The Action Rebalance - How are we feeling?

Bringing this back on topic a bit: it sounds like what is really being discussed here is how the 3.3 changes have allowed groups to accelerate, and that groups supporting a conglomeration of factions have been able to leverage simultaneous states for this growth despite the action nerf in March. This raises some questions: if Frontier wanted to slow the growth of player-supported minor factions, procedurally generated and otherwise, as part of an aim to create a more stable galaxy, was 3.3 the way to do it?

Would we rather have 3.2 mechanics, or 3.3 mechanics with the action rebalance to slow things down? I fall strongly in the former camp, because I think that the reduced impact of individual player impacts in a given amount of playtime is the easy way out.
In an ironic twist FD need to bring some sort of overhead calculation to the sizes of factions just like Powerplay or strategy games like Civ. It could be something simple like the bigger you get, the more difficult it is to make systems happy enough to expand from. Right now expansion is virus like, with no expansion tax.
 
Yeah, and I could declare I support every faction whose name contains a vowel [1], and - oh look - my supported factions control 20,000 systems, far bigger than any superpower.

Communism Interstellar of course actually worked for their success, but supporting multiple factions means that their size isn't directly comparable to any purely in-game entity.

[1] This is actually true. I'm Allied with every faction within 1000 LY of my home system, which by your metrics makes me larger than all but the top four powers.
Okey, i see you guys just trolling now, even though you know that Minor Factions don't grow from 1 Star Systems to 50 by them selves. So lets leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
I am afraid your speculations are incorret once again. If you just look at the EDDB you can see that lowest Power Felicia Winters Exploiting only 265 Systems in a distance between 30 - 130 ly from Sol. At the same time Top Power Edmund Exploits over 1600 System in simular distance of 30 -160 ly from Sol.

As you can see it's little to do with diameter of Controled Systems but more to do with number of Star Systems they control.

And if you think that density part of bubble plays a big role, here is a suprise for you: Arrissa reaches all the way to 246 ly from Sol, yet her Exploited system / Controll system ratio is the same as Edmund that regions at almost half of that distance(130 ly) from Sol. So again it plays no role, but number of Controlled system does.


And if you are still in doubt, let me point you to COMMUNISM INTERSTELLAR nor do they only support 1, but actually 4 Communist faction, which gives them total control over 200 Star Systems. And before you start doubting this: I actually spend few weeks with them last summer, and knew about it back than just how many communist factions they were already supporting. Now it gone out of control ( Not dirrected at the CIU, i only used them as an example, but over all BGS)

This needs to be addressed.
I am part of CI AND Archon PP so i have one foot in each part. I have noticed you have some knowledge in both part of the game but you are mixing facts and misleading information to justify your argument. Just the fact you put PP and BGS group players at the same level is plain wrong. You cannot compare goals/achievements of both in the same way.

Anyway, not the topic here.
 
Bringing this back on topic a bit: it sounds like what is really being discussed here is how the 3.3 changes have allowed groups to accelerate, and that groups supporting a conglomeration of factions have been able to leverage simultaneous states for this growth despite the action nerf in March. This raises some questions: if Frontier wanted to slow the growth of player-supported minor factions, procedurally generated and otherwise, as part of an aim to create a more stable galaxy, was 3.3 the way to do it?

Would we rather have 3.2 mechanics, or 3.3 mechanics with the action rebalance to slow things down? I fall strongly in the former camp, because I think that the reduced impact of individual player impacts in a given amount of playtime is the easy way out.
Let's wait for the happiness factor to kick in. I am expecting to be THE factor to slow/stop PMF growth.
 
Let's wait for the happiness factor to kick in. I am expecting to be THE factor to slow/stop PMF growth.
Maybe, depending on how the calculations work, and what the happiness threshold is. Agreed that in theory it could replace the impact of conflict pre-3.3 in slowing down big factions ... but in practice, I'm not sure.

At the moment with negative states being rare - and even if made more common unlikely to affect a well-consolidated controlling faction - it's fairly likely that the controlling faction of a system will be Happy or Elated (and hard to argue that it shouldn't be) which shouldn't slow down expansion very much - it might make it harder to target, perhaps.

Possibly random events like Outbreak and Pirate Attack - and for factions in certain places, Incursion - might make it harder for a very large faction to maintain high happiness passively.
 
Is it still not in?
Still not in. Expansion at 75% influence as before.

They still have the bug where happiness values incorrectly report as blank for some players some of the time (both in the interface and the journal) so until happiness is actually working and returning meaningful values there's probably not a lot to do with it. And doing that seems to have - not surprisingly - being put behind getting the BGS balanced on an influence/actions level.
 
The problem I see now is that FD are taking too long adjusting the BGS. It seems at least one or more aspects are fiddled with each week leading to puzzlement / frustration as well as a lack of consistency.

At some point FD will need to say 'no more' and leave it alone.
 
Still not in. Expansion at 75% influence as before.

They still have the bug where happiness values incorrectly report as blank for some players some of the time (both in the interface and the journal) so until happiness is actually working and returning meaningful values there's probably not a lot to do with it. And doing that seems to have - not surprisingly - being put behind getting the BGS balanced on an influence/actions level.
Nothing actually adjusts happiness at the moment, as far as I can tell. One system for our faction has been happiest since the day 3.3 dropped, and hasn't changed since. It's not even a system which is actively worked.
 
The problem I see now is that FD are taking too long adjusting the BGS. It seems at least one or more aspects are fiddled with each week leading to puzzlement / frustration as well as a lack of consistency.

At some point FD will need to say 'no more' and leave it alone.
Lol. Like they've done with PP :ROFLMAO:

Fdev really can't win. Though it would be nice if they told us when they are altering things, so many bits of contradictory anecdotal evidence.
 
Lol. Like they've done with PP :ROFLMAO:

Fdev really can't win. Though it would be nice if they told us when they are altering things, so many bits of contradictory anecdotal evidence.
Well admittedly the BGS permeates a lot of the underlying game, but FD seem serial fiddlers when they have the ability to do so since its all server based.

Powerplay is the opposite, its a fixed system client side, so change requires proper updates. Its why there is such a disparity between them, and one that FD should have seen coming.
 
Well admittedly the BGS permeates a lot of the underlying game, but FD seem serial fiddlers when they have the ability to do so since its all server based.
FD's attitude to "tweaking" the BGS again emerges, IMO, from the idea that the core function of the BGS is to provide that "background, living, breathing universe"... I figure far as FD are concerned the players are "here for the sausage, not for how the sausage is made", and perceive the BGS as the system which makes the sausage, rather than being the sausage.

... I hate that analogy with a passion already...
 
FD's attitude to "tweaking" the BGS again emerges, IMO, from the idea that the core function of the BGS is to provide that "background, living, breathing universe"... I figure far as FD are concerned the players are "here for the sausage, not for how the sausage is made", and perceive the BGS as the system which makes the sausage, rather than being the sausage.

... I hate that analogy with a passion already...
To me the BGS is like FD tuning a car radio trying to find that nice music. They find it and us in the back seat go "thats it! Stop!" but they keep on fiddling. We then get fed up and get travelsick.
 

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
In an ironic twist FD need to bring some sort of overhead calculation to the sizes of factions just like Powerplay or strategy games like Civ. It could be something simple like the bigger you get, the more difficult it is to make systems happy enough to expand from. Right now expansion is virus like, with no expansion tax.

The irony is that is just what the state hierarchy used to do .
 

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
To expand - it took an enormous amount of care and control to keep all systems out of pending, active or cooling down conflicts, in order to let an expansion initiate. You needed to be right on top of influence of all the systems you were present in - making sure there was no way you could accidentally or deliberately be pushed into a conflict on the critical day. There was a huge incentive not to expand into systems that you could not keep your faction out of trouble in. We "enjoyed" some really sneaky/skillful opposition from an unseen opponent, who would snipe our expansions with sudden movements on critical days. In turn we would have to anticipate these weaknesses and in turn, block the move with blocking state of our own. It was gloriously complex strategic play - like 3-d chess, requiring planning, anticipation and timing. The rate of growth was limited by the need to manage states.

In contrast, we have added around 150 systems with 3.2 dropped - largely because there was no need to prioritise one system over another. We are slowing now because basically, we've flipped almost everything so it's going to be one per faction per fortnight.
 
Absolutely incorrect.
Communism Interstellar (the Squadron you linked) is a Squadron, not a Faction. Squadrons do not "control"/"run" or otherwise own any faction.
Communist Interstellar Union (the Faction) controls 64 systems. The Squadron may be pledged to that faction, however this does not afford any control over the faction. Any imagined control is just in your head.
I cannot speak for CI but we are not a greedy bunch. Imaginary control in our heads that works like we imagine what happens to the faction and exactly that happens (sooner or later in more complicated cases) is totally sufficient to us. It is much better than having formal legislative and enforcement power in the subject of gravity, to select an example that is closer to real world ones, even if this particular power is not granted to any bodies I know of.

Nothing actually adjusts happiness at the moment, as far as I can tell. One system for our faction has been happiest since the day 3.3 dropped, and hasn't changed since. It's not even a system which is actively worked.
Happiness adjustment is just fine now, it's just have no consequence whatsoever.
Happiest system designation is not implemented at all however other than a fixed value gained at 3.3.
 
Happiness adjustment is just fine now, it's just have no consequence whatsoever.
Happiest system designation is not implemented at all however other than a fixed value gained at 3.3.
It is fine because it doesn't work. So there are no fine adjustments to talk about.

For the rest, no expansion tax anymore but it is a bit slower to get to 75% with the previous "nerf" of different actions. The fact there isn t war anymore without assets is allowing you to go contesting directly for system control after expansion if you have planned carefully before (which is not difficult).

FD have accelerated the pace instead of slowing down. That is why I think happiness or another changes will come soon to rectify it.
 
Last edited:
(Regarding happiness adjustmenst)
It is fine because it doesn't work. So there are no fine adjustments to talk about.
I admit that I did not follow it too close just noticed that in the limited range of states (none to investment and civil liberty) it goes elated when economic and security states max out and revert to happy when these two expire. I have also seen happiness below the happy value. I know that is not a systematic test however. My apologies if conveying my impressions were misleading.
 
(Regarding happiness adjustmenst)

I admit that I did not follow it too close just noticed that in the limited range of states (none to investment and civil liberty) it goes elated when economic and security states max out and revert to happy when these two expire. I have also seen happiness below the happy value. I know that is not a systematic test however. My apologies if conveying my impressions were misleading.
If noticed that too, but unfortunately haven't seen any consequences of it yet.

FD's attitude to "tweaking" the BGS again emerges, IMO, from the idea that the core function of the BGS is to provide that "background, living, breathing universe"... I figure far as FD are concerned the players are "here for the sausage, not for how the sausage is made", and perceive the BGS as the system which makes the sausage, rather than being the sausage.

... I hate that analogy with a passion already...
We have a slogan (y)
"The BGS is the sausage!" ... appearing on a t-shirt soon.
 
Top Bottom