News Notice - Background Simulation (19/02)

I have already saw the no ETA for other features where we are actually still waiting for fixes / improvements. Not really a good news.
 
If tiny systems are not deprived entirely of their unrealistic independence, perhaps we could limit their imperial pretensions? Factions could be prevented from expanding into systems more than 100 times larger. A possible addition would be that wars in tiny systems become elections.

It hasn't been mentioned, however if conflicts are reduced to those where an asset is at stake, doesn't it imply that systems are better defended by a distribution of stations among factions? This seems unacceptable.

When a faction controls all the stations in a system and wars are only for control, I suggest that a defeated faction loses all its influence and goes into retreat. Other suggestions are not so coherent.

A conflict system where democrats and communists don't war, nor do dictatorships and theocracies, seems very peculiar. We could restrict elections to factions with the same government type, though this still leaves anomalies like feudal factions not fighting each other. The losing faction in an election could then be absorbed by the victor.

When we have fewer wars and more hazardous consequences, wars can become more interesting. When the control faction has all the stations, these can be used to provide detail- and how many promotional videos have fighting around the stations?

As with Powerplay, when the feedback is entirely negative it might be difficult to retain a sense of the possibilities?
 
Don't get your hopes up people, I seem to remember similar messages with regards to Powerplay.

FDev saying something is often very different to FDev actually doing/delivering it.
 
Last edited:
As with Powerplay, when the feedback is entirely negative it might be difficult to retain a sense of the possibilities?
I'm not exactly sure you know what you're talking of. There's a community that tried many and many times to offer solutions to the intrinsic problems of Powerplay, and if I can say, better solutions than "making all conflicts in tiny systems elections".

Yeah, right, because people could chose between anarchy (a criminal faction taking over) and democracy. Advice for future: read twice before you post. And, by the way...

...I do not exactly think that this is a good thread to post any kind of proposals. If only we had a Focused Feedback section that would be the perfect place to talk about the many things that do not work in the new BGS (bugs aside), like conflicts between factions controlling anything blocking big chuncks of influence, retreats made almost impossible to accomplish because of an unexplicable spike in influence those factions have between day 3 and 4 of active retreat (most of times making them go pending conflict, locking their influence and practically aborting the retreat), the transactional nature of the BGS and how fast can it be for a single CMDR with 3-4 alternative accounts to exploit the fact that a single CMDR has far less impact than multiple CMDRs doing the same things he did but split in 3-4, etc etc etc.

But please do not talk about negative feedback in Powerplay because it's wrong, and enjoy the "Powerplay experience" in BGS, with no ETA, no feedback by the Devs and a generic promise of "we will take care of that" while people stop playing and you find yourself with far less numerous groups in no time.
 
Last edited:
I'm not exactly sure you know what you're talking of. There's a community that tried many and many times to offer solutions to the intrinsic problems of Powerplay, and if I can say, better solutions than "making all conflicts in tiny systems elections".

Yeah, right, because people could chose between anarchy (a criminal faction taking over) and democracy. Advice for future: read twice before you post. And, by the way...

...I do not exactly think that this is a good thread to post any kind of proposals. If only we had a Focused Feedback section that would be the perfect place to talk about the many things that do not work in the new BGS (bugs aside), like conflicts between factions controlling anything blocking big chuncks of influence, retreats made almost impossible to accomplish because of an unexplicable spike in influence those factions have between day 3 and 4 of active retreat (most of times making them go pending conflict, locking their influence and practically aborting the retreat), the transactional nature of the BGS and how fast can it be for a single CMDR with 3-4 alternative accounts to exploit the fact that a single CMDR has far less impact than multiple CMDRs doing the same things he did but split in 3-4, etc etc etc.

But please do not talk about negative feedback in Powerplay because it's wrong, and enjoy the "Powerplay experience" in BGS, with no ETA, no feedback by the Devs and a generic promise of "we will take care of that" while people stop playing and you find yourself with far less numerous groups in no time.

He doesn't have a clue, I can confirm. And all his nice words are quite funny when he is supporting a faction that is expanding just because they are on the side of the bubble, without opposition, and with small pop.... Love his selfishness.
 
To make it clearer- the additional proposal is that in tiny systems, where you would have a war, there would instead be an election. Not that wars are just ignored.

Also, the feedback you then provide on the bgs is entirely negative?
 
Selfishness is typical in this community. Apparently the bigger you are (or you think you are) the less you are interested in fair rules and balance. And here we have another example.

Again: you proposal can't simply work. Elections are, by definition, a peaceful way to change a government. Imagine an anarchy faction against a democracy faction: this doesn't make sense. Anarchyfactions are (by definition) local criminal organisations, it simply doesn't make sense that they can go elections with any other government. And about "small factions invading bigger systems": I do not really see the problem about that. The real problem is that expansions as they are managed right now they do not work. I had hopes about the new system, with Elections being triggered by a general welness of the minor faction, with the system chosen by happiness and not influence anymore... too bad we're stick with the old mechanic for apparently no reason at all.

Oh and do not forget that the happiest system is wrong. My PMF shows a "just happy" system as the happiest, meanwhile we've got 3 or 4 Elated systems...

Is that constructive enough? If we want to speak about BGS technically, Deareim can be witness, I am more than happy to do so.

But not here. In here it's useless. Devs will not read in here.

We. Need. A. Focused. Feedback. About. BGS.

Sadly to be said: as for Powerplay players know the implications of game mechanics better than the developers. So they need our feedback to understand why they are doing some thing wrong not technically, but by Design. As for the "transactional nature" of BGS. Or the fact that a single CMDR has much more impact than 3 CMDRs doing less (fact: many people have more than one account).

Thease are all EXPLOITS and these should be FIXED. And I suspect that the Devs do not suspect how dirty their users can play their game.

Hell, some of them didn't even grasp the idea of what 5C is yet!
 
Last edited:
No, that is negative feedback.

Negative feedback: the happiness system will introduce a new problem, where factions have to attack themselves in order to reduce their happiness, whereas under the existing system influence can be controlled using the other factions in a system. You could combine it with influence, however then why have it?

Constructive feedback: a possible solution would be to have all elated systems eligible to be the expansion system, with the system then selected by the state of the target system.

Lets take an example of a tiny criminal anarchy faction, the American pirates. They do not make war on the tiny colonies, they simply bribe and threaten them to provide what they need. An 'election' state covers more than a democratic election, otherwise the state would be nonsense? Also, if as you claim anarchies are by definition not states, then they shouldn't be able to go to war at all.

This thread, begun by Frontier, asked for suggestions on balance and how to reduce conflicts?
 
Spoiler: if you keep repeating yourself that

- your idea is good
- mine is negative feedback

it's not gonna change the fact that your idea of elections instead of wars in tiny systems doesn't make sense. And about anarchy factions going war: well, it's usually how criminals take over by... well... taking over; and it's not gonna change the fact that I've been probably one of the few constructive users in here, you can check my posts if you like, did you know there's a whole section about proposing new stuff or game mechanics? Well, I do.

Again: the problem is not conflicts (when they are not bugged of course) or Expansions themselves. The problem is that with this new system we've gotmany problems that were pointed out during the beta period for example. Being a constructive guy, and wanting to show off a little bit and most importantly show you how things are done, I'll be more specific.

- If factions do not control anything they shouldn't go conflict
This is easy to understand: first of all a conflict is a state specifically designed to change the control of a single facility; second, with the new BGS influences are locked during a conflict (which is good), so if too many factions are locked in many different conflicts, the others will be relatively "frozen", especially in systems with an uneven number of factions, and right now influence is what makes factions expand.

- Expansions shouldn't be linked to a single system's influence
Expansions used to be locked by conflicts, or canceled too, right now they are basically unstoppable and most importantly they do not drain influence from the system they occur anymore. Solution? They should be linked to economy and security states (which are basically the happiness), if the faction is going well globally then an expansion will occur, this should stop factions with presence (but not control) in too many systems to have infinite expansions, occupying a place in all the systems around without reason.

- Balancement: no more transactional BGS and no more buff to the number of users involved
This is a little bit more complicated, I will bring as an example the Powerplay. In Powerplay a single CMDR has theoretically as much impact in fortifying and undermining as many other CMDRs doing the same. Example: if I do 10,000 merits and 10 other CMDRs do 1,000 merits each, our impact is the same, this does not happen in the BGS, because if I do 100 missions and 10 CMDRs do 10 missions each, their impact is much higher, same goes for any other activity related to BGS. In Powerplay you HAVE to cooperate with other CMDRs because to be really effective you MUST do many merits, so the solution I propose for BGS it to make every action less effective but make the actions themselves matter, not the number of CMDRs doing those. I would reduce of 1/10 the impact of players' actions over a system, you are alone and do a little? You basically have no effect, you have to do more, but at least you can play in a fair ground with all the people that own multiple accounts and play less.

- Make the control over facilities matter
I will be short about this: we've got a lot of new and cool installments, planetary stellements, ports etc, and we have sliders about economy and security, it would be awesome to have those sliders be different considering the facilities controled by a faction, basically it would be easier to stay in a good state if you control many stations, making the people of that faction happier and improving the chances to expand. Landable stations should give a small boost to economy, installments and planetary settlements should give a higher boost in security or economy depending on their cathegory (we've got comms or military installments, research installments, agriculture installments etc). This would make the very fact to risk your system to own as many facilities as possible a calculated risk because you seek an advantage.

- States should aim to neutrality, but very slow; positive actions to a faction affect negatively the others
Ok let's say that the current Security and Economy slider have 2000 points, where 0 is the neutral state, +1000 is the highest positive and -1000 the highest negative. Considering how the game is right now, the positive states are naturally driven towards positivity for every faction, because there's basically too few negative effects to counter-balance that and because CMDRs are, in the vast majority, inclined to do legal actions. So you will have just systems with factions in boom, investment, civil liberty etc. And this isn't right, especially to factions that have very low influence and support. So: let's say that I've got a system with 7 factions, and I do a economically positive action to any of them, let's say it's a +10 points for this faction, the other factions should suffer a small negative effect because of the competition, becuase that action "stole" a possible income to them, so it should be a -1 to the economy of every other faction. Notice: this should be a VERY SMALL negative effect.
But now you may be afraid that doing so all the factions would be stuck in negative effects right? Well I think that every daily tick any faction should slowly go towards neutrality: +/- 1 , because Investment/Boom should end at some point, same goes for Civil Liberty and negative effects too; of course if players keep doing things it's gonna be them to determine the destiniy of the factions of that system. This would create a much more dynamic system economically speaking.



As you can see I've got A LOT of ideas, and most of them I already proposed in the right sections of the forums. You know what the problem is? The problem is that in the last two years the dev team simply didn't show publicly any kind of interest about this kind of game mechanics AND the community behind these mechanics, we who organised communities, people doing actual stuff, trying to figure out what was wrong in what we were doing, trying to find workarounds when the game was behaving erratically, and then pointing out what was wrong in many and many bug reports and proposing solutions always in the forums, again and again and again.

Everthing for what? To make me tell that I do NEGATIVE feedback? Dude you are not even giving feedback, you just came out with a very strange idea out of the blue thinking that you found the Holy Grail to fix this mess.

Well, you did not, Percival, you're simply showing up how little you know the game mechanics you're trying to talk about and you're accusing people to be mean because they make you notice that you are simply wrong.

Fact is: we had to wait TWO MONTHS to have a feedback from the devs that they aknowledged the problem. TWO. MONTHS.

Fact is: right now the whole system how people contribute in both BGS and Powerplay are wrong BY DESIGN, because the developers keep ignoring that
- a great and disturbing part of their community abuse of bots
- a great and disturbing part of their community abuse of pvt/solo to HIDE those bots
- a great and disturbing part of their community KNOWS that to have more accounts is the best way to maximise their impact on the BGS and they abuse of that

THAT is a great problem. I've got nothing wrong with people that do not want to play open, but it's a fact that many groups abuse of that to win dirty. So what are we talking about? Bugs? Bad design choices? I can undesrtand bugs. I can understand mistakes. But this is something different: this is a precise choice to not take action against abusers and exploiters against the honest dumbasses that keep sticking with this game.

FDev must chose now what part of the Community they want to keep: the one with 4-5 instances opened at the same time letting the bots do all the tedious work, or the ones actively seeking for interaction between CMDRs, actively creating gameplay?

This whole thing must be thinked over, from scratch, we want a fair game, where the best, smartest or most numerous PEOPLE (not accounts: PEOPLE) shall prevail, that's the nature of a fair game, fair rules. We should just ask for THAT.

And you still think this is negative feedback. Yeah, right. I ask to make this game fair. More than that, I even propose how to do that.

I'm so negative.
 
Last edited:
The problem with only having conflict over assets is that it makes it easier to take control of a system, unless the stations are distributed among the factions. This penalises factions which own all the assets of a system. I posted this objection previously.

While it is correct to claim that happiness could be implemented to prevent repeated expansions, how are factions meant to control their own happiness levels without having to attack themselves? It has always been an issue that a bgs pending state is a warning that a state will occur, rather than what it should be, that it is about to occur if nothing is done about it.

I would remove transactions from influence entirely, so that they were merely to alter the state of a system rather than to gain influence, this would help prevent abuses. Also, it is not clear why if you sell goods to a faction cheaply they should suffer a loss of influence.

While your suggestion about how the owners of many stations in a system should gain an advantage is not what I would prefer, it has a rationale. If we continue with the existing system of non-controlling factions owning stations I would prefer the method where the owners of a target station always profit from a mission, at least two versions of the bgs seem to have used this.

I've already complained about hearts of neutrality, your suggestion would make the system less dynamic and more neutral. My own suggestion that extremes should have negative impacts would quite possibly lead to systems falling into negative states, that's what would be intended. You can rationalise a tendency to neutrality as NPCs reacting to the absence of player activity, its not wrong, however I prefer player-driven.

Your proposals are constructive, however every comment you have made about 'facts' is instead negative feedback. I'm simply responding to what the thread asked for, I am aware of other sub-forums.

System: Col 285 Sector XA-E c12-23
War: The Dukes of Mikunn vs Arverni General Holdings
Date: current
Actions: for the Dukes combat missions, win all types of cz, combat bonds, bounty
Expected: traffic reports show only Dukes ships in the system, however we cannot gain an advantage in the conflict which is still drawn

Speculation: the Dukes are also in Outbreak in this system, however no outbreak missions will spawn. Missions titled as if they will affect the outbreak have no effect. The systems in the region have outbreak missions which target the neighbour system, also in outbreak, however none for this system. Usually locked wars can at least be affected by bounty.
 
Platform: Xbox One
The system: Tau-1 Eridani
The factions involved: Spectre Council and Tau-1 Eridani Shared
Dates of the conflict: 2/14 - 2/21
Actions Performed: About 20 Election "Poll" missions by CMDR Spyrantseven, many more missions completed by CMDR melonllama and others
The expected result: We were in an election draw (while also in outbreak) and should have moved at least to close victory. We also dominated the conflict for two days.
The actual result: Close defeat, Loss of the election and loss of 8% influence. Missions seem to have had no effect. Outbreak missions done had no effect on outbreak status.
 
Last edited:
As I understand one of the problems, actions that should affect bgs doesn't.

I wonder If this is the same or similar bug that affect station repairs. When delivering commodities needed to repair stations, around 20% of the deliveries don't count (don't reduce the amount needed to complete repairs).

This is frustrating of course. Especially since deliveries for trade CGs work/count flawlessly.

But maybe it's always been like this? Maybe 20% or so of all transactions (trade, missions, bounties, fines, crimes etc. etc.) simply isn't picked up by the servers. It just became apparent when repairing stations since you got a total number there to work against. Is the connection/registration process between player units and FDev servers broken so we constantly do transactions that doesn't count, that vanishes?
 
Last edited:
Don’t elimate the non skill missions. Don’t want this part of game play only available to hard core players. Leave it open so casual and low skill players can still participate. Yes work on how much influence missions have, but let them still participate, and even get a few high reward/influence missi NZ every now and then.
Agreed. Wars are not won or lost in the trenches - but in the command rooms and with supply lines.

This is why I always thought of Japanese board game Go to be superior over normal chess in one aspect: Go treats more about securing your supply lifelines for troops, rather than directly attacking your opponent - due to philosophy of that game.
 
Last edited:
Day 2 of no influence moves (with the exception of expansions and conflicts ending). And reports of conflicts being won without assets transferring.

You managed to break it ​more?
 
Day 2 of no influence moves (with the exception of expansions and conflicts ending). And reports of conflicts being won without assets transferring.

You managed to break it ​more?

Of course, as I am writing a bug report, a tick happens in the system and asset transferred.... But it seems other systems are still stuck
 
Top Bottom