A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim

[Schlack]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/301923-Mission-generation-borked?p=4694489#post4694489

getting pretty sick of the mission generator not actually generating missions. If you have similar stories, please post them in the linked thread

 

[GabrielRocha86]

Passenger Missions and System Faction's Influence

Hey guys,

Guardians came up last Tuesday, and being on Xbox One means that it's all news to me (no beta test), including passenger missions.

With that in mind, I have a straight question:

Does passenger missions affect faction's influence in the system?

I did a research on the forum and in this topic, and found Sentenza's notes about faction's state changes related to these passenger missions, but I could not find a direct reference about faction's system influence. (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ckground-Sim?p=4565370&viewfull=1#post4565370)

 

[Gemai]

No. Traffic report empty.

What part of your wrong do you not get. Good day Gemai. End of.

I had tons of factions in 1% or even 0.3% ranges without ever triggering war. They do not care about each other without a soft push.
That your traffic doesn't show doesn't mean no one was there inbetween. It is a 24 traffic system. You can miss them on the same day by 10+ hours while checking.

 

[Ben Ryder]

Does paying off legacy fines to the inerstellar factors contact have any effect on influence?

Doe it effet teh system where the fine is paid off?

Does it effect the faction of origin?

Does it effect the controling faction in the system where teh fine was gained?

I just dont know...

 

[goemon]

Does paying off legacy fines to the inerstellar factors contact have any effect on influence?

Doe it effet teh system where the fine is paid off?

Does it effect the faction of origin?

Does it effect the controling faction in the system where teh fine was gained?

I just dont know...

untested. test ahead!

 

[Sentenza]

Hey guys,

Guardians came up last Tuesday, and being on Xbox One means that it's all news to me (no beta test), including passenger missions.

With that in mind, I have a straight question:

Does passenger missions affect faction's influence in the system?

I did a research on the forum and in this topic, and found Sentenza's notes about faction's state changes related to these passenger missions, but I could not find a direct reference about faction's system influence. (https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ckground-Sim?p=4565370&viewfull=1#post4565370)

Well I did not just make up my notes

Here is the result of a refugee transport. As you see, the effect is increased influence for both source and destination faction:

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

Does paying off legacy fines to the inerstellar factors contact have any effect on influence?
Doe it effet teh system where the fine is paid off?
Does it effect the faction of origin?
Does it effect the controling faction in the system where teh fine was gained?

I doubt it will have any effect on the system where you got the fine. You will have affected this faction when you gained the fine.

 

[jimbeau1571]

I know it looks like they have messed with the mission payouts in terms of reducing the money, but it looks like they have reduced the numbers of missions too. Add to that, and this may be my perception but I seem to be getting much fewer missions for my faction in the systems I control, but the former controller is getting plenty! .... is this me or are you seeing the same in yours?

 

[Gemai]

I posted this as a bug as even boom/unrest factions might have less or 0 missions against others. My guess in the same bug report was that it might be related to the new passenger missions. I think they get deducted from the normal spawns which makes it EXTREMELY biased and punishing towards normal non-passenger players.

I asked FD if this is the case to seperate both again.

 

[Ben Ryder]

untested. test ahead!

Not sure how I would go about testing the effect so flegacy fine payment on influence and states.

If someone can put together some test cases and tell me what I should be looking fo rthen I'll find a small system to test it out.







How

 

[GabrielRocha86]

Well I did not just make up my notes

Here is the result of a refugee transport. As you see, the effect is increased influence for both source and destination faction:


http://i.imgur.com/8k9sukm.jpg

Oh, I must have missed that one, my bad. But thanks! I didn't notice the influence bar when I completed my passenger's mission! Have a rep! [smile]

 

[Schlack]

Not sure how I would go about testing the effect so flegacy fine payment on influence and states.

If someone can put together some test cases and tell me what I should be looking fo rthen I'll find a small system to test it out.







How

Find a nice quiet system, note influence values. Conduct activity, record results. Review.

Low pop low traffic system for cleaner quicker data

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

I know it looks like they have messed with the mission payouts in terms of reducing the money, but it looks like they have reduced the numbers of missions too. Add to that, and this may be my perception but I seem to be getting much fewer missions for my faction in the systems I control, but the former controller is getting plenty! .... is this me or are you seeing the same in yours?

Add your woes here Jim

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/301923-Mission-generation-borked?p=4694489#post4694489

This did not start in 2.2. We have noticed it before but the pattern is not discernible

 

[Matzov]

Find a nice quiet system, note influence values. Conduct activity, record results. Review.

Low pop low traffic system for cleaner quicker data

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



Add your woes here Jim

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/301923-Mission-generation-borked?p=4694489#post4694489

This did not start in 2.2. We have noticed it before but the pattern is not discernible

Added my tuppence in there. We're in Election, and its proving quite tricky given there are virtually zero election missions around for 'my' side.

 

[Schlack]

I've also added in the punishing nature of the faction-wide state effects.

 

[Gemai]

I've also added in the punishing nature of the faction-wide state effects.

Sadly you used "Election" as your argument. A state known to NOT block mission effects. Also bounties seem to finally count in wars again since 2.2 so you can maintain your other systems in war times.

Either way, aside of preparing systems to have elections not wars to prevent war-locks, the global conflict state is a senseful mechanic. For one it prevents factions from overbloating unless they can REALLY manage so many systems (space is limited as is) and it also prevents you from expanding like a madman. How should anyone fight other BGS groups without it.
This is a balance mechanic. And to be honest in real life other areas would of course lose influence during a conflict. It is not as if your drained resources during the war are able to maintain order at the other side of your sphere. Elements can use this weakness to rise. That is more realistic than you want to admit.

 

[Matzov]

For one it prevents factions from overbloating unless they can REALLY manage so many systems (space is limited as is) and it also prevents you from expanding like a madman.

This is not really true in popular cmdr traffic areas. You can quite easily over-expand from small pop systems if you get a few visitors in system for a couple of days, who run missions for the controlling faction - bam - you are expanding. Which is fine, I am not complaining, but it can leave the faction in a pickle, which is exacerbated by lack of missions. And I agree with you that the cross-system resource drain is a good thing in principle, but I also agree with Schlack that it is too punishing.

 

[Schlack]

Sadly you used "Election" as your argument. A state known to NOT block mission effects. Also bounties seem to finally count in wars again since 2.2 so you can maintain your other systems in war times.

Either way, aside of preparing systems to have elections not wars to prevent war-locks, the global conflict state is a senseful mechanic. For one it prevents factions from overbloating unless they can REALLY manage so many systems (space is limited as is) and it also prevents you from expanding like a madman. How should anyone fight other BGS groups without it.
This is a balance mechanic. And to be honest in real life other areas would of course lose influence during a conflict. It is not as if your drained resources during the war are able to maintain order at the other side of your sphere. Elements can use this weakness to rise. That is more realistic than you want to admit.

Erm, I was clarifying that the lack of missions was compounding the faction wide state effect imbalance in certain circumstances. BH does not count for a faction during elections (a conflict state) anywhere. I have clarified in the bug thread. This coupled with 0 missions that might have an effect during elections is terribly imbalanced.

If you read back through this thread you will see that we are not opposed to the principle of factionwide effects as a limiter on perpetual growth, rather that in certain circumstances the mechanic is far too punishing and does not make for fun or interesting gameplay.

This isn't about pushing the AEDC agenda, we have along with many other groups and individuals helped shape the BGS to what it is today. This includes providing constructive criticism to FD and letting them know of "edge" cases. I think if you read back though our interactions on this forum you will see that having a working, fun, challenging BGS is our main interest rather than attempting to secure an advantage. What has been good about this thread in particular is that it is for mutual benefit and pooling knowledge, not another arena for competition.

 

[Gemai]

In his case it was based on elections who should not - not even for realism - drain resources elsewhere. So unlike war, election should not be a global state. And that I concur.

Managing your factions influence to harm it and keep it between 55-70% to prevent expansions (in that case it takes at least 2 days to trigger) is a normal BGS maintenance. If people neglect that... their stick.

 

[Matzov]

Managing your factions influence to harm it and keep it between 55-70% to prevent expansions (in that case it takes at least 2 days to trigger) is a normal BGS maintenance. If people neglect that... their stick.

Put simply, I disagree. It may well be the reality that one needs to work against one's own faction, but I don't believe that should be the case. You have made the point that certain effects, like war being a drain, makes sense. I agree. And the contrary to that is: having to work against yourself in order to stop your from doing something you have no intention of doing, does not make sense.

 

[Gemai]

having to work against yourself in order to stop your from doing something you have no intention of doing, does not make sense.

Unless FD allows factions to be "managed" by players in which the current CEO/Leader/Chancellor can disable expansion for a system, it will have to be.