How long do wars last now (Jan 2020)?

[Adept]

My home system is being invaded, and I’ve been busy (with friends and allies) dominating the conflict zones. In the four days of fighting so far the game stopped awarding combat bonds, and now the progress bars in the zones have disappeared.

Our faction has dominated the fighting every day, and the victory level sliderhas been maxed out for two ticks already. I rather assumed that would end the war in victory, but so far no change.

What can I expect? How long do we need to keep doing this, or does it not even matter anymore with the slider maxed out?

 

[Jmanis]

The sliders disappearing is a known issue being investigated.

Wars last 7 days, but are a "best of" arrangement; as soon as one side gets a decisive advantage in the number of days won, the war ends.

In a totally unopposed situation, your slider will go as follows:
(War Starts) None
(Tick 1) Close victory
(Tick 2) victory
(Tick 3) total victory
(Tick 4) total victory
(Tick 5) war ends, win.

Tick 4 isn't sufficient because the following can happen still.
(War Starts) None
(Tick 1) Close victory
(Tick 2) victory
(Tick 3) total victory
(Tick 4) total victory - opposition happens
(Tick 5) victory - opposotion happens
(Tick 6) close victory - opposition happens
(Tick 7) war ends, draw

 

[Adept]

Cheers, that’s nice and clear.

 

[Adept]

I have a further question, since we’re on the topic. Does anything other than player contribution effect the wars? What happens if players don’t get involved?

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I have a further question, since we’re on the topic. Does anything other than player contribution effect the wars? What happens if players don’t get involved?

Nothing else.

It ends in a 0-0 draw after 7 days. No assets are transferred, and the factions are separated by a small amount of influence to avoid an immediate restart of the conflict.

 

[Adept]

Nothing else.

It ends in a 0-0 draw after 7 days. No assets are transferred, and the factions are separated by a small amount of influence to avoid an immediate restart of the conflict.

That’s rather disappointing. Strong factions vs weak ones and so forth. The difficulty of the fight should depend on the relative power levels.

So now we can have a superpower’s navy taking on a minor bunch of local pirates, and it’s always an even fight decided by the pilots federation. Too simple.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

That’s rather disappointing. Strong factions vs weak ones and so forth. The difficulty of the fight should depend on the relative power levels.

If the two factions are in conflict, then this is because the events of the previous days or weeks have already adjusted their influences (i.e. their relative local power levels) to be equal.

Factions with certain forms of local 'strength' can be harder to get into that position in the first place, of course. A controlling faction of a high population system with consolidated ownership of most stations will be very hard to drain enough influence from to start the conflict without a lot of coordinated player activity ... while a faction which only owns a secondary outpost in a low-population backwater will be very easy to draw into a conflict. Superpower factions have advantages in this process over independents. Law-enforcing factions have advantages over anarchies.

The difficulty based on "strong" or "weak" factions is there - but arising dynamically from the entire BGS system, rather than Frontier unilaterally saying "this faction is a strong one and gets +2 to wars".

Even once the war has started, some faction types (again, favouring larger factions and superpower-aligned ones over small independents) are more likely to benefit from passing player activity than others - but this will be reflected in the result of the war ending up as 1-0 due to that activity, not by the BGS just giving them the win because Frontier likes them.

 

[SiouxArrow]

All this doesn't resolve the question of what to do about conflicts not ending, progress bars disappearing, no clear outcome from the fight. What is being done to correct this issue? Conflict zones are a central part of the BGS, and when they are broken then BGS is also broken. Badly.

 

[SiouxArrow]

All this doesn't resolve the question of what to do about conflicts not ending, progress bars disappearing, no clear outcome from the fight. What is being done to correct this issue? Conflict zones are a central part of the BGS, and when they are broken then BGS is also broken. Badly.

 

[Jmanis]

All this doesn't resolve the question of what to do about conflicts not ending, progress bars disappearing, no clear outcome from the fight. What is being done to correct this issue? Conflict zones are a central part of the BGS, and when they are broken then BGS is also broken. Badly.

It's a known issue... i put in another thread that if you want want win a war you can still:

• submit the earned bonds
• complete scenarios
• run missions

 

[SiouxArrow]

The 'known issue' didn't exist before FDev put out the 'bug fix' patch. If they created a bug that screws up BGS, I want to see some evidence that they are busting their butts to resolve it. If you check the page of Issues at https://issues.frontierstore.net/ you don't find this issue anywhere. You have a confirmed issue that some download speed is being reported as Mbytes/s instead of Mbits/s, as if that is critical, but not a whisper on an issue that has a direct and adverse effect on the entire BGS concept.

Sure, you can submit the bonds, but you won't get additional credit for winning the battle. And when you are in a state of war, only combat related results count toward winning the conflict. Running missions and scenarios have no effect.

I want FDev to step up and recognize what they've done and what they're doing to correct it.

 

[Jmanis]

Sure, you can submit the bonds, but you won't get additional credit for winning the battle. And when you are in a state of war, only combat related results count toward winning the conflict. Running missions and scenarios have no effect.

Wrong.

Missions and scenarios most definitely do count, and I've won whole wars with just those actions.

Besides that... ok... I'm not sure what you're expecting in response to your complaint here? I'm just offering workarounds. We're all affected, no point beasting others over it.

 

[SiouxArrow]

OK, ignoring the issue of the CZs not working, since it's my thread, let's steal it. I have a table on BGS states that covers what it takes to succeed for each state. It may be dated, but it states categorically that only combat actions contribute to the success of a war state. Is there any chance that the conflicts you've won running missions/scenarios have been elections? In elections combat actions and missions do NOT contribute to success, only normal missions and scenarios.

 

[Jmanis]

OK, ignoring the issue of the CZs not working, since it's my thread, let's steal it. I have a table on BGS states that covers what it takes to succeed for each state. It may be dated, but it states categorically that only combat actions contribute to the success of a war state. Is there any chance that the conflicts you've won running missions/scenarios have been elections? In elections combat actions and missions do NOT contribute to success, only normal missions and scenarios.

100% confident. If it's dated, I'd suggest that it's a pre-3.3 table.

This isn't a casual observation; missions and scenarios are the primary strategy my group uses for winning wars in systems with no organic rearm/repair facilities, or where the CZs themselves are not close to any facility (1,000's of Ls away)... meaning it's too inefficient to fight in the warzones.

But don't take my word for it.

News - Background Simulation - Update (01/03)

Hello Commanders, We wanted to give you an update on the current state of the Background Simulation and detail some changes we are going to be implementing in an attempt to combat some of the issues that have been flagged up. Before that, we would like to thank all of your who shared your...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Balancing player actions for War/Civil War

• Winning Conflict Zone objectives is the most obvious way to help win a war.
• Most combat missions, combat bonds, bounty hunting and violent crimes will all contribute towards a War or Civil War.

Balancing player actions for Elections

• Players need to concentrate on non-combat actions that positively affect their chosen faction, while avoiding positive actions for the opposing faction. You can also provide negative economic actions onto the opposing faction.
• Non-combat missions, commodity trading (and smuggling), search and rescue work, selling exploration data and helping out with scenarios at installations and megaships are all good ways to contribute towards an Election.

Frankly, not the first time FD have mis-announced the functions of the BGS... as above, we've won plenty of wars with nothing but Scenarios, so that's missing, and "Combat Missions" actually means "wartime missions" which includes delivery, surface scan and courier missions.

But it's pretty explicit that missions work for both elections and wars.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

The 'known issue' didn't exist before FDev put out the 'bug fix' patch. If they created a bug that screws up BGS, I want to see some evidence that they are busting their butts to resolve it. If you check the page of Issues at https://issues.frontierstore.net/ you don't find this issue anywhere.

It's right here - https://issues.frontierstore.net/issue-detail/11901 - second on the "top voted" list.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Wrong.

Missions and scenarios most definitely do count, and I've won whole wars with just those actions.

Besides that... ok... I'm not sure what you're expecting in response to your complaint here? I'm just offering workarounds. We're all affected, no point beasting others over it.

I was always told to do war themed missions only (i.e. not every mission counts).

I can understand the frustration though, since USS POIs are RNG based (and quite often biased in favour of one faction only, or the dominant one), if you are fighting to win in a single station system you can get locked out of it through fighting, and missions are still randomly allocated (although having no CZ 'end' plays to massacre missions I suppose).

 

[Jmanis]

I was always told to do war themed missions only (i.e. not every mission counts).

I can understand the frustration though, since USS POIs are RNG based (and quite often biased in favour of one faction only, or the dominant one), if you are fighting to win in a single station system you can get locked out of it through fighting, and missions are still randomly allocated (although having no CZ 'end' plays to massacre missions I suppose).

Yeah... though I'd add the jury is out on exactly what missions work, and whether or not the rules have gradually changed over time.

• Wartime Surface Scan definitely counts, as do Strategic Data Transfer, in war
• Assassination missions definitely work in Election

At the time I did this thread, even had a few confirmations of Boom-time missions counting.

 

[Screemonster]

Ultimately, the thing that is most effective to do in a war is - drumroll please - fighting. When it comes to passive traffic, opportunistic participants do happen (and it's a cointoss which side they'll pick) but going into a CZ is a deliberate going-out-of-their-way action compared to just passing through and taking missions.

All the people talking about progress bars disappearing have mentioned it happening after the spec ops objective is finished, so I'm curious if it's related to the similar bug that came about when CZ scenarios were first introduced, where progress bars would vanish after you routed a capital ship. Try fighting in low intensity zones instead - personally I prefer to do that anyway when I'm doing massacres, just bounce between two low zones until I'm out of ammo, then go restock and cash in.

 

[Adept]

Ultimately, the thing that is most effective to do in a war is - drumroll please - fighting. When it comes to passive traffic, opportunistic participants do happen (and it's a cointoss which side they'll pick) but going into a CZ is a deliberate going-out-of-their-way action compared to just passing through and taking missions.

All the people talking about progress bars disappearing have mentioned it happening after the spec ops objective is finished, so I'm curious if it's related to the similar bug that came about when CZ scenarios were first introduced, where progress bars would vanish after you routed a capital ship. Try fighting in low intensity zones instead - personally I prefer to do that anyway when I'm doing massacres, just bounce between two low zones until I'm out of ammo, then go restock and cash in.

I fought almost exclusively in low intensity zones (since they were less than a light second from the bases) and the progress bars disappeared consistently.

 

[Screemonster]

I fought almost exclusively in low intensity zones (since they were less than a light second from the bases) and the progress bars disappeared consistently.

Oof. That's going to throw a wrench in things then.