Mercs of Mikunn results after 3 weeks of effort - Also a request for documentation, in game and out

[Jerzy7]

As it says the invading minor faction has to reach a threshold influence level to trigger a war.

Michael

First thanks again for the info!!! Really enjoying the metagame it adds a lot of meaning to the actual actions I do in the game. Then of course comes the silly questions. So for the Lugh group once they have control of the major station they need a war with the federation to be owners of the system or is the fight for the controlling station considered a war.
Im actually helping the Mikunn group but War is the one state im still unsure what it means in general.

 

[Michael Brookes]

Is "bounty hunting" as generic as attacking anyone with a KWS bounty in system, or does it have to be something you can cash in at a platform or base? Reason I ask is I have a minor faction I'm trying hard to raise up but they have no station of their own and there are only two factions and one station in the system. My faction is Empire aligned but I cannot turn in bounties there, so is that not assisting them?

You need to cash the bounties in.

Michael

 

[iAmLegion]

Here's a high level piece that I prepared earlier:

Civil War – 1,010 – Triggered by changes in influence between competing minor factions, or when a single minor faction reaches a high enough influence level. Decreases standard of living and security while active. Creates conflict zones and only combat missions or actions provide any benefit to the minor faction.

Michael

Question about this.

In the system we are at we have one faction at 96%

2 factions at 0%

1 faction 3%

By what you say that should not mean a civil war. Unless you meant that if one faction (in this case the one with 96%) forces the other two factions to go to war to make one of them stay in the system.
Is that what you are saying? Ie if one becomes to big with two tiny ones those two tiny will go to war.

 

[CMDRKNac]

Michael what happens if I'm trying to help minor faction A in system X (anarchy - independent) bounty hunting controlling faction B -anarchists-, and can only cash out in system Y (federation, empire, whatever).

Seems bounty hunting only helps the controlling faction when cashed in in it's own system, and your rank with the major faction you cash bounties for.

 

[WalterHWhite]

Apologies if an answer has been given for this one.

Does blowing up faction ships (clean or otherwise) and authority ships have an effect on the factions when you do it outside of bulletin board missions?
Along the same lines, does blockading a faction's station (thoretically reducing the amount of trade it does) also help influence change?

 

[Michael Brookes]

Question about this.

In the system we are at we have one faction at 96%

2 factions at 0%

1 faction 3%

By what you say that should not mean a civil war. Unless you meant that if one faction (in this case the one with 96%) forces the other two factions to go to war to make one of them stay in the system.
Is that what you are saying? Ie if one becomes to big with two tiny ones those two tiny will go to war.

Without knowing the details I don't know. Where is this?

Michael

 

[Gedemon]

Actions include trading, missions, bounty hunting, combat bonds and cashing in exploration data.

Michael

I assume that you also need to cash combat bonds to have an effect on a system, if that's the case, does it means that currently destroying an Anaconda or a federal fighter has the same impact on a war, and is this planned to change sooner(tm) or later ?

 

[SushiCW]

You need to cash the bounties in.

Michael

So if you collect bounties in system A and cash them in in system B, only system B factions are affected by those bounties, but system A factions are still affected by the ships that got destroyed?

 

[Kris]

I assume that you also need to cash combat bonds to have an effect on a system, if that's the case, does it means that currently destroying an Anaconda or a federal fighter has the same impact on a war, and is this planned to change sooner(tm) or later ?

I think it´s on cash...meaning bigger bounty means bigger influence (and as should be - more dangerous enemy). I see no reason to change it.

 

[ATrifleMiffed]

Without knowing the details I don't know. Where is this?

Michael

i`ve been seeing this in Turir, Facece, and a few other systems. Two factions with 0 influence in a civil war state, spawning low-intensity zones and fighting endlessly without any visible changes to the system influences.

 

[carniak]

Lockdowns – 61 – Triggered by low security and development level for system. Increases security level while active and loses wealth for the same period. Bounty hunting for the minor faction has greater impact.

Hi Michael,
For the Lockdown status, how does this affect Anarchy factions (i.e. all pirate/crime factions)?

Consider the following:

• In Lockdown state, Anarchy factions bleeds influence due to loss of wealth.
• Only Anarchy factions have bounties, as a result all attempts to lift Lockdown will further bleed an Anarchy faction of influence.
• All Anarchy faction missions reduce security and thus increase lockdown... as a result, Lockdown is inevitable.

The above prevents an Anarchy faction from ever gaining significant influence. It also locks them into a death spiral where all actions other than "legal enterprises" lead to eventual collapse. This is particularly counter-intuitive since the "Lockdown" state is presumably being instigated by some system security. Wouldn't it make sense that destroying this system security would reduce lockdown?

As is, hunting down authority actually increases lockdown.

 

[Kerrec Snowmane]

Boom – 1504 – Boom states start when there are increases in wealth and standard of living. While active it increases the wealth of the system and benefits of trade missions completed for the minor faction.
Michael

Disclaimer, I make these comments with the best of intentions:

A Boom state is triggered by Wealth and it generates Wealth. This is an UNSTABLE condition. A system in BOOM will not come out of BOOM unless direct action is taken that not only counters the bonus to Wealth granted by BOOM, but also decreases wealth below the threshold that started BOOM.

This kind of instability is seen everywhere in the background simulation. Sub-Factions with high influence generate the lion's share of missions, which in turn generates more influence for that sub-faction... an unstable condition that keeps the sub-faction at the top at the expense of all the others. Another example is, factions with high influence own the stations. All commodities trading, exploration data selling produces influence for the station owner, which happens to be the faction with the highest influence. So again, the rich get richer.

This is all unstable and will always lead to the situation that exists right now: an unreasonable quantity of systems with one dominant sub faction, or in the case of states, a huge quantity of BOOM and CIVIL WARS. Note Civil Wars are often between two sub-factions with almost no influence at all, so whatever the threshold is, it is easy to trigger.

 

[CMDRKNac]

Kerrec max state running time is 3 weeks. And after that they go into cooldown.

Hardly ideal to have it hardcoded like that but works for now I guess. The reason there are so many booms is because is the easiest of all states to achieve, something that should be really fine tunned. I also don' like the natural trend of all the controlling factions, usually having better positioned stations, rising influence all the time and becoming dominant in every system. This will only lead to stagnation long term (like in rare trading systems).

In general trading is waaaaaay overpowered to move influence, and other things unreasonably do nothing (attack authority ships) except indirectly (civil unrest, lockdown etc)

 

[sirius42]

Actions include trading, missions, bounty hunting, combat bonds and cashing in exploration data.

Michael

So cashing in exploration data has a positive impact (on influence) then on the minor faction it has been sold to ? Are there also other impact on the minor faction delivering exploration data (colonization etc) ?

 

[WalterHWhite]

So cashing in exploration data has a positive impact then on the minor faction it has been sold to ? Are there also other impact on the minor faction delivering exploration data (colonization etc) ?

I think that was covered in the 1.1 update thread. There is definitely an up and coming mechanic in regards to that.

 

[sirius42]

I think that was covered in the 1.1 update thread. There is definitely an up and coming mechanic in regards to that.

That would be pretty awesome.

 

[iAmLegion]

Without knowing the details I don't know. Where is this?

Michael

i'll pm you the details

 

[Kerrec Snowmane]

Kerrec max state running time is 3 weeks. And after that they go into cooldown.

Hardly ideal to have it hardcoded like that but works for now I guess. The reason there are so many booms is because is the easiest of all states to achieve, something that should be really fine tunned. I also don' like the natural trend of all the controlling factions, usually having better positioned stations, rising influence all the time and becoming dominant in every system. This will only lead to stagnation long term (like in rare trading systems).

In general trading is waaaaaay overpowered to move influence, and other things unreasonably do nothing (attack authority ships) except indirectly (civil unrest, lockdown etc)

Hardly ideal indeed. It shows the simulation is broken and always ends at the same end condition, which is one big influence winner and all others are irrelevant. They went and added a band aid to break the cycle, allowing CMDR's a chance to change the outcome after that cool down expires. But that's a broken design.
It should have been a stable simulation that always ends in a balanced distribution for influence. Then CMDR interaction pushes sub-factions into those various states that can shift the simulation in any particular direction. And FDev could go into low trafficked systems and artificially create conditions to draw attention or produce a conflict for their storylines.

 

[Michael Brookes]

Hi Michael,
For the Lockdown status, how does this affect Anarchy factions (i.e. all pirate/crime factions)?

Consider the following:

• In Lockdown state, Anarchy factions bleeds influence due to loss of wealth.
• Only Anarchy factions have bounties, as a result all attempts to lift Lockdown will further bleed an Anarchy faction of influence.
• All Anarchy faction missions reduce security and thus increase lockdown... as a result, Lockdown is inevitable.

The above prevents an Anarchy faction from ever gaining significant influence. It also locks them into a death spiral where all actions other than "legal enterprises" lead to eventual collapse. This is particularly counter-intuitive since the "Lockdown" state is presumably being instigated by some system security. Wouldn't it make sense that destroying this system security would reduce lockdown?

As is, hunting down authority actually increases lockdown.

Anarchy states tend to have low security anyway so would usually be below the threshold.

Michael

 

[Michael Brookes]

Disclaimer, I make these comments with the best of intentions:

A Boom state is triggered by Wealth and it generates Wealth. This is an UNSTABLE condition. A system in BOOM will not come out of BOOM unless direct action is taken that not only counters the bonus to Wealth granted by BOOM, but also decreases wealth below the threshold that started BOOM.

This kind of instability is seen everywhere in the background simulation. Sub-Factions with high influence generate the lion's share of missions, which in turn generates more influence for that sub-faction... an unstable condition that keeps the sub-faction at the top at the expense of all the others. Another example is, factions with high influence own the stations. All commodities trading, exploration data selling produces influence for the station owner, which happens to be the faction with the highest influence. So again, the rich get richer.

This is all unstable and will always lead to the situation that exists right now: an unreasonable quantity of systems with one dominant sub faction, or in the case of states, a huge quantity of BOOM and CIVIL WARS. Note Civil Wars are often between two sub-factions with almost no influence at all, so whatever the threshold is, it is easy to trigger.

This is incorrect - boom states will end naturally and without intervention.

Michael