PP 2.0 has sent BGS into crisis

Dxxdavid · Wednesday at 3:04 AM

.. i worked 4 years to keep eveyrthing in line.. plan expansions etc. now with that pp.20 ( i dont want even play ) i got all the mess.. retreats.. high inf. systems witch cant stop against all these grinders.. .

tbh. destroy a community with a update for an orther one... no comment. thx for nothing.. thats all i can say. i never was that dissapointed.. and speechless.

Dxxdavid · Wednesday at 3:18 AM

rootsrat said:
As a leader of the 3rd biggest territorial faction in the galaxy, I agree that we're seeing a lot more dynamics in BGS.

What do I say to that? Finally! The galaxy really seems alive now. Things are really moving and dynamic.

Personally I like that a lot.

You can't be serious.

uncontrolled expansions
unwanted retreats
part of elections do not work ( stuck sometimes )
the donation missions were switched off
anyone can now destroy your system, simply by farming, preferably in solo then you won't even see them

.. that's right... it's dynamic.

There are people here who have invested a lot of time in their factions... and all this is being destroyed. Look around you... who is supposed to run bgs here anymore? This is total nonsense.

Koma Pahu · Wednesday at 8:50 AM

Dxxdavid said:
There are people here who have invested a lot of time in their factions... and all this is being destroyed. Look around you... who is supposed to run bgs here anymore? This is total nonsense.

The sunk cost fallacy?

If you enjoy the BGS manipulation, then surely this is adding gameplay for you.

Cmdr. Numa · Wednesday at 8:51 AM

Well, the current suspension of a lot of PP activities should give the squadrons some pause to stabilize.

rootsrat · Wednesday at 9:07 AM

Dxxdavid said:
You can't be serious.

I am. You either like playing BGS or you don't

Static BGS is boring.

Morbad · Wednesday at 11:58 AM

rootsrat said:
You either like playing BGS or you don't

I like a setting that reacts to the actions of those that exist within it. The BGS is a lot better than nothing, even if I'm not enamored with it's specifics, and am frequently frustrated by it's limitations.

Ian Doncaster · Wednesday at 12:06 PM

Dxxdavid said:
.. i worked 4 years to keep eveyrthing in line.. plan expansions etc. now with that pp.20 ( i dont want even play ) i got all the mess.. retreats.. high inf. systems witch cant stop against all these grinders.. .

Why not switch over to the Legacy servers?

- smaller player base to start with so less chance of them interfering with your plans
- Frontier has committed to never making any changes to it beyond critical fixes (of which there has been one in the last two years), so that should be a stable situation forever
- there have been no mentioned changes to the BGS rules since the split in Update 14 so all your knowledge of how things work is still valid
- no risk of any future Thargoid attacks depopulating your systems entirely for two years either

Morbad · Wednesday at 12:09 PM

I'm half tempted to switch over to legacy until some of the issues with shadows and the new PP implementation are sorted out. Being able to get aliasing under control with something less than my RTX 4090 is also a pretty big plus to the 3.8 client.

angusmadmac1 · Wednesday at 12:13 PM

Well if you expand work against yourselves on those systems ? So you get kicked out ? Wait til it dies down a bit ??. There was a situation a few years ago when a group of PMF attacked another
PMF to prove a point and we just let them get on with it we lost a lot of systems and when the point was proven we went back to work to sort it all out . Took us a while but it was fun and the additional bonus was that PMF got a lot more interested commanders ??

rootsrat · Wednesday at 12:16 PM

Morbad said:
I like a setting that reacts to the actions of those that exist within it.

That's precisely what BGS does. It's a background simulation that is affected by every player action, no?

Morbad · Wednesday at 12:17 PM

rootsrat said:
That's precisely what BGS does. It's a background simulation that is affected by every player action, no?

Yes, that's what it does, and that's good.

How it does this is pretty janky and has some major limitations.

SteveWW57 · Wednesday at 12:19 PM

the100thmonkey said:
There have been a few real doozy threads recently. The forum feels like it did back in like 2016.

'cos you know who is back!

Rubbernuke · Wednesday at 12:24 PM

Set the BGS gardens on fire.

Towdog · Wednesday at 3:25 PM

How are we supposed to win elections? Seems the courier election missions make no difference now.
I like the idea of 2.0, but the execution is killing us.

SteveWW57 · Wednesday at 3:48 PM

Towdog said:
How are we supposed to win elections? Seems the courier election missions make no difference now.
I like the idea of 2.0, but the execution is killing us.

I have not had an election recently to contest, but the wars seem ok. As for missions, even if the data missions are broken, there are other simple missions like fetch/deliver, salvage that can pay 2 or 3 inf at a time.

Towdog · Wednesday at 5:01 PM

SteveWW57 said:
I have not had an election recently to contest, but the wars seem ok. As for missions, even if the data missions are broken, there are other simple missions like fetch/deliver, salvage that can pay 2 or 3 inf at a time.

I'm not sure +INF works at all. Right now we're going to try an explo dump in an election that popped to see what that does for us.

Dxxdavid · Wednesday at 8:39 PM

rootsrat said:
I am. You either like playing BGS or you don't

Static BGS is boring.

Maybe your Gameplay is Static.. ours was not. Was a lame Argument and make no sence at all. PP was static.. but not BGS.

IstvaanDCIV · Wednesday at 8:46 PM

The reduction in BGS stability is a direct result of increased player activity. This kind of thing is going to happen with almost every update or new feature that draws in a significant number of new and returning players. The BGS was never intended to be all that stable anyway, otherwise what would be the point of the game having a dynamic political system in the first place?

Disruption to the BGS is going to be inevitable for as long as FDev continue to develop the game and for as long as players continue to interact with it. I really think it would be healthier for BGS players to prepare to improvise, adapt, and overcome any challenges that might be coming their way. PP2.0 isn't going to be the last one.

Dxxdavid said:
Maybe your Gameplay is Static.. ours was not. Was a lame Argument and make no sence at all. PP was static.. but not BGS.

The rules for PP have changed, and it's clear from what FDev have been saying that they certainly don't intend for PP2.0 to static. Especially with the news that the system colonisation feature is going to allow players to introduce a dynamic element to very playing board upon which everyone operates.

Jmanis · Wednesday at 8:51 PM

Sounds like BGS is stepping back from its role as the foreground sim, with PP2 becoming the mainstay for group vs group activity.

Good.

-EJ- · Thursday at 1:21 AM

I think fdev ruining the BGS will be very bad for the future prosperity of the game. BGS players/squadrons make up a lot of the long term player base.
I'm pretty sure most of these "returning" players are set to drop off, we've pretty much seen the same thing with the thargoid content. A whole lot of casual gaming from streamers and other commanders on the most part.
I find it hard to understand the logic, you roll the dice and revamp a certain aspect of the game in order to bring in players and create interest however by doing this you opt to destroy the long standing community that has been with the game long term.
Is this odyssey all over again?