The Scourge - Overview of Phases

Was there really one sided conflict zones, as in, you were only allowed to fight for one faction of the two? What happened if you tried to fight the CG faction ships?
 
Was there really one sided conflict zones, as in, you were only allowed to fight for one faction of the two? What happened if you tried to fight the CG faction ships?
Same as every other Fed vs any one else battle... you get credits and Arx but the feds out number all other sides, so any FED battle is a crushing loss for the other side as the fed players have allways won every War in the CGs there side takes part in... No matter who there rival is.. Empire alliance or indis fed players turn up and crush the rival side...
Feds have to many unlimited play time users to fight on there side...
 
Was there really one sided conflict zones, as in, you were only allowed to fight for one faction of the two? What happened if you tried to fight the CG faction ships?
tl;dr you could go out to a CZ and support the Scythes, the game just ignored those contributions, and did nothing to advise players of that.

Just to add to Graphite's post... in the past (for LoR, for example) you could still fight for the other side, with the War state tracking progress on the conflict tracker.

One-sidedness in the past has extended as far as the narrative; FD would create a single CG supporting one side only, so naturally, players flock to support that side. But theoretically, enough support for the opposition could actually still allow a conflict victory.

In this activity:
  • Only one CG existed to support... whoever the Fed side was (they were so unnoteworthy I forget their name)... no CG existed to support the Scythes of Panem, so there was narrative one-sidedness
  • Unlike the LoR example I gave, the BGS war tracking was disabled for this CG[1]. So, while yes, you could happily go to a CZ, pledge to the Scythes for that instance and collect bonds from them, or do other things which would normally have some BGS effect... none of those actions were recorded or measured. And with no CG supporting them, that meant there was no game mechanic to actually provide support to the Scythes.
  • There was no indication in-game that this would be the case either. Not everyone trolls the forums, so anyone not reading the forums would've genuinely been thinking the scythes were stonewalling the feds.

So in terms of game experience it was totally undermined by having a war behave completely differently to literally every other war in the game. It also undermines any dramatic effect of the narrative by providing a foregone conclusion to that story.

[1] Many people cite this is so conflict "short circuit" mechanics don't kick in; that's not true, because the short-circuit mechanics existed during the NI war and the war tracking worked, and it didn't end after 4 days when it met the short-circuit condition. Though I'd also argue, if it did end early, "So what?"... it's no different to a CG ending early in that circumstance, and is not without precedent. The CG text literally warns that BGS states and effects can impact on the CG... why should this be any different?
 
First II: we gained a new convertible AX weapon

Second II: we gained a new engineer and a new small bubble in the Witch Head Nebula

Third II: Am I missing something? What did we gain here?
Does a decal count?

Edit: How about the new BGS state "Blight"?
 
Last edited:
First II: we gained a new convertible AX weapon

Second II: we gained a new engineer and a new small bubble in the Witch Head Nebula

Third II: Am I missing something? What did we gain here?
Do IIs always need to give rewards? New BGS state is cool[1], but surely the focus for IIs should be on creating engaging and interesting experiences outside the normal game loops?

Like I've said in other threads... a CG or II could offer multiple billions[2] in rewards and all G5 engineering for free... it won't get me participating if its achieved by watching paint dry.

[1] provided it lives up to expectations.
[2] I'm no multi-billionaire, and my credit balance is never more than a couple hundred million.
 
Last edited:
Do IIs always need to give rewards? New BGS state is cool[1], but surely the focus for IIs should be on creating engaging and interesting experiences outside the normal game loops?

Like I've said in other threads... a CG or II could offer multiple billions[2] in rewards and all G5 engineering for free... it won't get me participating if its achieved by watching paint dry.

[1] provided it lives up to expectations.
[2] I'm no multi-billionaire, and my credit balance is never more than a couple hundred million.
Fdev introduced II saying that those would introduce changes to the game and to the galaxy. Oh well I guess that the new bgs status is the new reward 🤷‍♂️
 
Like I've said in other threads... a CG or II could offer multiple billions[2] in rewards and all G5 engineering for free... it won't get me participating if its achieved by watching paint dry.
Maybe not multiple billions, but maybe 100m or so for the top tier?

And as long as it's not a senseless grind or log fest, like the rescue mission they did a year or two ago: log in, collect occupied escape pods, log off, repeat until full. I filled my cutter 3 times that way and ended up in the top 10% for the gold rescue decal.
 
Yes... And I'm really excited about this change to a broken bgs...

no I'm not... 🤷‍♂️
Genuine question; what do you think is broken about the BGS? Everything's pretty stable these days...

I'd concede there's some problems of balance (for which, the Blight state is a shiv for a rebalance), but nothing I'd consider broken per se. States change as expected, contributions impact as expected, effects happen like you'd expect...

Only thing I'm really aware of that is "broken" (i.e is meant to function in a given way, and does not) are "Massacre Infected Ships" missions, which is a single mission template in an outbreak state.

Maybe not multiple billions, but maybe 100m or so for the top tier?

And as long as it's not a senseless grind or log fest, like the rescue mission they did a year or two ago: log in, collect occupied escape pods, log off, repeat until full. I filled my cutter 3 times that way and ended up in the top 10% for the gold rescue decal.
Thus my statement... multiple billions wouldn't even get me, or others, into a CG which is just watching paint dry.
 
Last edited:
Except when you try to support a faction to conquer all stations in a system and you have to go through a loop of win-lose-win
Okay - but what alternative wouldn't e.g. prevent expansion from a system without capturing every asset first? or make it possible to go from total system control to nothing in one go?
 
Agronomic Treatment costs 2568 Cr/Ton to buy from the nearest available source but sells at 1995 Cr/ton with ZERO demand.
There is way more profit selling food to Furuta Dock, HIP 29314 which is in Blight as it is an Industrial station, so I am of the opinion that we let the Blight take full hold there and cause famine, then deliver food until Famine is resolved. Agronomic Treatment is a complete waste of time to a station with zero demand but in Blight.
 
The Lessons of the Blight
02 NOV 3305
The blight that laid waste to vast areas of cropland over the past month has now officially been contained.

Reports from the Interstellar Association for Agriculture confirm that the blight has been eliminated from all affected systems. The new agronomic treatment has rejuvenated emaciated fields, with the remaining harvests once again viable.

Journalist Adalyn Cross published a review of recent events on Vox Galactica:

“As the availability of staple foodstuffs begins to return to something like a normal level, many pundits are asking what lessons can be learned from this catastrophe. The IAA has pledged to intensify screening regulations for agricultural commodities. The speed with which the blight spread caught many by surprise, and it is vital that this does not happen again.”

“Intelligence agencies have pledged to review their strategies for tackling interstellar terrorism. The Scythe of Panem extremists who engineered the blight have been dealt with, but who else might be planning a biochemical attack?”

Meanwhile, the Rockforth Corporation’s PR department is working hard to reassure customers and shareholders. Critics have underscored the role of the EX7 fertiliser as a primary delivery system for the pathogen, but a Rockforth source argued that the product’s sabotage by Scythe of Panem agents could not have been anticipated.

Nevertheless, the company’s haste to increase profits has been highlighted as a contributing factor in the blight’s impact. Rockforth is expected to release a statement in the next few days, pending an internal review.
 
To be perfectly honest, I'm happy with an II introducing new BGS states. Despite the story being a bit contrived in certain parts, this was an interesting way to expand options in the game without just magically dropping the content in during any given patch. I think the result is worthwhile even if the road to get here had a few speedbumps.

I'll give FD a thumbs up for what they've tried to do with these initiatives, and I'm interested to see how their approach and execution evolves as they get more used to running them.
 
Okay - but what alternative wouldn't e.g. prevent expansion from a system without capturing every asset first? or make it possible to go from total system control to nothing in one go?
I think there are few ways for doing it properly. Gaining influence for your faction to win elections and then lose influence to trigger another election and then increase influence again to win is just sick. When fdev last year said they wanted to improve bgs I thought they improved this aspect as well but here we are..
 
Except when you try to support a faction to conquer all stations in a system and you have to go through a loop of win-lose-win
I don't disagree with the sentiment of the idea in general, but it's not broken.

Broken is when something is meant to behave in a particular way, and doesn't. Like I said with the Outbreak Massacre Missions, the game loop there is to go to the mission USS and pop mission targets. That's broken, because no mission targets appear, but they're meant to.

It's a bit like saying "Man, soccer is such a broken game, you should be able to pick up the ball!"... sure Gaelic Football exists which implements that ruleset, but that doesn't mean soccer is broken... that's just the rules, and they function as expected (except when the ref booches it, ofc).

Likewise conflict mechanics aren't broken. Those mechanics are:
  • Equalise influence with an asset-owning faction to trigger a conflict
  • Win the conflict to gain the most valuable asset owned, lose the conflict to lose the most valuable asset owned
  • Factions gain +/-4% respectively at the end
Those rules work... whether or not they work to your liking is irrelevant to a discussion on whether they're broken or not. Otherwise, let me tell you about our lord and saviour "The Hostile Rep State" and why it, and notoriety, are in desperate need of buffs and incentives to achieve, as that's a far bigger problem with the game, and, imo, the sole reason why Blight's been shivved in.
 
Maybe they could make all ships that have visited those blighted systems designated plague ships, refused docking and destroyed on-sight by all faction and system security forces?
 
Top Bottom