Hostile from fighting in CZ - no missions taken

1. Don't count bonds at all. They're just a "sweetener" just like cash from massacre missions
2. Introduce squadron carriers (though that wouldn't help non-squadron affiliated CMDRs)
3. A temporary docking station for bond drops and refuel/repair/restock
4. Allow docking at hostile.

To be fair, I would like this solution the least, but it would address the problem too.
5. Allow bonds to be handed in anywhere and still count towards the war they were earned in.
1. Is the the quickest fix and path of least resistance.
2. Is also reasonable to a point. It actually creates more complexities, but somewhere down the track I don't think this option shouldn't be implemented, rather just not in isolation.
3. Megaships rather than stations, but yes. It would be pretty thematic then too.
4. This is my preferred option, provided it's done using Anonymity Protocols... because not only does it fix this particular issue, it fixes a host of other issues/inconsistencies.
5. I see this being problematic from an implementation point of view, just because nothing else does this in the game, suggesting it's not something particularly doable. The "breaker" case is if you go to war for your faction in two different systems. The game almost certainly[1] won't give you split bonds, much less a way to distinguish between them. It'll just be a sum of the bonds from two different systems, at which point the game can't distinguish them (same argument I used against people thinking different UAs were "unique", because the game just tracks them in cargo as a single stack.

Not only does 4 fix this issue, but it fixes other issues like the fact a faction you're wanted to will deny access to station services (due to anonymity protocols), whereas a hostile tation will continue to offer station services like normal.

The whole point of anonymity protocols is it conceals your identity, so if you're a known criminal, you can operate undetected. But Hostility is detected before docking, suggesting there is a means to do so... so why on earth are faction authorities not doing the same thing for criminals?? Docking when hostile using Anonymity Protocols just makes the most sense for the game.

[1] I haven't tested this, but I should...
 
This is fine, and it doesnt drop that quick.
Fdev dont need to balance anything here, this is how it should be. Differcult to start in a new system, I have been involved with many systems when you dint have any assets. There is newrly always another station owned by a different faction which you can land at.
 
This is fine, and it doesnt drop that quick.
Fdev dont need to balance anything here, this is how it should be. Differcult to start in a new system, I have been involved with many systems when you dint have any assets. There is newrly always another station owned by a different faction which you can land at.
Doesn't matter how gradual it is, it's broken. No other activity in the game punishes you for doing well at it, which is what this is doing. Imagine if, after trading for a long time, the target station you're trading at says "We refuse to trade with you any more". That's the equivalent of this... do really well in a war and get your options to contribute to the war limited.

Also, your assessment about "nearly always another station owned by a different station" is very, very inaccurate. Maybe in the center of the bubble or around other hub areas, but many, many systems in the region I operate in only have a single docking port.

Introduce new risks for sure, again, I'm fine with becoming Hostile as a general concept, but the current implementation of game mechanics means when this occurs, it causes nothing but trouble for you. In any sane assessment of gameplay progression, this makes no sense.

Part of the problem is, IMO, FD's attitude to negative states/reps. Back in the first livestream, the comment was made by one of the devs (which I paraphrase, since I'm not up to pulling it out at the moment) was "Successfully completing activities results in positive effects, and failing those activities results in negative effects. Most commanders are successful at their activities, so we generally see more positive effects".
So FD perceives negative states and reputation states as player-failure. Regardless of your view on whether "this is fine" or not, an overall punishment resulting from "successful" gameplay completely contradicts that stance.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't matter how gradual it is, it's broken. No other activity in the game punishes you for doing well at it, which is what this is doing. Imagine if, after trading for a long time, the target station you're trading at says "We refuse to trade with you any more". That's the equivalent of this... do really well in a war and get your options to contribute to the war limited.
...
I don't think that makes much sense. Trading with a faction benefits them and so improves your reputation with them. Why would they punish you for that?
Attacking a faction, killing their members and trying to take their station(s) from them gives them no incentive to help you in any way. On the other hand, your reputation will improve with the faction you're are fighting for.
 
I don't think that makes much sense. Trading with a faction benefits them and so improves your reputation with them. Why would they punish you for that?
Attacking a faction, killing their members and trying to take their station(s) from them gives them no incentive to help you in any way. On the other hand, your reputation will improve with the faction you're are fighting for.
That's not the point here.

Success in trade enables further success in trade.

Success in war disables further success in war, because of this mechanic.

Bottom line is: How do you win wars?
  • Resolve Conflict Zones
  • Do scenarios
  • Submit Combat Bonds; but if you become hostile, you can't do this anymore.
It's ridiculous to consider that, in order to be most effective at a war, I have to be careful not to annoy the enemy too much.

Just to re-iterate, I have no problem getting locked out of stations and such[1] for being Hostile. I have significant issue with the fact someone who can cash their bonds is more effective than someone who can't. It's totally non-sensical. Two players on opposing sides both destroy 4 ships and earn 200k in bonds to collect. The ships are gone, that's the impact right there... cashing bonds should have nothing to do with the war outcome.

Either the effect of cashing bonds on a war outcome needs to be removed (which is the quick and easy fix), or an alternate arrangement to hand in the bonds implemented.

[1] Notwithstanding the fact that, allowing Anonymity Protocols access when hostile unlocks a host of potential gameplay opportunities, and the knee-jerk "lock hostile people out of stations" mechanic is totally short-sighted and inconsistent with other aspects of the game, but I'm not here to beat that drum.
 
Last edited:
That's not the point here.

Success in trade enables further success in trade.

Success in war disables further success in war, because of this mechanic.

Bottom line is: How do you win wars?
  • Resolve Conflict Zones
  • Do scenarios
  • Submit Combat Bonds; but if you become hostile, you can't do this anymore.
It's ridiculous to consider that, in order to be most effective at a war, I have to be careful not to annoy the enemy too much.

Just to re-iterate, I have no problem getting locked out of stations and such[1] for being Hostile. I have significant issue with the fact someone who can cash their bonds is more effective than someone who can't. It's totally non-sensical. Two players on opposing sides both destroy 4 ships and earn 200k in bonds to collect. The ships are gone, that's the impact right there... cashing bonds should have nothing to do with the war outcome.

Either the effect of cashing bonds on a war outcome needs to be removed (which is the quick and easy fix), or an alternate arrangement to hand in the bonds implemented.

[1] Notwithstanding the fact that, allowing Anonymity Protocols access when hostile unlocks a host of potential gameplay opportunities, and the knee-jerk "lock hostile people out of stations" mechanic is totally short-sighted and inconsistent with other aspects of the game, but I'm not here to beat that drum.
You should be, it's 100% the point. Great post.
 
This is fine, and it doesnt drop that quick.
Fdev dont need to balance anything here, this is how it should be. Differcult to start in a new system, I have been involved with many systems when you dint have any assets. There is newrly always another station owned by a different faction which you can land at.
And there are over 4,500 systems where there is only one asset. Add in systems where all assets are owned by one faction....that's a huge slice of the BGS world that this issue affects.

This is not how it should be. War wouldn't work like this.

If you were unable to get access to the supplies and repairs you needed you'd bring them with you (which is why the megaship idea is perfect in that it reintroduces balance and enhances lore).

This problem also introduces a weird BGS strategy where you may want to build reputation with a certain enemy faction in the build up to war, or even during it, to give you more time to hand in combat bonds. How is that realistic or sensible? Do these factions not have communication between stations?

Either a megaship, some sort of system where system stations get taken over by a neutral party during war, or combat bonds become purely financial incentives and don't affect the war.

What we have currently makes no sense mechanically or lore wise.
 
Last edited:

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
I've gone from Allied to just above hostile in one day in a war (with opposition). Fortunately, I'm defending. If there is no change I'll be taking explo data into the warzones and selling it to the station owner. A couple of mapped terraformables will deal with the issue. It feels a bit daft though
 
Do not fight against controlling faction, I guess. Becoming hostile is correct for me: you fighting against them, what did you expect?..
Don't know about current version, but in old days becoming hostile was funny also: it was hard to pick side in CZ, they started to shoot me just on sight and mission kills did not count.
Couple times I did bounty hunting with kws in the system to increase my reputation for all factions. Also doing some other simple missions for the faction did help.
 
Do not fight against controlling faction, I guess. Becoming hostile is correct for me: you fighting against them, what did you expect?..
Once again, completely unrelated to the problem. Nobody expects to not become hostile. But being Hostile can, in many cases, prevent you handing in combat bonds at the only station in an enemy system. Handing in combat bonds is one of the ways to support your faction in the war.

So just to be clear...

Destroying enemy ships does not affect the outcome of the war.
Collecting your bond for those kills does, and you cannot do this if the enemy owns the only station in the system.

That is, contributing to the war effort can prevent you contributing to the war effort. It's absurdity. Claiming combat bonds should not affect the outcome of the war.

Heh... I can see the war room now.

"Hello Pilot! Great job destroying every single capital ship the enemy had completely unanswered, this allowed us to wipe out their entire fleet! But, uh, you didn't go claim your pay from our clerk onboard the enemy station, so we uh... lost the war. Sorry about that."
 
Last edited:
Destroying enemy ships does not affect the outcome of the war.
Collecting your bond for those kills does, and you cannot do this if the enemy owns the only station in the system.

That is, contributing to the war effort can prevent you contributing to the war effort. It's absurdity. Claiming combat bonds should not affect the outcome of the war.
Now I see. What about claiming the bonds in the interstellar factors in other systems?
 
Now I see. What about claiming the bonds in the interstellar factors in other systems?
It doesn't count to the war. Anything claimed through Interstellar Factors has no effect.

EDIT: And just for completeness, handing them in a different system where the relevant faction is present likewise has no effect in the war.
 
Why not meld scenarios with wars? So you choose once for that war and whoever you side against you go hostile automatically. You get paid a set amount only if your side wins and its a gamble about choosing who to fight for. The reward might be scaled to pop size and opposition quality perhaps.

Get rid of the CZ massacre missions and spot bonds (the latter IMO which are dysfunctional anyway) as well. Streamline it, and make war nasty again.
 
all you have to do is run some REP missions to keep you up before you start CZ. if you run a few CZs per day, then the your rep doesn't move that much. e.g. I'm on day 4 now of a CZ, and I haven't entered unfriendly yet. my rep with the opposing faction was high before we started,

or if there are any cash missions do one or two of these, while docked at station. just keep the bar our of hostile

personally I think its working as you would expect.
you fight against a faction, they like you less. to more you fight against them, they more they dislike you.
if you do it so many times you end up hostile
if they own a station, its only right they do not allow you in.

seems very normal to me.
 
all you have to do is run some REP missions to keep you up before you start CZ. if you run a few CZs per day, then the your rep doesn't move that much. e.g. I'm on day 4 now of a CZ, and I haven't entered unfriendly yet. my rep with the opposing faction was high before we started,

or if there are any cash missions do one or two of these, while docked at station. just keep the bar our of hostile

personally I think its working as you would expect.
you fight against a faction, they like you less. to more you fight against them, they more they dislike you.
if you do it so many times you end up hostile
if they own a station, its only right they do not allow you in.

seems very normal to me.
There is absolutely nothing normal about my kills not counting towards the outcome of a war, simply because I can't/don't get paid for it.

It is utter absurdity to consider that I should have to help the enemy occasionally, in order to continue contributing to the war in this way.

For the third time, the problem is NOT becoming hostile, but the impact it has on the mechanics for winning war.
 
Last edited:
seems very normal to me.
Yeah totally normal to do a few odd jobs for your sworn enemy whilst at war with them.

I'm not a full on role-player, but I do like to at least have some sort of feeling that my enemy is my enemy. Your 'workaround' won't be very palatable for many people....having to have a workaround that feels as weird as this, only highlights that there is an issue that needs solving.
 
all you have to do is run some REP missions to keep you up before you start CZ.
Given that the pending time for conflict has been reduced from three days to one, this strategy would require extensive planning. As all rep missions include an element of inf, every mission successfully completed would tend to move the anticipated antagonist's influence level away from the necessary congruence to trigger the conflict (under most circumstances).
or if there are any cash missions do one or two of these, while docked at station. just keep the bar our of hostile.
You mean, fight them one minute, help them the next? What will they think of you?
 
Last edited:
I've gone from Allied to just above hostile in one day in a war (with opposition). Fortunately, I'm defending. If there is no change I'll be taking explo data into the warzones and selling it to the station owner. A couple of mapped terraformables will deal with the issue. It feels a bit daft though
The other option is to avoid victories and jump before you win, but drop bonds and gain objectives. No victory, no rep degradation.

But that's working around things, really. I've considered the explo dump, but I dropped it elsewhere :D

EDIT: today's tick suggests that foregoing victories may not be a good strategy...
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom