Thanks for the information, much appreciated. Just wanted to let you know that the expanding faction in my system is actually aligned with the Federation though.
Unlucky me :-/
Mercs of Mikunn results after 3 weeks of effort - Also a request for documentation, in game and out
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for the information, much appreciated. Just wanted to let you know that the expanding faction in my system is actually aligned with the Federation though.
Unlucky me :-/
Thanks Michael, that's all we wanted to know!
Not much, still better than playing trucking sim 24/7. Hopefully kick off some wars and others players come back to fight etc. More consequences can be added later but at least the basic system should be working!
I find it extremely fun so it matters to me.... and the 80 others involved with the link in my signature....
And the hundreds involved with lugh....
and the other various smaller groups doing their own....
you get the idea.
The dev's are something, aren't they?
We won't tell you what the system is, what we tell you is this: the system is broken and we need you to find out where exactly it is broken. Go.
I am just laughing. Can't believe you people are out there banging heads against empty walls for hundreds of hours. It's just out of the scope of my imagination.
We won't tell you what the system is, what we tell you is this: the system is broken and we need you to find out where exactly it is broken. Go.
I am just laughing. Can't believe you people are out there banging heads against empty walls for hundreds of hours. It's just out of the scope of my imagination.
Thanks! I'll take this as a 'yes, this feature is supposed to be in the game but just bugged' as well.
I feel better already. Ill put this on the front page.
They don't want people gaming the system, they want people using it. Isn't it logical? Or am I crazy to think that?
In any case, kudos to the OP and those who worked on this to find this out.
Ultimately ... nothing ... but I at least have a tool to destabilise and remove the Empire
If they won't tell us how it works (and honestly i am okay with this) then Frontier need to do a questionnaire for us. Like "Here is a hypothetical situation, if you did this what would you expect the outcome to be? Here is another one, what about now?" Like being at the opticians, you don't know what those lenses are but you know if something looks blurry.
e: i suppose this could help people theorize about mechanics from deductions, but there'd be nothing confirmed and if your black box is that fragile it shouldn't be in the aircraft, to overextend a metaphor.
e: i suppose this could help people theorize about mechanics from deductions, but there'd be nothing confirmed and if your black box is that fragile it shouldn't be in the aircraft, to overextend a metaphor.
Last edited:
Read this thread with interest, I tend to agree that players have a tendency to want confirmation prior to raising support tickets, out of consideration for those who have to trawl through the bug reports. No one wants to submit a ticket for something that doesn't exist. To process-minded people, it's not efficient and delays the efforts to correct actual issues (time/resource management). That's why players want confirmation of their findings or better guidance.
FD appear happy that we throw data at them if there is any suspicion on our part that a game function is faulty. While I can understand that this isn't efficient (it is going to produce wild goose chases), if that is how FD wish to proceed to protect the integrity of ED's inner workings, players will just have to oblige them.
I would expect dissatisfaction from the player base though if this proves to be an extensive process without resolution, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
This is a case in point of obfuscation within the game system.
I think civil war is a tipping point scenario if certain conditions are met. Once you have 2 (or more I suppose) factions within a system that are a) dominant (high influence relative to other system factions), b) in balance (equal/near equal influence) and (possibly) c) one or more of the factions are adversarial (feudal, dictatorship for example), a civil war is triggered. Events during that conflict determine further influence gains and once one faction has established a certain margin of influence over the others the civil war state ends - with one faction dominant.
You don't always see it occur prior to expansion, as if the dominant faction reaches expansion point unchallenged, there's no need for an ED "Civil War".
I think civil war for star systems in ED is internal in the sense that it's an intra-system conflict, not an intra-faction conflict. It's a little misleading as Rearden is quite correct in the normal sense - it's self against self, but the term serves providing you know the parameters that the term is used for in ED - which isn't really clear.
FD appear happy that we throw data at them if there is any suspicion on our part that a game function is faulty. While I can understand that this isn't efficient (it is going to produce wild goose chases), if that is how FD wish to proceed to protect the integrity of ED's inner workings, players will just have to oblige them.
I would expect dissatisfaction from the player base though if this proves to be an extensive process without resolution, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
This is a case in point of obfuscation within the game system.
I think civil war is a tipping point scenario if certain conditions are met. Once you have 2 (or more I suppose) factions within a system that are a) dominant (high influence relative to other system factions), b) in balance (equal/near equal influence) and (possibly) c) one or more of the factions are adversarial (feudal, dictatorship for example), a civil war is triggered. Events during that conflict determine further influence gains and once one faction has established a certain margin of influence over the others the civil war state ends - with one faction dominant.
You don't always see it occur prior to expansion, as if the dominant faction reaches expansion point unchallenged, there's no need for an ED "Civil War".
I think civil war for star systems in ED is internal in the sense that it's an intra-system conflict, not an intra-faction conflict. It's a little misleading as Rearden is quite correct in the normal sense - it's self against self, but the term serves providing you know the parameters that the term is used for in ED - which isn't really clear.
Last edited:
In theory someone could support for example a pirate faction so they keep on expanding across systems to such a degree they eventually become a major player just like the Federation, Empire or Alliance.
Sounds like a MBS so you're like 8 years too late and beaten to it by CMDR Wall & Street.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortgage-backed_security
I am glad everyone here is focused on creating a real universe that changes and ebbs and flows. I think that if anyone should know whats wrong, its the game designers. I don't think that the final stage of the game should take longer then 1 month, to make a change. I know I am gonna get alot of bad feedback for saying that, but I think it should take longer then a month for 100 people to make these huge changes. HOWEVER, right now... we should be able to test these things.. because there is a lack of confidence that our hard work is actually having any impact at all... And that is a huge problem.
Alot of us our working hard to change the universe, bend it to our will... There isn't alot of meat on this bone so thats what we are all stuck on right now. We are all under the impression that this is an implemented feature, if its not.. I would like to know... and I think that if you made the game you should be spending money, and time, finding out what is wrong. It should, IMO, be a priority.
With that being said, I have noticed the Boom, and Boom Critical Faction tags applying correctly.
-WaKKO SicK
Proud Member of the Sobek Boys
Michael Brookes
Game Director
This is correct - civil war refers to a conflict between minor factions in the same system. It is how a minor faction takes over a system.
Michael
Hi Michael,
While I certainly agree that internal processes should be a black box, I think players need to know what results they should expect from their actions. I.e. what different states a star system can be in, how those states differ from each other from a player perspective, and what exactly needs to be done by a player in order to change those states. Otherwise we're blindly doing stuff knowing neither what the consequences of our actions are, not whether we want those consequences or not.
Just my $0.02
I have a feeling I won't get many answers here, but it's worth a try...
Can you share whether or not Civil War system-level or station-level? Do factions have wars to become the system faction only, or can they also have wars to take over stations? Or is it the first, but as a side effect it can lead to the second?
It's weird seeing a station owned by a faction but offer absolutely no missions from them ever, with even the "official station personnel" working for different factions.
Is civil war the only way of changing system and station ownership?
Last edited:
Michael Brookes
Game Director
It happens per station and when it occurs for the controlling station then system ownership changes.
Currently civil war is the only way to change ownership.
Michael
- Status