A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim

[Jmanis]

Throwing out another data point. Might actually be worth looking into this one, get some independent verification.

My faction (only in control of one system) went into expansion, and appeared in the closest system.
My faction then went into expansion a fortnight later, and appeared in the next closest system.

Is it possible that expansion from a system now goes to the closest system where that faction is not present since 2.1?

For what it's worth, I have tried to account for other variables such as population size/economy etc. but there seems to be no other pattern.

 

[jimbeau1571]

Throwing out another data point. Might actually be worth looking into this one, get some independent verification.

My faction (only in control of one system) went into expansion, and appeared in the closest system.
My faction then went into expansion a fortnight later, and appeared in the next closest system.

Is it possible that expansion from a system now goes to the closest system where that faction is not present since 2.1?

For what it's worth, I have tried to account for other variables such as population size/economy etc. but there seems to be no other pattern.

Definitely mine and a fellow Cmdrs experience. The limit on factions in a system seems to have raised from the previous 4 to 7 before it will ignore a system. Throw in the chance to push factions into retreat, and you can definitely corner your little side of the bubble.

 

[Jmanis]

Definitely mine and a fellow Cmdrs experience. The limit on factions in a system seems to have raised from the previous 4 to 7 before it will ignore a system. Throw in the chance to push factions into retreat, and you can definitely corner your little side of the bubble.

Cool, this makes much more sense in my opinion. The whole reason I picked this point of space in Jan 2015 was due to the diversity of economies in the region, and the presence of Empire, Federal and Independents, giving me a territory to mould into an Imperial landscape. Right now my faction's staring down the barrel of owning Agricultural, Extraction, Refining, Industrial and High Tech economies in just three systems, and that's got some awesome possibilities.

 

[The Tick]

this isn't important in that case. a minor faction can have only one active state - if it is in civil war, it has the state of civil war in all systems it is present in, and markets and mission spawns are influenced the same way.

I have to politely disagree. Yes, most states are galaxy wide for a faction (boom, bust, expansion, retreat), with the exception of all (civil) war states, they are in that one system only.

 

[Jmanis]

I have to politely disagree. Yes, most states are galaxy wide for a faction (boom, bust, expansion, retreat), with the exception of all (civil) war states, they are in that one system only.

Sort-of correct. While it's true that the state will only appear as active in the system where it triggered (and goemon, in that regard, was wrong), missions related to that state will spawn in all systems where that faction is present. The conflict states in that sense are "sort of global" even though they appear only in the local system where they occurred as a state.

This may also explain the current galaxy map bug where the state filter shows "War/Civil War/Election" in systems where no such event is occurring; I believe this is a result of the fact those states are registered "globally", but hidden in the state view from all systems except the one where it occurred.

For example, when my faction was in an Election state, the neighbouring system where my faction was present (where it's state was None) offered "Election Support" missions.

This is about to be the case again soon, so I can provide screenies to verify that in a couple days.

 

[goemon]

Sort-of correct. While it's true that the state will only appear as active in the system where it triggered (and goemon, in that regard, was wrong), missions related to that state will spawn in all systems where that faction is present. The conflict states in that sense are "sort of global" even though they appear only in the local system where they occurred as a state.

This may also explain the current galaxy map bug where the state filter shows "War/Civil War/Election" in systems where no such event is occurring; I believe this is a result of the fact those states are registered "globally", but hidden in the state view from all systems except the one where it occurred.

For example, when my faction was in an Election state, the neighbouring system where my faction was present (where it's state was None) offered "Election Support" missions.

This is about to be the case again soon, so I can provide screenies to verify that in a couple days.

we had a bit of an academic discussion some weeks back in this very thread (when permoa boom was much more of a problem by design for minor factions).

i think, there are two opinions about the central mechanic behind it.

a) state "buckets" are faction wide. states are faction wide. e.g.: once the faction wide boom bucket is full, the faction gets into boom in all systems. and boom can be countered in any system.

b) state buckets are system specific, but a state is faction wide. e.g. once the boom bucket is full in one system, the faction is in boom in all systems. but boom can be only countered and resolved in the origin system (like the conflict states war/civil war/election).

i personally tend to the second concept, but it is really academic, because it is only possible to track back ingame, where a state comes from only with war(s). state specific pois, if not conflict zones, can spawn in all systems, state-related npc spawn in all systems, etc. actually the new USS-state-specific materials could maybe help to answer that question?

anyway, the effect on markets of a state (what i was referring to with "in that case") is faction wide. as the effect on missionboads. and you can't have two active states at the same time.

 

[CMDR pollycough]

To answer my own question, Retreat overrides civil unrest.

Can anyone give me an idea of how retreat works? I have understood that it is keep them below 2.5% for 5 days.
But what if it is a PvP BGS conflict and someone is supporting the one you are trying to get out?, What if it keeps getting pushed above 2.5 and then back down? has it got to be consecutive days ect?. Any advice would be welcome.

 

[Walter2]

this isn't important in that case. a minor faction can have only one active state - if it is in civil war, it has the state of civil war in all systems it is present in, and markets and mission spawns are influenced the same way.

It may be more complicated.

We set up a War in a system that our faction had expanded into and had built it up to the point where victory is certain without further intervention. While the War is in progress we had intended boosting the faction in the Home system so it will be ready to Expand again once the War is over. To further this Home promotion I earned 12m yesterday in missions and trade, apparently to no effect.

We all know that only conflict-related missions have any effect during a conflict, but I have always understood that as conflict missions within the conflicted system and not in other systems that the faction might have a presence. The implication is that, during a conflict, the influence level of your faction cannot be changed in any other system other than the conflict system.

Thinking about it, this state of affairs may be related to this bug: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ystem-bugged?p=4157638&viewfull=1#post4157638

In summary, if your faction is in conflict in one system you cannot promote/support/rescue your faction in any other system: you're essentially locked out - but you can lose influence if things go against you in any system.

 

[goemon]

It may be more complicated.

We set up a War in a system that our faction had expanded into and had built it up to the point where victory is certain without further intervention. While the War is in progress we had intended boosting the faction in the Home system so it will be ready to Expand again once the War is over. To further this Home promotion I earned 12m yesterday in missions and trade, apparently to no effect.

We all know that only conflict-related missions have any effect during a conflict, but I have always understood that as conflict missions within the conflicted system and not in other systems that the faction might have a presence. The implication is that, during a conflict, the influence level of your faction cannot be changed in any other system other than the conflict system.

Thinking about it, this state of affairs may be related to this bug: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ystem-bugged?p=4157638&viewfull=1#post4157638

In summary, if your faction is in conflict in one system you cannot promote/support/rescue your faction in any other system: you're essentially locked out - but you can lose influence if things go against you in any system.

did you try combat activities? e.g. cashing in bounties, bonds, killing other faction ships? technically any other action should have no effect.

 

[Walter2]

did you try combat activities? e.g. cashing in bounties, bonds, killing other faction ships? technically any other action should have no effect.

No. Outside the conflict system there were no combat missions, as you can imagine, and I wasn't expecting to have to look for any. Besides which, why should killing wanted ships in the home system continue to benefit the faction when ordinary missions have no effect? Apart from which, I'm running missions in an unarmed ship to maximise results.

I'm sure this situation is new to 1.6/2.1.

 

[Flavourless]

I also suspect multiple states may now be possible, by design or bug.
My faction was in pending expansion on home world when I accidentally triggered an election in another system.
I won the election as quickly as possible, expecting to go back to pushing for expansion - but the expansion happened anyway, during the election.

 

[goemon]

No. Outside the conflict system there were no combat missions, as you can imagine, and I wasn't expecting to have to look for any. Besides which, why should killing wanted ships in the home system continue to benefit the faction when ordinary missions have no effect? Apart from which, I'm running missions in an unarmed ship to maximise results.

I'm sure this situation is new to 1.6/2.1.

because during war "Only combat missions and combat actions contribute while these states are active." - not necessarily conflict zones, as confirmed in the BGS livestream, but any combat actions.

 

[goemon]

I also suspect multiple states may now be possible, by design or bug.
My faction was in pending expansion on home world when I accidentally triggered an election in another system.
I won the election as quickly as possible, expecting to go back to pushing for expansion - but the expansion happened anyway, during the election.

do you have counted the ticks - i'd say more likely: election pending, expansion pending, expansion goes actve as election at the same tick, but election "after" expansion expansion happens (like when you "break" an active expansion with a conflict.

 

[Flavourless]

because during war "Only combat missions and combat actions contribute while these states are active." - not necessarily conflict zones, as confirmed in the BGS livestream, but any combat actions.

No wars involved
Point is my faction won an election and expanded to a new system - simultaneously.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

do you have counted the ticks - i'd say more likely: election pending, expansion pending, expansion goes actve as election at the same tick, but election "after" expansion expansion happens (like when you "break" an active expansion with a conflict.

Negative.
Expansion was still pending when election went live.

 

[goemon]

No wars involved
Point is my faction won an election and expanded to a new system - simultaneously.

should have been an answer to walter2 - edited

Negative.
Expansion was still pending when election went live.

but the expansion happened? without expansion state going active? e.g. expansion was pending all time, but expansion happened?

 

[Walter2]

because during war "Only combat missions and combat actions contribute while these states are active." - not necessarily conflict zones, as confirmed in the BGS livestream, but any combat actions.

As per normal - but previously we've been able to raise the influence of our factions in systems that aren't in conflict using normal methods. The "Only combat missions and combat actions contribute while these states are active." has only applied to the system in conflict. Raising influence for the faction in systems other than the conflict system is a tactic we've used in the past.

 

[jimbeau1571]

Sort-of correct. While it's true that the state will only appear as active in the system where it triggered (and goemon, in that regard, was wrong), missions related to that state will spawn in all systems where that faction is present. The conflict states in that sense are "sort of global" even though they appear only in the local system where they occurred as a state.

This may also explain the current galaxy map bug where the state filter shows "War/Civil War/Election" in systems where no such event is occurring; I believe this is a result of the fact those states are registered "globally", but hidden in the state view from all systems except the one where it occurred.

For example, when my faction was in an Election state, the neighbouring system where my faction was present (where it's state was None) offered "Election Support" missions.

This is about to be the case again soon, so I can provide screenies to verify that in a couple days.

I kind of agree and disagree here.

As far as the Gal map is concerned, the state of the system is in regards to the OWNING faction only. This state, is a global state in that it reflects across all the systems that the faction is the OWNING faction of that system. So if your faction is at War/CW/Election for example in a system (not owning or owning), then on the Galmap it will say War/CW/Election on the systems you are the OWNING faction only.
So if you are present in 3 systems it could read like this:

Sys 1 - Owning - Galmap state War - Sysmap state - None
Sys 2 - Non owning - Galmap state None - Sysmap state War
Sys 3 - Non owning - Galmap state None - Sysmap state None

Other states are Galactic wide, Economic states/Expansion/Retreat, and all systems present in you will be in this state. Galmap however will only detail this if you are the OWNING faction.
So the same 3 systems could look like this:

Sys 1 - Owning - Galmap state Boom - Sysmap state Boom
Sys 2 - Non owning - Galmap state None - Sysmap state Boom
Sys 3 - Non owning - Galmap state None - Sysmap state Boom

That is my current understanding of how the Galmap states are working.

 

[goemon]

Sys 2 - Non owning - Galmap state None - Sysmap state War
Sys 3 - Non owning - Galmap state None - Sysmap state None

how come there is a difference between sys 2 and 3?

 

[Sentenza]

No. Outside the conflict system there were no combat missions, as you can imagine, and I wasn't expecting to have to look for any. Besides which, why should killing wanted ships in the home system continue to benefit the faction when ordinary missions have no effect? Apart from which, I'm running missions in an unarmed ship to maximise results.

I'm sure this situation is new to 1.6/2.1.

In the same situation I tried bounty hunting (it's good to have a HazRES) and it appeared to have effect. So indeed killing wanted ships counts as 'combat actions'.

 

[Walter2]

In the same situation I tried bounty hunting (it's good to have a HazRES) and it appeared to have effect. So indeed killing wanted ships counts as 'combat actions'.

There's no question about this as it's always been the case that bounty hunting counts as a conflict-based contribution to influence.

But it's not unusual to find your faction in a conflict - or series of conflicts - just after an Expansion, giving you little opportunity to recoup the 15% loss incurred during the Expansion while the conflicts are going on.

I was questioning the logic behind having bounty hunting or kill missions (if either were available) contributing to the influence of your faction in a system not in conflict when other missions don't.

I think this oddity - coupled with the misleading indicators on the maps and the hopelessly inaccurate Galnet news reports - is either an unintended consequence of an update, or a bug introduced during the update.

I'm really hoping that it isn't working as intended.