But does it have to "step back" by becoming unplayable? That's the direction it's headed. Seems it would be more useful to cheer another feature getting better rather than BGS getting worse.
PP 2.0 has sent BGS into crisis
- Thread starter Happy Daze
- Start date
I'm with you, I'm excited to see what 2.0 brings. Colonization? Hell yeah! I think it can be better thought out though so it doesn't wreck what you and I and many others enjoy, yeah?
Here's hoping a fix is in the works.
The meticulous and fine control of BGS mechanics over dozens of systems will probably not be sustainable if you're in a contested area where two or more Powers are contending with each other. Neither can you strip BGS effects from the current batch of Power activities which are your normal commander activities but with merit rewards.
The only long term solution I can think of is if BGS minor factions can be elevated to the status of minor powers someday - but you'd have to be under the aegis of a major power as a consequence.
This is serious, has anyone posted a list of BGS bugs caused by the Ascendancy patch under any related thread by Paul (Crowther)? Or filed a bug report at least.
there's a few tickets that exist
fixing the bgs hasn't even been acknowledged yet as far as i'm aware.
the impact it is having right now is pretty bad.
I seems like fdev don't even understand the bgs hence all the bugs, I do fear that fdev will end up destroying bgs out of ignorance in future updates
fixing the bgs hasn't even been acknowledged yet as far as i'm aware.
the impact it is having right now is pretty bad.
I seems like fdev don't even understand the bgs hence all the bugs, I do fear that fdev will end up destroying bgs out of ignorance in future updates
PP 2.0 relies on a stable BGS foundation underneath to work. If somebody can highlight the ways a flawed BGS can adversely affect PP then they'll listen for sure.
If these returning players are just a temporary blip, then it's hardly "ruining" BGS, since player numbers will return to baseline and the effects of PP on BGS will likewise subside and become more manageable.
The players who engage in the non-BGS portions of the game are just as valid an audience for developer attention as anyone else. If the BGS players have managed to become complacent in their play-styles, despite the fact that they've been playing a game that has been receiving gameplay updates for near enough a decade now, then I fail to see how that anyone's fault except that of the BGS players themselves.
you've clearly no idea how bgs works, also like was said managing is easily handled but it's near impossible if 90% of it is broken
The only concrete issue that's been explicitly mentioned so far is a sharp rise in INF gains due to player activity, resulting in Expansion states undesired by the BGS players who have complained about it. That to me sounds like a lack of adaptability. I thought different BGS groups had diplomatic channels with each other that they could use for negotiations. Can't you talk to each other and coordinate your activities?
regarding "complacent in playstyles" I & many others do everything from dropping cartographic data to running missions, that's called be crack at bgs
thus far i'm seeing people comment on a bgs and powerplay thread that have no idea how bgs works lol
OK, but admonishing me for my ignorance does nothing to state the case for BGS players.
As of now, the BGS is simply the generator for PP. The BGS pumps out the missions, and fills the appropriate buckets, but PP is the reason for it all. I saw the writing on the wall, and abandoned my 1-man minor faction. I got a that MF in the initial wave of applications, and held it until the recent changes.
It's ok, games change loops and ask for different things over time. All you have to do is adapt your game, to the current situation. Simple, right?
It's ok, games change loops and ask for different things over time. All you have to do is adapt your game, to the current situation. Simple, right?
Well it's looking like election missions do nothing toward winning elections. Exploration dumps look like the key. We'll maybe add BVs after we're sure.
lol this forum is such a joke, it's so toxic here.
cool so all the squadrons will just talk to each other and be like "we share systems now because we can't control our expansions". Sharing systems with other pmfs is a headache.
what do you mean "lack of adaptability" you CAN'T prevent these expansions because of bugs, I'm getting tired of having to explain that here.
Just keep pooping on all the posts and threads, push the player community further away that's it.
What business do you have arguing the with every single post here, people are simply saying things aren't good and for some reason I'm reading that we need to suck it up as the bugs are here to stay.
cool so all the squadrons will just talk to each other and be like "we share systems now because we can't control our expansions". Sharing systems with other pmfs is a headache.
what do you mean "lack of adaptability" you CAN'T prevent these expansions because of bugs, I'm getting tired of having to explain that here.
Just keep pooping on all the posts and threads, push the player community further away that's it.
What business do you have arguing the with every single post here, people are simply saying things aren't good and for some reason I'm reading that we need to suck it up as the bugs are here to stay.
The systems and factions were never "yours" and allowing people to just full out a web form to get their Gamer Clan canonised in the game was a mistake.
The only toxic thing here is the attitudes that some PMFs have of being entitled to complete ownership of sections of the sandbox.
The irony is (imo) PP1 was supposed to do the same but FD put time into the BGS.
Exactamundo.
Dealing with PMFs in the past was like dealing with a neighbour who twitches curtains when you put the bins out.
In theory, any trade, exploration or non-combat mission action. The "election" branding on the courier missions was always just flavour and didn't affect that.
There does seem to have been some recent problem where conflicts specifically would sometimes just get stuck and not accept any sort of influence - the one I saw an example of elsewhere does seem to have got moving again (and it certainly wasn't "all conflicts" by a long way), so maybe that's been fixed.
I can think of a few, but the catch is most of them aren't ones PMF-supporting player groups would particularly care about having fixed:
1) Super-expanded minor factions can cause a bit of Powerplay weirdness by their sharing of bounties faction-wide. So you undermine system A and get a (perfectly fair) bounty for it, then return to your own power's space which turns out to be controlled by the same minor faction so you have to find an IF somewhere. There are probably more proportionate fixes to this than "retreat every minor faction back to its home system" (and it's really a C&P issue more than it is a BGS one)
2) The "high profit trade" action in Powerplay (and to extent a few others) is made way more interesting with a diversity of BGS states, and I do think that the state sliders could use a bit of loosening up in lower-traffic systems in that regard, especially for non-controlling factions. But most PMF supporters aren't that picky about what state they're in to start with, since they're more about the influence.
3) BGS wars can take Odyssey settlements out of scope for Powerplay use temporarily, which matters for several action types. The apparent issue of conflicts occasionally getting "stuck" means that this isn't just a "well, now you have to think a bit more" situation. This is certainly one where there's a bit of common ground ... though I don't see any formal attempts to report it yet.
4) Lockdowns would be a really interesting state - closing markets - and deliberately causing one might be used by Power supporters to shut down a rare producer they can't use but their enemies can, or as part of an undermining attack to stop enemies reinforcing a system. If Lockdowns are too hard to do this can't happen. Similarly other states can introduce extra POIs to a system or change the distribution of USSes, which might make certain Powerplay actions easier or harder.
Broadly the issue is that Powerplay likes state effects (though I doubt there's much deliberate attempt to manipulate them) so the BGS needs to be tuned to keep the states moving. PMF supporters mainly care about influence and often ignore most states, but Powerplay doesn't really care about influence levels or which specific faction runs the system at all.
It's worked fine for most of a decade in Colonia (where there's not much but PMFs and plenty of systems which are solely full of PMFs); provided everyone agrees not to care what happens to their influence in the other system, the PMF "owning" the system can just treat the second PMF like any other NPC faction, and the PMF accidentally getting into the system can completely ignore their presence there and not care about it either.
(There are still some actual fights too, of course, but they're the ones people deliberately and knowingly start)
Yup. Was so bizarre.
I found a non power system with an election and did about a dozen data missions for one of the native factions involved. I had a hasty check before the shut down this morning, and it seems those missions produced a result.