You're correct that retreat is a universal state. It'll show as active in all systems, even if it only applies to one. So your supposition that the retreat happened in another system is very plausable.
A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
You're correct that retreat is a universal state. It'll show as active in all systems, even if it only applies to one. So your supposition that the retreat happened in another system is very plausable.
Good call. I checked the system they expanded into our system from, and that is in fact where they retreated from, not my system.
Hecate had 9 factions a week ago, it has 6 now and one of those is in retreat.
I recently won a war for my faction.
It seems we are in cooldown as I can't start a conflict in another system, but there are no recovering states listed either in status panel or system map in any of my systems - including the one where the war was.
Observed behavior or something odd?
It seems we are in cooldown as I can't start a conflict in another system, but there are no recovering states listed either in status panel or system map in any of my systems - including the one where the war was.
Observed behavior or something odd?
It looks to me that 2.5% is the cutoff for whether the faction stays or goes. But more data is needed to confirm.
I think so. It seems like they were a bit mixed up during the stream with the stuff that was live and the changes that were coming in 2.1. The 15% expansion cost, no influence decay, expansion range, etc. all seem to be in 2.1
Current tick takes place at about 1700hr UTC, 6.00 BST.
The regular topslicing under 2.0 when the leader factions had a little taken off the top to be distributed among the lower achievers was a good indicator of the tick. As we all now know, it was just a mathematical artefact.
Last edited:
how about a certain threshold, that it needs to loose during retreat? like that win-a-war threshold. would fit to the different percentage values of faction staying or leaving...
one of the factions that survived was at 2.6% on final day and dropped to 2.3% on same tick retreat finished
just checked, Varati ring remained on 1.0% during the whole duration of state and was removed
Last edited:
We've seen the same. Faction stays at the same influence all through Retreat pending and active, then still goes home. So it's safe to conclude that factions don't need to lose a certain amount during retreat.
In fact, we've seen a faction end the retreat state at a higher influence than when they entered it, and still got sent home. So just gaining influence isn't good enough either.
This is certainly frustrating as I agree with you that expansion should happen after 3 - 5 days but I am guessing we must be washing in the wrong soap as we are still in expansion.
We are trying to check all our nearby systems but I guess I am guilty of looking more regularly at the Galnet News, however is that flawed or what?
I cannot talk about any other system but we have news reports of minor factions located in our system going into elections with factions that do not exist within this location. Yes it is possible they exist elsewhere but Galnet is adamant the elections are definitely taking place in our very specific location. clearly they are factually incorrect, just like this 3 - 5 days of being in expansion.
We are like children waiting for our Christmas presents that should have come down the chimney on Christmas Day.... boy would I have been disappointed if Father Christmas boycotted our house
Me impatient??? Moi??
It's something I've seen many times before in the past year. It seems to happen most often with conflict states - I've seen a spurious news story about a war popping up in the home system of the faction, some 20ly away, and worded as if the war was taking place in the home system.
It's a good indication that there's a conflict somewhere, but not of where it is.
I think our experience highlighted how silly those posts are, they bore no relevance to our situation or the conflicts we were involved in. The wording was crystal clear in so far as the disputes were allegedly taking place in our home system, BUT..... just like 100thmonkey has suggested the 'unknown' or unheard of faction is actually in dispute in a completely different system that has nothing to do with our own specific faction.
Hello fellow BGS acolytes,
I though I would run this one past you before I put in a bug report...
I am running smuggling missions for my Anarchy faction.
On completion of the smuggling missions, the summary says that Civil Unrest has increased for my faction who gave me the mission. Indeed, we now have Civil Unrest as a Pending state.
Pre 2.1, completing smuggling missions would cause Civil Unrest in the target system, not the originating system, which does make more sense.
It seems silly that my Anarchy faction is undermining itself by issuing smuggling jobs!
Can anyone else confirm similar observations and if this behaviour has indeed changed from pre-2.1?
Thanks in advance!
I though I would run this one past you before I put in a bug report...
I am running smuggling missions for my Anarchy faction.
On completion of the smuggling missions, the summary says that Civil Unrest has increased for my faction who gave me the mission. Indeed, we now have Civil Unrest as a Pending state.
Pre 2.1, completing smuggling missions would cause Civil Unrest in the target system, not the originating system, which does make more sense.
It seems silly that my Anarchy faction is undermining itself by issuing smuggling jobs!
Can anyone else confirm similar observations and if this behaviour has indeed changed from pre-2.1?
Thanks in advance!
Well. Been testing 'coup' and can confirm it appears to be a myth.
We were told that we needed 60+ so we did that and waited out any blocking states from the sys owner in their other systems.
So. We thought we would try 70 percent. Once again there was a blocking election in another system so frustratingly we waited that out.
Then when no coup.... we pushed it to 75 (not easy in 2.1 in a high pop system with the sys owner having a rare).
No blocking states. No coup. The system owner has been on 1 or 0 percent for weeks upon weeks....
Very frustrating
We were told that we needed 60+ so we did that and waited out any blocking states from the sys owner in their other systems.
So. We thought we would try 70 percent. Once again there was a blocking election in another system so frustratingly we waited that out.
Then when no coup.... we pushed it to 75 (not easy in 2.1 in a high pop system with the sys owner having a rare).
No blocking states. No coup. The system owner has been on 1 or 0 percent for weeks upon weeks....
Very frustrating
Hello fellow BGS acolytes,
I though I would run this one past you before I put in a bug report...
I am running smuggling missions for my Anarchy faction.
On completion of the smuggling missions, the summary says that Civil Unrest has increased for my faction who gave me the mission. Indeed, we now have Civil Unrest as a Pending state.
Pre 2.1, completing smuggling missions would cause Civil Unrest in the target system, not the originating system, which does make more sense.
It seems silly that my Anarchy faction is undermining itself by issuing smuggling jobs!
Can anyone else confirm similar observations and if this behaviour has indeed changed from pre-2.1?
Thanks in advance!
I can confirm this. I ran some missions for potentially the same faction as you Marra and received the same message, that civil unrest might be caused in the originating system not the target system.
One of the factions must have a blocking state in another system that you haven't found. I took control of a system yesterday after a war caused by my faction having > 60% influence.
You could try bug reporting it, if there are definitely no blocking states a war should have happened when you pushed past 60%.