I need an explanation

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
I want to know where Frontiers stand is on their employees manipulating the BGS ???
They allow it.
Seem like some employees are allowed to manipulate factions status in BGS to their liking because they are members of that faction or just doing a favor for a friend.
Lol where did this come from?
I would like to know how Frontier protects their customers from such fraudulent behavior.
  1. It's not fraudulent.
  2. It's intended.
  3. This is Frontier's game and not yours.
 
I'm sure I touched many peoples nerve, I shined light at places that were always meant to stay dark, but I know I did good because seem to me things are getting out of control.
The only things out of control are your paranoia and ignorance of the BGS.

As has been stated multiple times, the outcomes of individual Odyssey confiict zones are dependent on player input, so settlements will change hands daily on the tick during a conflict. This means that if a fwction wins a ground CZ on the last tick, they will take that settlement, even if they lose the overall war.

Is it really so hard to believe that players fighting for Sirius Corp. won a few Odyssey CZs on the last day of the wider conflict? High intensity conflict zones in Odyssey are the most effective way to farm combat bonds, and bond value is the best way to overwhelm opposition.

As for Frontier's stance on manually changing influence and the like, it has happened very occasionally in the last, but this has been limited to new factions in new stations in systems that have been recently created. In fact, way back in 2015, an employee got themselves into hot water by promising to manually insert a faction into a system out of expansion range. The faction was never inserted.
 
Seem like some employees are allowed to manipulate factions status in BGS to their liking because they are members of that faction or just doing a favor for a friend.
Prove it.

I've seen nothing here that suggests this is anything other than the actions of other players.

Losing a war while gaining settlements in the process without any dev involvement is perfectly normal.

I even wrote a guide on how to do it on purpose.
 
tbh, the only explanation I need is why do groups of players even have the ability to move Corporate giants in the ED universe. They should just squash players whenever they feel like it. Bad mistake from FD making the Mickey Mouse BGS, now they have to obviously Godhand stuff to get their plots in place. 🤷‍♂️ The mistake was the BGS mechanics.
 
As for Frontier's stance on manually changing influence and the like, it has happened very occasionally in the last, but this has been limited to new factions in new stations in systems that have been recently created. In fact, way back in 2015, an employee got themselves into hot water by promising to manually insert a faction into a system out of expansion range. The faction was never inserted.
Soooooo.... ?
Where Frontier stand is if it goes to "As for Frontier's stance on manually changing influence" which is not intended by games content like Galnet?
If you can read all responses to my OP carefully, seems like changes to factions influence are occurring often and are well known to BGS players.
Explain to me how those kind of changes can be applied without appropriate content ?
Sounds like those kind of influence changes are applied illegally. If they are legally applied I want Frontier to say it.
I want Frontier to say, what is it they do to protect us (costumers) from this type of scenarios where we will play for years and build something that can be taken away for us overnight by a non content scenario which involves a employee who decided to make changes because he feels he can.
Where Frontiers stand is on their employees manipulating the BGS ???
 
tbh, the only explanation I need is why do groups of players even have the ability to move Corporate giants in the ED universe. They should just squash players whenever they feel like it. Bad mistake from FD making the Mickey Mouse BGS, now they have to obviously Godhand stuff to get their plots in place. 🤷‍♂️ The mistake was the BGS mechanics.
I can answer that.
Because of player base. Players make this game great not a fake Corp who have no support or some fake content that have no player base support. Fdevs should read up on this games history first and watch closely what is going on in the game before making decisions. CG doesn't create a player base support for a content, CG is usually bunch of gankers and truckers doing stuff for credits (with all due respect to truckers).
 
what what...what ?
People have been trying to explain this to you for the last seven pages.

Odyssey settlements do not follow the pre-odyssey rules for changing ownership in a war.
They have a different, independent set of rules to determine who controls them when the dust settles.
Whoever completes the most zones at that settlement controls the settlement at the end of the war.
The sole exception is if the losing faction has no other assets whatsoever and an odyssey settlement is chosen as their "defend" objective in the right hand panel, in which case the winner will take whichever settlement is specified.
It is possible to take several, or all of the settlements in a system in a single war.

In one particularly busy long weekend, I claimed sixty settlements in one war by fighting a single engagement at every settlement in the system. Three of those settlements remained in the losing side's hands because other people showed up and did zones for the defenders at those settlements.

None of the stuff you're describing in the old worlds is remotely unusual. I'm actually surprised it took so long in an area that gets that much player traffic.
 
People have been trying to explain this to you for the last seven pages.

Odyssey settlements do not follow the pre-odyssey rules for changing ownership in a war.
They have a different, independent set of rules to determine who controls them when the dust settles.
Whoever completes the most zones at that settlement controls the settlement at the end of the war.
The sole exception is if the losing faction has no other assets whatsoever and an odyssey settlement is chosen as their "defend" objective in the right hand panel, in which case the winner will take whichever settlement is specified.
It is possible to take several, or all of the settlements in a system in a single war.

In one particularly busy long weekend, I claimed sixty settlements in one war by fighting a single engagement at every settlement in the system. Three of those settlements remained in the losing side's hands because other people showed up and did zones for the defenders at those settlements.

None of the stuff you're describing in the old worlds is remotely unusual. I'm actually surprised it took so long in an area that gets that much player traffic.
and that is preposterous. how can you loose a war and take possession from a winner ?
but that is not what Im asking in the first place so...as stupid as this is, I don't care.
Where Frontiers stand is on their employees manipulating the BGS ???

edit... Back to winning and loosing, if Frontier intent to keep this loosing but winning way. There will be a problem.
or should I say, this is a BIG problem already. Looser withdraws form all areas of attack and if margin of loosing is close enough, they may only loose war goal target or war continues until total defeat.
 
Last edited:
More importantly, and more relevant to settlements changing hands in Odyssey, I demand to know WHERE FRONTIER'S STAND IS ON PINEAPPLE ON PIZZA?
OUkpm67.gif

^ I forget exactly where I got that from, but I'm very sure it was from either a dev or Community Manager on this forum from around 2018.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
View attachment 306037
^ I forget exactly where I got that from, but I'm very sure it was from either a dev or Community Manager on this forum from around 2018.
Michael Brookes posted a link to a (now missing) Vine video clip after a community funded pizza delivery to the Devs in the run up to a Beta release, back in 2014. Someone else made a GIF of it.

 
and that is preposterous. how can you loose a war and take possession from a winner ?

You can win a battle and still lose a war. The remaining settlements are rebel territories basically.

Still on your side for finding out if Sirius Corp is a special case. Perhaps it's backed by the illuminati but I still reckon it's a policy for keeping Sirius Permits available than a day to day manipulation.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom