Missions Not Impacting BGS, Especially During Elections, in PP Systems

[Eolh89]

We and our squadron have observed a significant issue with the new Powerplay mechanics in Elite Dangerous. Missions undertaken within systems under Powerplay control appear to have no impact on the Background Simulation (BGS). This is particularly problematic during election periods, where it seems impossible to influence the election “day count” through mission completion.

Specifically:

No BGS Impact from Missions: Regardless of the type of mission completed (e.g., combat, transport, delivery), we have seen no corresponding change in the BGS state of the system. This includes influence changes for controlling factions.
Elections Unaffected: During elections, the “day count” appears to advance solely based on exploration data and market activity. Mission completion does not seem to register any change, effectively resulting in a “net zero” effect from missions on the election progress. This makes it impossible to support factions during elections through mission running.
Impact on Factions without Presence: This issue severely impacts factions that do not have a station or other presence within a system. These factions are unable to influence the BGS through exploration data or market activity, leaving them entirely unable to participate in elections or affect system states through Powerplay.

Steps to Reproduce​

1) Travel to a system under the control of that Powerplay faction.
2) Accept and complete various types of missions within that system.
3) Observe the BGS state of the system before and after mission completion. No changes in faction influence or other BGS states should be noticeable.
4) Repeat steps 2-4 during an election period. Observe that the election “day count” only progresses with exploration data and market activity, not with mission completion.

Frequency​

Always

Issue Tracker

issues.frontierstore.net

 

[Rebel Yell]

Did you complete "election missions" specifically? (just asking, I'm sure you did)

 

[Shadowsnog]

Ive seen elections progress normally in exploited systems (when doing election missions)
and regarding bgs being unaffected by powerplay id say the exact opposite is true

 

[Ian Doncaster]

1) Travel to a system under the control of that Powerplay faction.

As an aside, while this affects a lot of Powerplay systems, it doesn't affect all of them - there's a bunch of quiet ones up in Kaine space which seem to work normally.

One theory I've seen is that it specifically affects systems which were in Powerplay 1, and new PP2 acquisitions are unaffected. I haven't tested thoroughly enough to know if that's true.

Did you complete "election missions" specifically? (just asking, I'm sure you did)

Shouldn't matter - the "election" is just cosmetic flavour, it works the same either way.

 

[Shadowsnog]

Shouldn't matter - the "election" is just cosmetic flavour, it works the same either way.

it does tho? you dont progress election by doing regular missions, do you?
ive certainly done non election missions in an election system without progressing the election, and done election missions to progress the state. did this change with pp2?

 

[Eolh89]

Yes, obviously I did election missions. The problem is not that the elections can't go forward, but that they don't do it through the missions. When two factions in elections end up tied, the secondary actions are counted, that is trade and exploration. Since the missions have no effect, the day ends in a tie, and they start counting the secondary actions. So the election marks the score to the faction that did more secondary actions. But that's not how it should work! Moreover, if a faction has no stations or settlements it's not possible to do trade or deliver exploration data, making it impossible for that faction to win the elections. Beyond the elections we still noticed that NO mission causes influence shift in systems with the presence of a power.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

you dont progress election by doing regular missions, do you?

Generally, yes. A courier mission is a courier mission, whether it's "Election Courier", "Expansion Courier" or anything else. Most of the state branding is clearly cosmetic (an Expansion-branded mission absolutely can't affect the result of the Expansion, for example) and I've not seen any evidence that the Election-branded ones are any different there.

There may be types of missions (specifically, combat missions) which don't affect the election result (people I trust to test properly have found contradictory results for that) but any non-combat mission should certainly influence an election regardless of what it's called.

 

[HCR Motorhead]

I did more tests recently and it is still broken as ever. The easiest and most reliable thing for me is still bounty hunting. However due to PP 2,0 and its wonderful side effects sometimes I need more levers to pull on.

 

[Eolh89]

We're finding that the issue doesn't seem to be appearing everywhere in the same way, especially after the expansion issue was resolved. We had one system, under Powerplay, that on the first day showed no influence changes, despite us completing a significant amount of actions for our faction. The next day, simply by doing missions again, the influences moved as we expected. However, today a Powerplay election progressed correctly.

 

[HCR Motorhead]

What is the likelihood of exploration data and positive trade being factors? They seem to be the only other reliable methods and can be used to tick over an election.

 

[Eolh89]

Exploration data and trade only work in elections when the mission counts are tied. Therefore, in this situation, it's the only method to keep an election going. However, this isn't possible if the involved faction you want to support has no assets. Furthermore, it seems that even negative trade, at least within the election context, counts as a positive lever, effectively making it impossible for a faction without assets to win an election, as they have no avenues for these two actions.
We managed to win one day two weeks ago in this situation, but we haven't been able to replicate the result in any way. On that day, we ran missions for ourselves and negative trade against the other faction. But all subsequent attempts to replicate this (using identical missions with the same influence and the same negative market value) have resulted in the other faction winning. This has left us with two possible explanations:
* It was a random event.
* Trade is always positive in elections (even when done at a loss), except perhaps for specific commodities.
In recent days, however, we're finding that the system where we experienced the bug in previous weeks is now behaving as expected. Missions seem to be working. However, there are other systems where they have no effect. This indicates that FDev has done something, but hasn't fully resolved the issue. I've updated the issue report, which is now confirmed.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Exploration data and trade only work in elections when the mission counts are tied.

The chances of an exact tie (other than zero) on the mission influence levels is basically non-existent. They're more effective than that, it's just that it takes a fairly large amount of trade or exploration data to equal one mission.

We managed to win one day two weeks ago in this situation, but we haven't been able to replicate the result in any way. On that day, we ran missions for ourselves and negative trade against the other faction. But all subsequent attempts to replicate this (using identical missions with the same influence and the same negative market value) have resulted in the other faction winning. This has left us with two possible explanations:

• It was a random event.
• Trade is always positive in elections (even when done at a loss), except perhaps for specific commodities.

There's a third simpler explanation possible:
- on the day you won, your negative trade (and missions, if working) outclassed any effort put in for the other faction
- on the days you lost, the other side put in more effort

That you lost an election day at all implies that it was at least marginally contested, if only by a few passing players with no particular intent, or it would have been a draw at worst.

 

[Eolh89]

The chances of an exact tie (other than zero) on the mission influence levels is basically non-existent. They're more effective than that, it's just that it takes a fairly large amount of trade or exploration data to equal one mission.

How can you say that? All reports indicate that exploration and trade only have an effect in the case of a tie. Do you have concrete data to support what you're saying?

There's a third simpler explanation possible:
- on the day you won, your negative trade (and missions, if working) outclassed any effort put in for the other faction
- on the days you lost, the other side put in more effort

That you lost an election day at all implies that it was at least marginally contested, if only by a few passing players with no particular intent, or it would have been a draw at worst.

That's highly improbable. The system in question is not frequently visited, and we've been very careful with traffic reports both in-station and on Inara. Furthermore, the actions performed were significant enough that they couldn't be undone or overcome by passing commanders without a specific intent. The only variable between the day we won and the days we didn't was the type of commodities.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

All reports indicate that exploration and trade only have an effect in the case of a tie. Do you have concrete data to support what you're saying?

Interesting. I have never heard any other BGS player claim this - the consensus I've seen has been that all of trade, exploration and missions contribute, though missions are generally the most efficient use of time.

I'll ask around to see if anyone has further information on this. If not I'll put it on my list of things to test.

That's highly improbable. The system in question is not frequently visited, and we've been very careful with traffic reports both in-station and on Inara. Furthermore, the actions performed were significant enough that they couldn't be undone or overcome by passing commanders without a specific intent. The only variable between the day we won and the days we didn't was the type of commodities.

It's certainly possible in that case that something you thought would be a negative trade was actually counted as a positive trade, then. (Which, if combined with it being a system where missions do nothing, would result in a lost day)

How were you setting up the negative trades, precisely?

 

[Eolh89]

Interesting. I have never heard any other BGS player claim this - the consensus I've seen has been that all of trade, exploration and missions contribute, though missions are generally the most efficient use of time.

I'll ask around to see if anyone has further information on this. If not I'll put it on my list of things to test.

The BGS 2024 guide on the forum states the following. And I can confirm that I've never seen an election be contested solely based on exploratory data or trade, but perhaps, as you say, a greater and more significant effort is required. There's one thing you've made me doubt, and I'll definitely test it.

It's certainly possible in that case that something you thought would be a negative trade was actually counted as a positive trade, then. (Which, if combined with it being a system where missions do nothing, would result in a lost day)

How were you setting up the negative trades, precisely?

The negative trades were made by testing various commodities and different demand levels. Any trade executed, even if it was negative for the other party, caused us to lose days, even for commodities with zero demand. The only day we won was when we sold, still negatively, metals. Which, in fact, we didn't repeat because we thought the logic was different.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

The negative trades were made by testing various commodities and different demand levels.

Can you be more specific about that, please?

What commodity, purchase price, sale price, demand level and economy type sold to? (and was a fleet carrier market involved?)

even for commodities with zero demand

There's certainly some hint from Powerplay that selling cargo to zero demand is treated differently depending on why there's zero demand (if it's zero demand because there's already been thousands of tonnes delivered, versus if it's zero demand because the station economy doesn't import that commodity at all, versus zero demand because it's a commodity the station exports).

The BGS 2024 guide on the forum states the following.

So it does - at least, in one of the three places describing what wins an election. The other two don't and just say "more missions and economic activity" which fits better with what I've seen elsewhere. Even the section on page 47 which does say that doesn't take it seriously, though, in that it still recommends doing non-mission activities a bit - whereas if it was a genuine tiebreaker, it would literally never come up in a contested election and there would never be a circumstance where it was worth doing (other than winning entirely uncontested elections with a single system honk or 1t trade).

The guide also claims that the election branding on a mission is relevant, which I'm sure is not the case.

(I also suspect the bit on that page about piracy missions not counting if you fire your weapons is purely superstition: it'll either be that they count but the test wasn't clean enough, or that they never count because they're combat missions whether you shoot something or not)

 

[Eolh89]

Can you be more specific about that, please?

What commodity, purchase price, sale price, demand level and economy type sold to? (and was a fleet carrier market involved?)

Certainly, we tried selling food, commodities from missions, imperial slaves (legal in the system), and even biowaste and hydrogen fuel.
The price of the commodities sold was certainly less than about 500 credits in almost all scenarios, for a total of up to 26 million in market loss per day. The demand varied, because we conducted multiple tests, both in high, medium, low, and zero demand conditions. No carrier market involved,

There's certainly some hint from Powerplay that selling cargo to zero demand is treated differently depending on why there's zero demand (if it's zero demand because there's already been thousands of tonnes delivered, versus if it's zero demand because the station economy doesn't import that commodity at all, versus zero demand because it's a commodity the station exports).

That's a new one to me, but it sounds plausible. If a commodity drops to 0 due to oversupply, it would naturally have a different effect on the market.
But I wonder if it's just a PowerPlay dynamic and doesn't interest the BGS at all.

So it does - at least, in one of the three places describing what wins an election. The other two don't and just say "more missions and economic activity" which fits better with what I've seen elsewhere. Even the section on page 47 which does say that doesn't take it seriously, though, in that it still recommends doing non-mission activities a bit - whereas if it was a genuine tiebreaker, it would literally never come up in a contested election and there would never be a circumstance where it was worth doing (other than winning entirely uncontested elections with a single system honk or 1t trade).

The guide also claims that the election branding on a mission is relevant, which I'm sure is not the case.

(I also suspect the bit on that page about piracy missions not counting if you fire your weapons is purely superstition: it'll either be that they count but the test wasn't clean enough, or that they never count because they're combat missions whether you shoot something or not)

Like you, I suspect that missions still have an impact, even if they are violent or result in a bounty or fine. The BGS is complex and many things change and become increasingly complex, as it has been for the market, for example. So it wouldn't surprise me, and I have the same impression as you. But I should test it. It's just that I have an endless list of things and actions to test!