REPUTATION or INFLUENCE?

[glojo]

I have just made a comment on another thread suggesting we have to forget how the game worked prior to this update, but....

When trying to improve the STATE of a faction influence

Do we need to do missions that offer Reputation, or Influence???

What a stupid question because since Minor Factions were created, it has ALWAYS been influence to improve Influence and reputation to effect Reputation

Now, when we win a battle in a Conflict Zone, we get a pat on the back and are told we have either had a 'small' 'medium' and something like 'large' or significant increase in.... Reputation?? If we lose a battle then it is vice versa, we can be told there is a significant loss of reputation?? Now if we think reputation is a personal state compared to influence which goes toward the state of our faction. The wording we get has to be accurate. Who really cares what their reputation is?

If you do care, then rest assured this message we get should be 100% inaccurate??

How can I say that??

Let's check-out what I am saying and yes I have indeed tried this.

Make sure you are allied to your faction
Then take a 5+ mission for your faction, be it influence or reputation and once taken off and in my case, I did a successful mission before deliberating failing this 5+ mission. As soon as I failed this mission, my reputation quite correctly drops. In my case,every time I have done this, my reputation has dropped and it always drops below the level of 'Allied'

In a CZ no matter how often I got that message telling me my reputation has been lowered.... Zilch, NOTHING happens, I remain allied???? Why

We cannot, cannot see what happens to our influence because this remain static for the duration of a conflict.

If the game means REPUTATION they MUST mean reputation, likewise if they say INFLUENCE then that is exactly what they should mean.

Do we rely on what is in front of us, what we are told, or do we say, "They do not mean REPUTATION, they really mean INFLUENCE"

My own thoughts are that Frontier must surely mean what they say and say what they mean.

Was it like this in Beta?

is the work of a programmer checked?

Is the game checked before going out on the public beta?

Do we need Influence or Reputation?

Part 2
We are at war in two systems, I want to run an experiment on solely running missions. In one system, at one station, I might have a maximum of possibly forty missions on offer, be they Missions or Passenger Missions and TODAY out of this forty missions there is NOT A SINGLE mission offering three stars or more of influence. NOT A SINGLE one but plenty of missions, possibly as much as thirty are for three stars or MORE for reputation?? WHY, why all these missions for reputation when the faction is at war? why not have an even split between the two types or a least a third of each with one third not showing either?

I THINK that we still need influence but what do I base that on?

Winning a war and dumping in millions of bonds in a low populatedsystem, historically would show a significant rise in that influence, but today...... Over to you guys

 

[Dommarraa]

You seem to have spotted that there are more bugs than working features.
Don't expect much from the community except a resigned 'Yeah', many realised this the week of the release.

 

[ifthisworks]

So, forgive my ignorance, but what everyone is saying is that influence doesn't work? Not just for CZ but also for missions and maybe everything else as well?

I have zero interest in controlling multiple systems, but if I'm passing through a system and I decide I don't like the current government, I would like to have some change under my control. Spent 3 days doing multiple missions and the end result is no change, (30M richer) except the controlling faction now goes up 2% rather than down and my chosen faction no change at all. In beta my actions seemed to have quite a response, which I was pleased with, but this seems to have disappeared.

 

[dazzlerbing]

The new mechanics 'should' be that warring factions ( be that a war or elecection ) influence will be locked until the war/election has completed it's cycle of 7 days, you 'should' be able to see the how the war/election is going by checking on the status of the faction in the system.....sadly it's a great big buggy mess at the moment with never ending conflicts + a million other issues.

Just increasing a factions influence out of conflict states seems ok where I have been doing it but others may not have the same experience...of course some systems are just locked up as the influences have been frozen by other factions conflicts....enjoy

 

[glojo]

The new mechanics 'should' be that warring factions ( be that a war or elecection ) influence will be locked until the war/election has completed it's cycle of 7 days, you 'should' be able to see the how the war/election is going by checking on the status of the faction in the system.....sadly it's a great big buggy mess at the moment with never ending conflicts + a million other issues.

Just increasing a factions influence out of conflict states seems ok where I have been doing it but others may not have the same experience...of course some systems are just locked up as the influences have been frozen by other factions conflicts....enjoy

Yup I agree with you,
influencing a faction not in conflict for us is still working. We can raise or lower influence in the way we have always done but for factions in a state of war, or possibly elections??

Is it reputation or influence that is what gets us the result?

For me at the moment, I am at a loss on the answer.

In a CZ we are killing bad guys and getting lots of credits that we hand in and yes, that is no doubt what wins us a war. Previously, in a CZ where the system had an extremely low population, it was easy to increase influence by over 30%, now however that influence only goes up by 4%. If we are allied with the faction we fight for, then is the reputation possibly meaningless (If we are already King or Admiral)

The message we get when fighting is one that tells us our reputation has increased so, me thinking as I type... Has any player who gets that message had a benefit of this alleged reputation? For example, have they gone from friendly to allied?

The more questions we get answered might get us better educated regarding this upgrade, or will it simply get us more confused?

 

[Dommarraa]

The decrease in rep you get from the enemy is either broken, or so small it is not noticeable. Can't tell about increase, I am already maxed

Rep never had any effect in war, so I can't see a reason for it to do so now. May inf of a mission counts, maybe its just a counter, maybe has no effect at all.

 

[glojo]

The decrease in rep you get from the enemy is either broken, or so small it is not noticeable. Can't tell about increase, I am already maxed

Rep never had any effect in war, so I can't see a reason for it to do so now. May inf of a mission counts, maybe its just a counter, maybe has no effect at all.

I do not think you get what I am saying??

I am saying when we now fight in a Conflict Zone, the prize for winning the battle is an increase in your faction reputation, NOT your reputation but that is my guess but I asked the question about a player having their reputation increased.

Have you fought these battles? If you have then surely you have got that message talking about REPUTATION increase for your faction and likewise, if you lose a battle, your faction gets a decrease in REPUTATION.

My question is why that message?: Is the increase in faction reputation what now wins us the seven day war? YES a gazillion times YES, I am fully aware of how we won wars prior to this update, but since this pesky'improvement' we now get messages telling us after winning battles, our faction reputation increases.

I am in the same boat as everyone else and am fighting our second lot of seven day wars and the more information we get, the more we can learn.

Incidentally in one of our wars we are winning it 2 days to nil and I am only doing missions. In the second war and this is really confusing, the only traffic through the system is my ship or another of our group doing tick runs.

No one is fighting that war and after two days.... OUR INFLUENCE HAS GONE UP 3%??? We have been told influence is frozen during a war and yes, on the first seven days of fighting, I can confirm our influence for the fighting system was frozen but today the system where we are now 'fighting' has gone up 3% without any human influence. What a chuffing pot mess.

 

[dazzlerbing]

I am into the 12th day of a conflict...CZ's disappeared 5 days ago and yes, now the influences now rise with normal missions while the system is still apparently at war which we should have won....but the system is still not in our control. Meanwhile a 7th day of pending conflict in another system, 10th day of pending expansion and 4 boom states pending in 4 other systems for 5 days.

Oh it's so broken

 

[glojo]

Totally 100% agree with you dazzler

I keep saying I have NO idea whether it is influence or reputation that now win these wars. I read posts from folk telling me it is still influence but where does that judgement come from? We have only been fighting for a week or so and there is so little information out there.

Lets suppose it is influence. Let's just make this generalisation without any evidence and here we go to defeat my own suggestion.

Before offering any input, I tend to try to make sure what I say is correct and to do that takes an awful lot of work

Two of our systems are in a state of war. I ALWAYS monitor traffic coming into these two systems otherwise any information I extract is useless and cannot be trusted so.. I am the only player going into these two systems, with the exception of one of our group doing a tick run

First system I am ONLY DOING MISSIONS. there are NO missions with more than 2+ of influence but shed loads with 5+ of reputation. I am ALWAYS taking missions that have both reputation and influence stars and after 3 days of fighting we have gone 'close victory', 'Victory' and I am waiting on the tick for the third days figting.

NOW THE INTERESTING SYSTEM
I am again the only ship passing through with the exception of one of our group doing a tick run. No one but no one is working in that system, the war at present shows 'draw', 'Draw' and the next result will show up today. The interesting thing is the INFLUENCE for our faction has rose by just over 3%???? This goes against EVERYTHING we have been told. Wehave been told time and time again that influence is frozen for the duration of the conflict??

If INFLUENCE is what wins wars, then how comes we are still showing 'Draw'? It would be stupid to suggest I wait until the next tick purely because the previous tick showed this information. if a 3% gain in influence did have a affect, then why isn't the system showing 'Close Victory'??

I am definitely NOT suggesting we have a game change and it is now reputation but WHY do we get messages when we win conflicts that tell us we have had improvements in reputation and this reputation we are told is for our faction and NOT the individual and when we just fight in a cz, we appear to be only getting reputation improvements and each day the state of the war will improve, yet when our faction has a 3% rise in INFLUENCE, we get zilch... no improvement in the war?

If we have advice or suggestions, is it possible that you could PLEASE check your through traffic for the last 24hrs and compare that to your ship's movements. If they do not match then anything you have to offer may well b worthless. I say that purely because a ship might simply hand in bounties, your station might be offering missions that players find irresistible etc etc. If the through traffic does not match then MUCH respect for checking it and much respect for not jumping to conclusions.

INFLUENCE or REPUTATION, that is the question, but what is the answer
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them? To die: to sleep;
No more; and by a sleep to say we end
The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to bewish'd. To die, to sleep;

Sorry, I blame the morphine You cannot beat a good olde quote from old bill How sad though that perhaps some of our younger generation have not heard of the reall 'bill' and how many Americans that attempt to speak english have also never heard of this truly 'Great' person? Someone who lived before Americans probably even spoke English? again many apologies for my mischievious sense of humour

 

[Dommarraa]

Reputation has a meaning in ed. It is possible but unlikely that they have started using the term for something else.

You are a week behind in reporting inf changes in conflict, I reported 2 to the community, and people just shrugged. 'must be a bug'. We managed to get a 6% gap within a conflict (could have made another couple of % if we wanted) and got the normal 4% as well when the conflict was over. This behavior certainly isn't normal, but neither is it ultra rare. Given the mountainous pile of manure that fd have to deal after their holidays, I would not put a great deal of effort in trying to justify anything. They have so many changes to make, bugs will appear and disappear over the next few months, probably with little notice that anything has been fixed.

 

[glojo]

I think that where I agree with Domm when they state how to not put a great deal of effort into justifying ANYTHING (my emphasis)

In one system where we are at war, we are allegedly winning that war if we look at our influence..... It shows we are 5% above our adversary. BUT after three ticks and into our fourth day we have not done ANYTHING. Not been to the stations not handed any bounties in, nothing to explain the 5% increase

BUT... That 5% increase means absolutely toodly spit! We are still in a DRAW with the opposition. When and if we win this war our influence will go up by a measly 4%. Reputation for a faction is for me an unknown. I have no idea where I see it, but I do know I need it to win conflicts.

I might leave this system to see if the DRAW changes when this conflict ends but that would or might result in a third war in that system which I do not want!!

My brain tells me to get a result as this whole pot mess is a walking pile of horse manure

 

[Walter2]

Reputation has a meaning in ed. It is possible but unlikely that they have started using the term for something else.

It wouldn't be the first time FD have slackened the precision screws on what should be a tightly defined term.

One would expect that FD has a company 'bible' that defines exactly what each technical expression means, what every common subroutine's inputs and outputs should be within the FD community - and further manuals that apply similar rules to each project. This is certainly true in engineering where production and maintenance can be dispersed over several development teams, plants or even countries. The international space effort learned very quickly that three millimeters is not the same as three inches.

Just imagine the consequences of not having such a system in a software company; the lack of effective communication would result in products full of bugs.