A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim

[jimbeau1571]

This issue of not being able to positively cause an upward change of your factions influence in a system where you faction resides while also being in War/CW/Election in another system is a big pain in the proverbial. Apart from being stupid.
Has this been confirmed by FD that this is now the intended way of things or is it one of those unintended consequences of the 'Upgrades' to the game?

 

[irongut]

Like I said it's been getting annoying-no, *infuriating*-hopping around to all these systems hoping to finally be able to take missions, only to see I can't because of the 'Cordial Wall'. And yea I *hate* PVP so I play solo exclusively, which means trying to affect the BGS in any huge way is kind of not an option for me. >_<

Why do you have to go to those systems to take missions? You can run missions and make credits anywhere in this game. I have never run missions in Robigo, Sothis, Ceos, Fehu or any similar systems and I'm sitting on 800m in credits and own a Cutter among other ships.

No that wasn't my point, I was responding to the point about how infeasible it is as a solo player to try and affect the BGS in any meaningful way in a reasonable amount of time, and since I hate PVP overall, I don't do open play and so know of no one to 'buddy up' with to try and affect it, that's all

Although I play in open 99% of the time I am usually on my own. I have two adopted factions, between them they are in 9 systems with expansion to a 10th pending and control 8 of them. They were only in their home systems when I adopted them about 9 months ago. Admitedly I'm on the edge of Empire space with low population systems (largest is 43m) and see very little outside interference but it is absolutely possible to manipulate the BGS as a solo player and you don't need a fleet of expensive ships to do it either.

 

[barnstormer1126]

Why do you have to go to those systems to take missions? You can run missions and make credits anywhere in this game. I have never run missions in Robigo, Sothis, Ceos, Fehu or any similar systems and I'm sitting on 800m in credits and own a Cutter among other ships.

Because the smuggling missions from those places outside the bubble are the highest paying compared to most equivalent missions anywhere else, as well as the fact that (if this reputation glitch weren't occurring) the faction giving them offers between 4 and 12 at a time? ...Duh? Also since, at Fehu and Robigo, the factions offering them are Empire aligned so it's also a good way to grind rep for the superpower to get that sexy sexy Cutter.

I've tried my hand at bounty hunting. I sucked. I tried mining; too tedious. Rare trading? Yeah, profitable, but as I mentioned before I prefer the feeling of being 'under contract' as opposed to an independent, plus *again, as I mentioned* I like knowing the exact payout I'm going to get before leaving on a trip, and the trade calculators, while decent, aren't 100% up to date and reliable. Which leaves trading/smuggling missions. Sure, I'm a broker now so within the bubble avg. payout for normal trading or smuggling missions is between 300k-900k...but when I see locations outside the bubble that I can get to in a fairly reasonable way with my AspX, that offer 4-10 missions paying *at minimum* 2-3 million, and I can stack between 3 and 5 of them depending on cargo space needed, and I'm, again, still at broker rank, it's a no brainer for me to try and go after those...but this damn reputation glitch is getting in the way, so they're inaccessible to me. So yes, when see everywhere on the net: "GO HERE FOR LR SMUGGLING", and then I get there only to see I can't take the missions and until this issue's fixed won't be able to, it's pretty damn aggravating.

 

[Jmanis]

Just thought I'd throw out an interesting data point.

Selling for a profit increases influence for the station owner, selling for a loss decreases influence... this much is known, but buying goods is still an unknown quantity (unless I missed a post somewhere)

I bought 5,000t of goods from a sleepy station, and sold them back to the same station for a loss last night. That faction gained 3% influence. I'd like to think that means buying goods = increase influence.

 

[Sentenza]

Just thought I'd throw out an interesting data point.

Selling for a profit increases influence for the station owner, selling for a loss decreases influence... this much is known, but buying goods is still an unknown quantity (unless I missed a post somewhere)

I bought 5,000t of goods from a sleepy station, and sold them back to the same station for a loss last night. That faction gained 3% influence. I'd like to think that means buying goods = increase influence.

It should be like this:

Selling wanted goods = good for the faction (you are giving them something they need)
Buying goods = good for the faction (you are giving them money)

Reselling at a loss goods just bought there was nerfed after it was abused at Wolfberg.

 

[_trent_]

Got a couple of quick questions relating to Civil War CZs.

If a player kills a number of enemy ships but is destroyed before they hand in the combat vouchers, do the kills still affect the BGS?
If a player takes missions to destroy a number of enemy ships at the CZ but is destroyed before reaching the total, does the mission fail, reset or do they carry on from where they left off once they've paid the rebuy?

Have looked through the thread and couldn't see an answer to these, apologies if it has been dealt with before.

 

[Sentenza]

Got a couple of quick questions relating to Civil War CZs.

If a player kills a number of enemy ships but is destroyed before they hand in the combat vouchers, do the kills still affect the BGS?
If a player takes missions to destroy a number of enemy ships at the CZ but is destroyed before reaching the total, does the mission fail, reset or do they carry on from where they left off once they've paid the rebuy?

Have looked through the thread and couldn't see an answer to these, apologies if it has been dealt with before.

1) No, kills only count when vouchers are cashed.
2) Unless it is explicitly stated that ship destruction causes fail - I don't think it happens in these missions - the mission can carry on.

 

[_trent_]

1) No, kills only count when vouchers are cashed.
2) Unless it is explicitly stated that ship destruction causes fail - I don't think it happens in these missions - the mission can carry on.

Thanks.

 

[Walter2]

I bought 5,000t of goods from a sleepy station, and sold them back to the same station for a loss last night. That faction gained 3% influence. I'd like to think that means buying goods = increase influence.

Must be an unintended consequence. Please let it be an oversight.

 

[Walter2]

Because the smuggling missions from those places outside the bubble are the highest paying compared to most equivalent missions anywhere else, as well as the fact that (if this reputation glitch weren't occurring) the faction giving them offers between 4 and 12 at a time? ...Duh? Also since, at Fehu and Robigo, the factions offering them are Empire aligned so it's also a good way to grind rep for the superpower to get that sexy sexy Cutter.

I've tried my hand at bounty hunting. I sucked. I tried mining; too tedious. Rare trading? Yeah, profitable, but as I mentioned before I prefer the feeling of being 'under contract' as opposed to an independent, plus *again, as I mentioned* I like knowing the exact payout I'm going to get before leaving on a trip, and the trade calculators, while decent, aren't 100% up to date and reliable. Which leaves trading/smuggling missions. Sure, I'm a broker now so within the bubble avg. payout for normal trading or smuggling missions is between 300k-900k...but when I see locations outside the bubble that I can get to in a fairly reasonable way with my AspX, that offer 4-10 missions paying *at minimum* 2-3 million, and I can stack between 3 and 5 of them depending on cargo space needed, and I'm, again, still at broker rank, it's a no brainer for me to try and go after those...but this damn reputation glitch is getting in the way, so they're inaccessible to me. So yes, when see everywhere on the net: "GO HERE FOR LR SMUGGLING", and then I get there only to see I can't take the missions and until this issue's fixed won't be able to, it's pretty damn aggravating.

I don't think anyone plays the BGS side of ED to get rich, although it is possible, especially on the outer reaches. I'm not going to attempt to analyse the motives of other contributors to his thread, but I'm fairly sure that becoming the wealthiest player with the most ships is not highest of their aspirations.

A basic tenet of this game is that you get owt for nowt (mostly) - anything is possible if you have a target and are prepared to work for it (and know what compromises you're prepared to make). Not having a high enough reputation with a faction to get good missions is not a "glitch", it's an obstacle that's fairly easy to overcome - it's how the game works: you work for a faction and gain its trust.

What do you want from this game? There are many groups where PVP is banned, that encourage piracy, that support the Empire/Alliance/Federation, that subvert the Empire/Alliance/Federation, that focus on a single faction in a single system, that are attempting to control an entire sector. There are successful individuals who are doing all of these things. With such a large player base it's perfectly possible to find other players who have the same objectives, but you can work on all of these things as a solo pilot - you just need to know what you want to achieve.

My apologies if I've misread/misunderstood your posts, but I'm not sure what your targets are.

 

[Schlack]

This issue of not being able to positively cause an upward change of your factions influence in a system where you faction resides while also being in War/CW/Election in another system is a big pain in the proverbial. Apart from being stupid.
Has this been confirmed by FD that this is now the intended way of things or is it one of those unintended consequences of the 'Upgrades' to the game?

I'm not sure the interpretation is correct. You can positively influence a factions influence, however you are limited in the tools you can use for the duration of the conflict. This can make it quite a challenge in busier systems which can wipe out weeks of hard won gains. As you say a real pain in the proverbials.

The BGS is always evolving. I don't believe that this latest iteration is an improvement. Far too much time is now spent on maintenance rather than expansion or taking system assets. It has probably been introduced to limit development of a faction once it hits a certain size, or at least provide a challenge for larger faction management.

 

[goemon]

It has probably been introduced to limit development of a faction once it hits a certain size, or at least provide a challenge for larger faction management.

basically weighing out the boom-blocking-expansion .... if you ask me, i prefer it this way. it makes sense, that a faction in war has to "pay for it". on the other hand, the idea of "costs" was much better in my opinion - so you could run a roaring economy to "finance" your war. also, it's all a bit mood without directing expansions. because you don't have a really a chance to choose systems, which you could win via election, instead of war.

 

[Schlack]

basically weighing out the boom-blocking-expansion .... if you ask me, i prefer it this way. it makes sense, that a faction in war has to "pay for it". on the other hand, the idea of "costs" was much better in my opinion - so you could run a roaring economy to "finance" your war. also, it's all a bit mood without directing expansions. because you don't have a really a chance to choose systems, which you could win via election, instead of war.

I'm not totally against this mechanism, but it could probably do with a tweak. It is too punishing in highly visited/active systems.

Election is also a conflict state. Your faction loses the benefits of bounties cashed, whereas other bounties factions count against you. In popular bounty hunting systems this can easily put you into trouble. Ill say it again, conflicts now have to be carefully planned with consideration of the repercussions for your faction in other systems.

 

[DNA-Decay]

Speaking of Civil War.

Here's one we prepared earlier:

[video=youtube_share;TUgiHUa9EWg]https://youtu.be/TUgiHUa9EWg[/video]

#FreeLeesti

* * * * *
Day 1 of Civil War: 5.1% swing. ILFE leads JPL by 2.3%

Well done CMDRs of the Alliance! Great to see everyone there.

* * * * *
Day 2 of CW: 4.5% Swing. ILFE leads JPL by 6.8%

AEDC reports more than 100 Million Cr in Combat bonds submitted in CW to date. All groups going hard. Open is busy with hollow squares fighting for ILFE.

Personal note 1: made Combat Rank Expert last night.

Personal note 2: four rebuys since sunday. Ratio of combat bonds to Insurance Costs 1:3. "Expert" my yellow Asp!

* * * * *
Day 3 of Civil War.
Swing 4.4%. ILFE leads JPL by 11.2%
This morning I was greeted by the new Aliance Traffic Controller!

This war should last one more day.
One more day and then peace will reign.

 

[Walter2]

The BGS is always evolving. I don't believe that this latest iteration is an improvement. Far too much time is now spent on maintenance rather than expansion or taking system assets. It has probably been introduced to limit development of a faction once it hits a certain size, or at least provide a challenge for larger faction management.

Unless it's an accidental by-product.

basically weighing out the boom-blocking-expansion .... if you ask me, i prefer it this way. it makes sense, that a faction in war has to "pay for it". on the other hand, the idea of "costs" was much better in my opinion - so you could run a roaring economy to "finance" your war. also, it's all a bit mood without directing expansions. because you don't have a really a chance to choose systems, which you could win via election, instead of war.

I'm not totally against this mechanism, but it could probably do with a tweak. It is too punishing in highly visited/active systems.

Election is also a conflict state. Your faction loses the benefits of bounties cashed, whereas other bounties factions count against you. In popular bounty hunting systems this can easily put you into trouble. Ill say it again, conflicts now have to be carefully planned with consideration of the repercussions for your faction in other systems.

Even if it is an accident, I have to agree with you both even though the feature can be frustratingly annoying.

It would be interesting to relate it to the overall GDP of the faction, so that a faction in several systems would have a little more latitude for self defence in non-conflict systems where it had a strong position, and no means to defend itself in a system where it had low influence. We have to assume a faction is expanding from a position of strength; something could be made of the uneven distribution of that strength.

This would mirror the changes applied to the factions in the daily tick: a faction in Expansion/Conflict could still gain in a non-combat system in proportion to its influence.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

... it's all a bit mood without directing expansions. because you don't have a really a chance to choose systems, which you could win via election, instead of war.

Directing expansions is easier than ever.

 

[Sentenza]

Unless it's an accidental by-product.




Even if it is an accident, I have to agree with you both even though the feature can be frustratingly annoying.

It would be interesting to relate it to the overall GDP of the faction, so that a faction in several systems would have a little more latitude for self defence in non-conflict systems where it had a strong position, and no means to defend itself in a system where it had low influence. We have to assume a faction is expanding from a position of strength; something could be made of the uneven distribution of that strength.

This would mirror the changes applied to the factions in the daily tick: a faction in Expansion/Conflict could still gain in a non-combat system in proportion to its influence.

My assumption is this is very deliberated and in fact precisely intended to limit faction expansion unless you have the manpower to cover all your systems. How much sense does it make for, say, a single player to expand a faction into 100 systems without any problem? That should need the coordinated efforts of many players.

 

[the100thmonkey]

Speaking of Civil War.

Here's one we prepared earlier:

https://youtu.be/TUgiHUa9EWg

#FreeLeesti

I'll happily fly shooty-shooty-pew-pew with you. Count me in.

 

[Sgopher81]

No that wasn't my point, I was responding to the point about how infeasible it is as a solo player to try and affect the BGS in any meaningful way in a reasonable amount of time, and since I hate PVP overall, I don't do open play and so know of no one to 'buddy up' with to try and affect it, that's all

I adopted an Imperial minor faction that was already in charge of a massive system. By doing missions, bounty hunting and war fighting this faction now controls 3 systems directly and has a presence in at least 4 other systems. I haven't seen or heard any other human player in the region so it can be done on your own.

 

[Sentenza]

And now, for something completely different. We know there is an API, originally intended for use by the defunct iphone app, which is now used by various tools to retrieve data to feed into external databases like EDDN and ROSS. Nobody ever looks twice at this data. Well, I did and there are a lot of interesting things in there. I used EDCE client for this (https://github.com/Andargor/edce-client), a python script which fetches your commander data and generated a json file, in a rather garbled form but it can be easily made readable using a number of tools.


Well, let’s talk about the data. There is info about your commander, details of all your ships, but what is interesting to us are the details of all commodities available at the station where you are docked. The first thing to note, looking at the data, is the amount of fields that have no business in a presentation - remember, this API was meant for a client app - and therefore we have good reason to assume these data records are straight dumps from the internal database and are an exact representation of the internal data structure. It must not be assumed that all fields actually do something though - some might have been used then dropped, some might be reserved for later use, or relative to features planned but scrapped.


Ok, enough talking, let’s look at the data. First we start with one of the on sale commodities, I choose one we all are familiar with

{
"baseConsumptionQty": 0,
"baseCreationQty": 162,
"buyPrice": 26,
"capacity": 2696,
"categoryname": "Waste ",
"consumebuy": "7",
"consumptionQty": 0,
"cost_max": "97.00",
"cost_mean": "63.00",
"cost_min": 19.531739130435,
"creationQty": 1348,
"demand": 1,
"demandBracket": 0,
"homebuy": "27",
"homesell": "20",
"id": "128049244",
"market_id": null,
"meanPrice": 63,
"name": "Biowaste",
"parent_id": null,
"rare_max_stock": "0",
"rare_min_stock": "0",
"sec_illegal_max": "4.47",
"sec_illegal_min": "1.44",
"sellPrice": 19,
"statusFlags": [],
"stock": 751,
"stockBracket": 1,
"stolenmod": "0.7500",
"targetStock": 1348,
"volumescale": "1.0000"
},

And this is one of the in demand commodities:

{
"baseConsumptionQty": 718.2,
"baseCreationQty": 0,
"buyPrice": 0,
"capacity": 191094,
"categoryname": "Chemicals",
"consumebuy": "3",
"consumptionQty": 95547,
"cost_max": 916.19304347826,
"cost_mean": "917.00",
"cost_min": "589.00",
"creationQty": 0,
"demand": 167208,
"demandBracket": 3,
"homebuy": "70",
"homesell": "67",
"id": "128673850",
"market_id": null,
"meanPrice": 917,
"name": "Hydrogen Peroxide",
"parent_id": null,
"rare_max_stock": "0",
"rare_min_stock": "0",
"sec_illegal_max": "2.19",
"sec_illegal_min": "1.14",
"sellPrice": 917,
"statusFlags": [],
"stock": 0,
"stockBracket": 0,
"stolenmod": "0.7500",
"targetStock": 23886,
"volumescale": "1.2700"
},


Let’s get into details. Some fields are obvious enough: demand is the demand of the commodity - even if a no-demand commodity is not 0 as one would expect, but appears to be either 0 or 1. stock is how much of it is available. targetStock appears to be the stock value the station wants to have (in fact I remember targetstock value for biowaste, 1348), and will likely tend to it when nobody is messing. Likewise capacity is how much of it the station can have at max.

And now, here’s what everyone is interested into we have no less that six fields related to price:

buyPrice
meanPrice
sellPrice
cost_max
cost_mean
cost_min

First of all, notice we have two different denominations: cost and price. Price is exactly what it looks - how much we pay or earn for it. meanPrice, the average price,is interesting though - primarily, why is it there at all? It’s a lot of effort to update every single record of every single system for a value that would be better stored in a single central record, and we know there is one - it’s where commodity description are fetched from, so it’s not like we are sparing a database read. Not only this but its value appears to be always exactly the same as cost_mean… this makes me suspect the average price is, in fact, fake

Now, about the costs. First the terminology is itself interesting - why is it a cost? Who pays this cost exactly, and what is its relation with price? We know it is something different than the price because, as said, there is an average cost and an average price, even if they are always the same. Prices appear to fall mostly, but not always, within cost range - I found some commodities with one or both prices outside it. An interesting detail - I witnessed the change of allegiance of a station and the appearance of a previously illegal commodity, and it first started exactly at cost_min.

This is already getting too long to be read in a single issue, so I end it for now with something that isn’t there - yes, trade routes. There is no indication at all of import and export of the commodity. Yes there could be an entirely separated relation map for that but, you know what, I feel this is static and fake too. How many times did you found goods “exported” in a system where they costed less than the source?

Ok, people, enough for now, you can go on if you wish