A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim

[GabrielRocha86]

Hello gurus BGS! I have a question:


Does illegal trading increases or decreases the station owner's influence faction?


I've read that this should diminish the influence, but the spread sheet that Michael Brookes showed us in January indicates otherwise:

So, illegal trading improves or worsens the influence?

Thanks in advance!

 

[goemon]

Hello gurus BGS! I have a question:


Does illegal trading increases or decreases the station owner's influence faction?


I've read that this should diminish the influence, but the spread sheet that Michael Brookes showed us in January indicates otherwise:

http://i.imgur.com/l4PD8Y3.jpg

So, illegal trading improves or worsens the influence?

Thanks in advance!

it decreases. table shown during the BGS had some differences to MBs. and met our tests.

 

[GabrielRocha86]

it decreases. table shown during the BGS had some differences to MBs. and met our tests.

Oh I see.

Thanks a lot for the quick answer! Have a rep!

 

[Szyslak22]

what i see atm:

- factions in conflict loose influence, if nothing is done. that influence is given to other factions in relation to their influence.

- factions in conflict gain influence of all factions in system.

correct?

It's hard for me to say with any confidence right now. The movements are very erratic when people are actively engaged in the conflict. If nothing is done in the conflict, both conflicting factions lose equal amounts. If nothing is done in the system, the influence doesn't move.

I have seen both conflicting factions take influence from the rest of the system, but it's rare. Usually the side we are fighting for holds their ground or makes very small gains, while the other faction loses influence to the rest of the system.

I've seen someone else suggest this, and I'm sorry but I can't remember who right now. It's almost like the ability to gain influence is locked between the conflicting factions, but losing influence is not. It looks like the exception to this is where a faction not in conflict would lose influence anyway, then it can be distributed to the conflicting factions.

Honestly though, a lot of us are scratching our heads over the way some of these conflicts are going. It seems highly probable that it's not working correctly.

 

[goemon]

It's hard for me to say with any confidence right now. The movements are very erratic when people are actively engaged in the conflict. If nothing is done in the conflict, both conflicting factions lose equal amounts. If nothing is done in the system, the influence doesn't move.

I have seen both conflicting factions take influence from the rest of the system, but it's rare. Usually the side we are fighting for holds their ground or makes very small gains, while the other faction loses influence to the rest of the system.

I've seen someone else suggest this, and I'm sorry but I can't remember who right now. It's almost like the ability to gain influence is locked between the conflicting factions, but losing influence is not. It looks like the exception to this is where a faction not in conflict would lose influence anyway, then it can be distributed to the conflicting factions.

Honestly though, a lot of us are scratching our heads over the way some of these conflicts are going. It seems highly probable that it's not working correctly.

i have seen a faction gaining a lot of influence, while being in conflict, from all factions in system. it was an election, though.

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

Hello gurus BGS! I have a question:
Does illegal trading increases or decreases the station owner's influence faction?
I've read that this should diminish the influence, but the spread sheet that Michael Brookes showed us in January indicates otherwise:
So, illegal trading improves or worsens the influence?

Trading illegal goods definitely lowers the influence of a controlling faction.
Here is the proof:

I was tracking the Herthe factions because I wanted a particular faction in control for a CG, and nearly had to step in to influence this half way in the graph. The dramatic changes in influence in the last week are due to the illegal rare goods smuggling CG. The controlling faction lost about 65% influence in 5 days.

 

[irongut]

It's hard for me to say with any confidence right now. The movements are very erratic when people are actively engaged in the conflict. If nothing is done in the conflict, both conflicting factions lose equal amounts. If nothing is done in the system, the influence doesn't move.

I have seen both conflicting factions take influence from the rest of the system, but it's rare. Usually the side we are fighting for holds their ground or makes very small gains, while the other faction loses influence to the rest of the system.

I've seen someone else suggest this, and I'm sorry but I can't remember who right now. It's almost like the ability to gain influence is locked between the conflicting factions, but losing influence is not. It looks like the exception to this is where a faction not in conflict would lose influence anyway, then it can be distributed to the conflicting factions.

Honestly though, a lot of us are scratching our heads over the way some of these conflicts are going. It seems highly probable that it's not working correctly.

This agrees with my current experience. Two factions in a conflict only gain influence from each other but they can lose influence to the other factions in system.

When 2.1 first launched I saw some factions in conflict lose a small percentage every day if I did nothing in system but I'm not seing that over the last week or so. I'm not sure if something changed or if my assumptions at the time were wrong.

 

[Jmanis]

Hello gurus BGS! I have a question:

Does illegal trading increases or decreases the station owner's influence faction?

I've read that this should diminish the influence, but the spread sheet that Michael Brookes showed us in January indicates otherwise:

http://i.imgur.com/l4PD8Y3.jpg

So, illegal trading improves or worsens the influence?

Thanks in advance!

What Limoncello Lizard. Black Market Trading definitely decreases the influence of the target faction... it's one of my primary techniques since being hostile got the big nerfstick.

 

[dynamicbob]

agree it seems illegal trading is a good way to overthrow governments, i think its time to change the balance of power in a few outer rim locations

 

[AlexRowDoudou]

Hi guys ! I need your knowlegde ! (again )

I can't find out if it's possible to have 2 currents states for a faction, in my case it's retreat and outbreak.
(explanation : i was playing last week and the current state was retreat and pending was outbreak, Then when I came back from my weekend break the retreat was current but the outbreak was in recover! so there was a time when this two where active at the same time !)

Fly safe o7

 

[goemon]

Hi guys ! I need your knowlegde ! (again )

I can't find out if it's possible to have 2 currents states for a faction, in my case it's retreat and outbreak.
(explanation : i was playing last week and the current state was retreat and pending was outbreak, Then when I came back from my weekend break the retreat was current but the outbreak was in recover! so there was a time when this two where active at the same time !)

Fly safe o7

no, it isn't possible two have one faction with two active states.

sounds to me like: retreat active, outbreak pending - retreat ends (and goes recovering), outbreak wents active - retreat goes pending - outbreak ends and goes recovering, retreat goes active.

afaik we don't have a countdown and cooldown number of ticks for retreat from official source.

 

[LAYNOR LUNA LAGOONA]

Hello
i have a big question:

How to win an Election ??? :O

 

[Jmanis]

Just reporting another data point.

While I can't say the same for War/Civil War, it seems Elections *don't* appear to limit influence exchanges between the two involved factions, or at least there's some mechanism around that restriction. My faction is currently in an election which started out at 21% vs 9% (30% tied up total, in my faction's favour). This is the same election and it's now 40% vs 4% (44%, much greater than 30%). Possibly related, but I took up a mission for the same faction in a nearby system which, while not in an election state, was certainly offering an election-related mission (an assasination, dangerous rank, 1.6m reward). I did do that.

I believe someone commented on this before.

How to win an election? Do what you'd normally do to support your faction.

 

[Szyslak22]

Hi guys ! I need your knowlegde ! (again )

I can't find out if it's possible to have 2 currents states for a faction, in my case it's retreat and outbreak.
(explanation : i was playing last week and the current state was retreat and pending was outbreak, Then when I came back from my weekend break the retreat was current but the outbreak was in recover! so there was a time when this two where active at the same time !)

Fly safe o7

It's not possible to have two states active at the same time. But it is possible (in 2.1) for 2 states to try to go active on the same tick, and one cancels the other. For example, you might have boom pending for a few days, then have retreat pending for one day. During the tick, the boom goes active. But then the process finds the retreat state ready to go. Since retreat can cancel economic states, it cancels the boom and goes active. So after the influence update it looks like Boom went straight from pending to recovering, and retreat went from pending to active.

Again, not sure if this is intended behavior, but it is how things are currently working.

afaik we don't have a countdown and cooldown number of ticks for retreat from official source.

Retreat Pending is 1 Day. Retreat Active is 5 days unless interrupted by conflict. Retreat recovery is 2 days. I'd like to see something official as well, but all the retreats we've observed have followed those durations.

 

[Shizuka]

It's not possible to have two states active at the same time. But it is possible (in 2.1) for 2 states to try to go active on the same tick, and one cancels the other. For example, you might have boom pending for a few days, then have retreat pending for one day. During the tick, the boom goes active. But then the process finds the retreat state ready to go. Since retreat can cancel economic states, it cancels the boom and goes active. So after the influence update it looks like Boom went straight from pending to recovering, and retreat went from pending to active.

Again, not sure if this is intended behavior, but it is how things are currently working.

Retreat Pending is 1 Day. Retreat Active is 5 days unless interrupted by conflict. Retreat recovery is 2 days. I'd like to see something official as well, but all the retreats we've observed have followed those durations.

What do you mean with "interrupted by conflict"? I have faction A on retreat, with 22% influence in the system I wanna battle for the station, and Faction B with 65%, but there is no pending war.

What could be happening?

 

[goemon]

What do you mean with "interrupted by conflict"? I have faction A on retreat, with 22% influence in the system I wanna battle for the station, and Faction B with 65%, but there is no pending war.

What could be happening?

the retreat will be a state coming from another system the factions is in; conflicts are often blcoked by (active, pending or reovering) conflicts in other systems a faction is in. so - check right hand panel in all system that 22% faction is in.

 

[Szyslak22]

What do you mean with "interrupted by conflict"? I have faction A on retreat, with 22% influence in the system I wanna battle for the station, and Faction B with 65%, but there is no pending war.

What could be happening?

Is the 22% faction in control of the system? There could be a few reasons why the conflict won't go pending, it's hard to know without more info on the scenario. But I do have some examples of conflict going active and cancelling an active retreat. I don't know one way or the other if conflict can go pending during retreat, but I suspect it can. My assumption at this point is that retreat has all the same state priorities as expansion.

 

[Jmanis]

Just double checking... 2 week cooldown on expansion is timed from the end of the active expansion state.

i.e pending -> active -> Recovering + expansion occurs + begin cooldown?

I expanded on 15 June, and my recovering states are "None" and just gone up to 75.7%, but no Expansion pending. The only other system this faction is present in has no active states (can definitely guarantee that's the only other system this faction is in)

 

[dynamicbob]

Just double checking... 2 week cooldown on expansion is timed from the end of the active expansion state.

i.e pending -> active -> Recovering + expansion occurs + begin cooldown?

I expanded on 15 June, and my recovering states are "None" and just gone up to 75.7%, but no Expansion pending. The only other system this faction is present in has no active states (can definitely guarantee that's the only other system this faction is in)

possible 2 weeks, id suggest doing as many message delivery missions as u can , throw in some exploration data and push that influence over 80% if possible

 

[goemon]

On investment state and exploration data

just a quick follow up.

if an expansion fails, minor faction gets into investment state.

a) range: at least >40 ly. cooper research have expanded to maia, and anthill mob have expanded to cooper research. thats 41,7 ly after investment state. i will monitor cooper research to see whether they expand into the bubble next (~140 ly).

b) you don't need to sell any exploration data, nor have to run any missions to make an investment phase successfull. proof: cooper research. their outpost doesn't have cartographics data, and it didn't had a mission board till last patch. so, it is probably about influence only.