Known Issues with the 3.3.02 BGS (orig. AEDC Discord)

Like hows todays BGS patch notes might as well have said "Fixed some things"

(Sorry to be so negative, but my hat is particularly dirty. It will take some washing before it returns to its previously luminous white)

Fixed some negative faction consequences not being applied correctly from actions such as crimes and missions

My hope is that this bug has been the cause of the majority of the weirdness - no doubt further tweaking and squishing will be required but this change alone will help us properly identify further issues.

Its probably going to take weeks, but this is progress!
Had a funny thought. This fix is going to apply negative consequences, absent since 3.3 launch, across the galaxy with significant influence and SECO state moves (oh and conflicts). Previously stable and/or thought to be working properly high traffic systems are likely to see a lot of changes, triggering forum reaction. I might just buy some popcorn!
...and looks like the Massacre Mission ([civil] war) related are back to normality \o/

Can anyone confirm this? I saw them in one of our systems, another commander from another faction confirmed too. But, you know, when it comes to ED, only 2 is not enough :p
OK, so one of my normally-quiet systems which has been in an Investment + Civil Liberty state for a *looong* time with no change, just went into Pirate Attack a couple ticks back. The subsequent tick trashed system security somewhat... so will wait to see what happens next tick as it's still active.

Perhaps this got fixed with the recent update.
Last edited:
2. Influence effects being incorrectly applied.
3. State-related restrictions on which BGS activities are effective being wrongly applied, either through some sort of persistence from previous states or incorrectly being applied from other factions/systems.
These two appear to be fixed for us too! The last four days of results have been very consistent. Missions with influence+++++ gives us 0.1% system influence in a 15 bil pop system. This may have been increased slightly with the last minor patch yesterday, but we have a lot of player activity again so will revise this count in a few days.

This is a huge improvement as previously we gained negative influence for doing missions and the controlling faction in our system gained influence slightly as a result of us murdering their ships in the hundreds.
We have been able to get 15% swings in 5M Pop systems with about 3+++++ missions by a single Cmdr. 5M might not compare to your Billions, but in our area of the Galaxy, its pretty big, in the top 10%.
That give us a nice couple of reference points. I wonder if the relationship between population and influence gain per mission is linear?
Man, wartime massacre missions are broken AF, rewards are back to front.

Elite, Wing Massacre mission, 72 targets, reward: 48 million.
Elite, Non-Wing Massacre mission, 72 targets, reward 24: million.

Same faction, same rep, same issuer, same time.

Surely that's meant to be the other way around. Every other mission of the dozen or so massacre missions available is equally out of whack, this is just the most comparable pair
Just to confirm that cartographic data still inconsistent - Loss % in one system with no traffic in one case, gain % in another (with also no traffic).
I think it is link to States. Not necessarily yours but maybe the other ones in the system that would affect you. Got lazy these days with the bgs in term of testing.
We've been trying various things, but it's still hit and miss and haven't found a pattern.

One drop yesterday went 9+ _for another faction_, whereas a drop elsewhere did what was expected (although not a clean test as also some missions were run). Maybe it is something clever as a particular state active, or states act as modifiers, but for the moment I don't think we know what that might be, or we're still just seeing bugs.
Just a thought but are people selling zero-credit system scans in with their data? Does introducing a zero into a calculation have potential for strange results or is it effectively ignored?
from a relatively limited number of observations the bug which caused divergence in influence during conflict when certain states were active appears to have been resolved. Strike another one off the list (subject to further confirmation!).
Last edited:
Top Bottom