Copy/Paste from 3.2 ?
I also would not bother posting about the 0/2/4% stuff. I cant remember the last time we had a straight +/-4. Got our biggest Inf gain when it was a Draw before the final tick.
War and Civil War: BGS Guide - Best Current Thinking
- Thread starter Jane Turner
- Start date
Copy/Paste from 3.2 ?
I also would not bother posting about the 0/2/4% stuff. I cant remember the last time we had a straight +/-4. Got our biggest Inf gain when it was a Draw before the final tick.
Installations also count as transferable assets now, and seem to be lower priority than any dockable though this may again just be a consequence of their more recent addition to the assets list.
I continue to believe based on the priority in Colonia systems that the technically correct rule is that the *oldest* asset is transferred first, and the rest of the guidelines just provide a mostly-reliable heuristic for identifying that in proc-gen systems.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
[/LIST]
Copy/Paste from 3.2 ?
I also would not bother posting about the 0/2/4% stuff. I cant remember the last time we had a straight +/-4. Got our biggest Inf gain when it was a Draw before the final tick.
We are still getting them (I'll fudge it).... and yes to the c&P - I missed it
Added to 1st post
Last edited:
We are seeing only the lowest value assets getting transferred or put at risk in conflicts where you match INF. Day 1 of 3.3 the controlling faction only had a ground base at risk during the war of the two it had at the time (ground base and main Orbis station in the system). Are you sure its the most valuable asset? Should I be raising another bug report?
Also seeing the Planetary Installations are now transferred during wars.
Also I'd point out at that during the conflict (War, Civil War, or Election) if you own an asset then that is put at risk during the conflict regardless of an asset being put up by the other side or not. So losing a war will put you a step back.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure it's normally the oldest asset - do you know the relative ages of those two?
I saw this week a War's 'dominated' score go 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, 3-1. So I didn't see the extra fourth point added for having dominated in the first three days.
Also, on INF being locked during conflict, and less so in 3.3.04 and 3.3.05, but it's possible for a slight 'drift' down in INF to occur for the pair of combatant MFs, usually 0.1% each reduction per tick. I suspect caused by 'exceptional effort' on the part of other MFs in the system boosting their own INF and leeching away from the combatants. Might be useful to correlate this type of leakage with the eventual conflict outcome (i.e. does the 'typical' +/-4% change happen more or less often if there's also been some INF erosion during the conflict). Some conflicts it seems like there's a daily erosion, which can knock 0.7% off each MF after a week. Also saw some very limited 0.2% daily tick reductions. Might all just be roundings.
Last edited:
There seem to be difference when fighting the battles in different zones.
Winning the battle in low intensity zone gives small increase in influence. In medium and high zones there is moderate increase.
Losing the battle is obviously the opposite, so losing in medium or high will have higher consequences.
Declaring to fight for opposition and then intentionally losing in medium or high zones, would cause more influence than fighting for the allied faction in low zone.
It would be interesting to know what happens when abandoning the battle. If there are no consequences, then when seeing that the battle is almost lost, jumping away might be a good idea to avoid losing points. There will still be bond payout to make it worthwhile.
Winning the battle in low intensity zone gives small increase in influence. In medium and high zones there is moderate increase.
Losing the battle is obviously the opposite, so losing in medium or high will have higher consequences.
Declaring to fight for opposition and then intentionally losing in medium or high zones, would cause more influence than fighting for the allied faction in low zone.
It would be interesting to know what happens when abandoning the battle. If there are no consequences, then when seeing that the battle is almost lost, jumping away might be a good idea to avoid losing points. There will still be bond payout to make it worthwhile.
Last edited:
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
We've seen some got to 3-0 but still more going 2-0 to 4-0
Since when jumping out is a combat logging? Anyway, that's just a hypothetical situation and I was wondering if there is some game mechanics to prevent this type of situation. The CZs are much more difficult now (good) and players for sure jumping away when their shields are out. In my opinion that should mean lost battle. But I am not sure, hence my question.
Its not jumping out, it's disconnecting. I agree that jumping out may have a negative effect. It would certainly make sense to do so, but just saying that a disconnect avoids that.
The system was setup well before my time in this region (probably before I started playing)....any reference or trick to work it out?
Edit: Just found some info here that suggests it might help confirm your theory. But no idea how less prominent systems would find the same info to age their different stations.
https://elite-dangerous.fandom.com/wiki/Elite_Dangerous_Timeline
I'll need to check it when I get home and get back to you.
Last edited:
Generally, the various guidelines about big stations > little stations > surface bases > surface settlements work pretty well, because if the system was entirely procedurally generated that's the order things would have been added in.
If there's a reference in the timeline to a CG adding the Orbis after the 2.0 release, then this would definitely be one of the exceptions.
If jumping out generates an inf decrease for the side you're pledged to then I can see people joining CZs, pledging and immediately low-waking without firing a shot, over and over and over.
So, I guess the conclusion is that jumping out of CZs during a battle does not generate negative inf.
I'd wondered whether the effect was proportional to the result as the instance was deleted, so immediately leaving would have no effect, but bailing just before you lost would be pretty much the same was going to the finish. But actually I doubt it's that sophisticated!
I would assume it, but not rely on it.
We have had reports from someone who had a lot of Noobs turn up to "help" who could not win a CZ and kept on leaving. He lost the War.
Could have been an Exit hit, could just as easily have been one of the Conflict bugs.
From what I'm told the Pleiades was largely custom made.
Seems in this system (from what I can piece together) it was:
1. Large Orbital (sometime before Jan 3303, not sure of exact time)
2. Both Surface Settlements (April 3303)
3. Smaller Planetary Base (April 3303)
4. "Two new outposts", but there is only the Larger Planetary Base unaccounted for (August 3303)
References:
https://canonn.science/lore/
https://elite-dangerous.fandom.com/wiki/Elite_Dangerous_Timeline
The war that kicked off right after 3.3 patch landed (pending that first day) had us defending the larger of the two planetary bases against the controlling faction would put up the smaller of the two planetary bases. As far as I can tell there was 3 already stations created in the system before the smaller planetary base was created and the controlling faction own one of those(the Large Orbital). Which suggests that "oldest asset" isn't the approach. In this situation but "Lowest Value" asset does work as the two Settlements were owned by other factions making the small planetary base the lowest value vs the Large Orbital.
Maybe the assets were created behind the screens, and the story feed them out in a different order than they were actually created and dated behind the scenes....but if that is part of the mechanic how would anyone work that out......is there any reliably incrementing ID number we can reference?
Entirely, I think.
Did you get system control when you took the smaller planetary base?
The other possibility - Frontier does have the option, rarely used but the Pleiades is one of the more likely places for it, to declare individual stations as uncapturable without completely conflict-proofing the system. So it's possible that the Large Orbital is one of those for story reasons. (There's a permit-offering faction somewhere with an uncapturable megaship, which is I think the only place Frontier has publicly stated it has used this capability, can't remember where but someone who knows the bubble should be able to say...)
No, I don't believe there is. In any individual system you can probably piece it together by seeing what's contested in various wars, of course. "Oldest first" works completely reliably for the Colonia region, though.
Nar no control, the election went the other way. At least 4 separate BGS bugs conspired that week, we lost ground regardless of what we did. Which then meant we lost the one station we had in the system (effort to get it was still fresh in peoples minds) which reduced peoples desire to play, plus Summer and Christmas holidays arrived which reduced it a bit more. We've left it alone for a bit but starting to work on it again now. May be some more data points over the next month or so....going to be at least 4 wars to take the system if its "least value assets" first. Plus the Thargoids don't leave much time for BGS, especially lately.
This is a heavy game lore system so maybe there is a hidden lockout on the ownership of the main station. Which would be disappointing but that could then re-validate the "Most Valuable Asset is Transferred" of the main orbital is off limits. Time will tell. We have seen Elections against controlling factions in nearby systems with the asset being offered if we win the conflict perhaps that is the case, but one of those systems was for a recently added PMF...fairly raw deal to never be able to take your home system/station.
Alas I don't think there is an equivalent BGS database for the Pleiades compared to the one you have created for Colonia.