minor teething problems like you always get after a patch.
FDEV are asking for specifics and people like you are refusing to provide them, whilst complaining its not been fixed yet. Thats definitely pebcak.
Yep we had something similar happen a few weeks ago, we won 4 days and the NPC faction also won 4 days by getting 2 wins on the second last day. Resulting in a draw which means we didn't get control of the system. Seriously frustrating. Reported it here so far nothing but crickets on that report: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-Victory-to-Slight-defeat-skipping-over-Draw)
The overnight tick has seen that repeat in two separate Elections. Again in Asterope, we won the day before, put in about the same effort and got a -2 from a single day. Also another election, we have been winning the prior two days and we just got a+2 from a single day so we have dominated for 4 days when the conflict has only been active for 3 days.
As far as I understood it you either got +1, -1, or 0 from any single day of a conflict state.....maybe it's expected behavior in elections *shurg* but seems more bug like to me.
Was going to report yet another couple of bugs tonight(additional quirks noticed beyond the above)....but is there any point? They aren't acknowledged and they aren't actioned based on past reports. One last chance.
Last edited:
The exception disproves the theory.
Recent example from today:
Day 1: Opposition wins -1 = -1 Close Defeat (minimal work)
Day 2: Opposition wins -1 = -2 Defeat (minimal work)
Day 3: we win +1 = -1 Close Defeat (we got serious)
Day 4: Weirdness -2 = -3 Total Defeat. (just as serious)
Day 5 hasn't happened yet.....
Seems to be a stronger correlation that we have seen the same jump twice today in two systems and a third also reported by CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost
(Source) . Something going wrong in the batch processing.
Last edited:
So FDev, being one of the biggest and most experienced gamedev studios, which uses its own proprietary game engine, which has no any issues at all with money/time/HR, appears to be unable to roll out the update free from at least major game-breaking bugs to its 5-years mature product?
And further, now, FDev is unable to fix these bugs without help of thousands of players (who are not hired beta-testers, but on the contrary, paid to FDev to get stable and high-quality product)?
Where did i miss the moment when EDH turned into Star Citizen?
In the MK4 topic you stated that placing access to MK4 to store would make similarity to selling ships in Star Citizen, which is bad.
Well, EDH is already like Star Citizen in much worse sense - development quality/progress and gameplay quality/consistency. Nothing to loose.
There are 3000+ reports with specifics, completely conforming all FDev requirements to bug reports. Sounds like enough work performed by players, which actually should have been made by FDev QA.
Though barely 100 of those bugs are fixed yet, after whole month of work of those 100+ people who work on ED according to FDev.
Last edited:
If the problem is mis-recording of contributions (and early enough in the chain), that sort of automated report is completely useless.
- the factions were in conflict
- contributions were made by CMDRs
- the balance of the recorded contributions matches the result ... just not what the CMDRs thought they were doing.
I suspect something like that is why the earlier statement said they were "happy with the balance".
Nevertheless there have been enough instances - a few recent CGs, for example - where the resulting influence swing has been so implausible that if that is the case, they should be able to check "what contributions were recorded" versus "what contributions would you plausibly expect to see in a CG system" and work from there.
There's very few gone in with the specifics they are asking for that are up to date and still relevant.
I'm not into conspiracy theories so you'll need to have the dev numbers conversation on your own.
Last edited:
Don’t mind this guy, he’s damage control, whether by heart or professionally that I don’t know. )
We've discussed exactly this in the squadron I'm in with FDEV support, they are happy for us to PM the info to them.
Remember to double layer your tinfoil hat.