Quite right. More to do with not having to press 3 keys 720 times, I think.
Last edited:
ED Background Simulation - Large Faction Influence Swing Mechanics
- Thread starter anonymousanarchist123
- Start date
Quite right. More to do with not having to press 3 keys 720 times, I think.
Yeah you only gain not injuring your tendons. I developed a macro myself and the UI is so slow that I had to slow everything to a crawl, if fact I could do all faster by hand.
Last edited:
that only shows how many ppl knew of this and using it without telling anyone else. we basically lost 10 systems with more than 10% drops per day even tho we where working hard to keep them up... then i read this. getting slightly mad...
the question isn't whether you worked hard or not, but whether you did something usefull to counter the attack or not. i have seen quite some exampels of people putting effort into actions which in fact even hurt their own faction. it isn't about working hard, but doing the right thing ;-)
and than - yes, it has been always the case that influence could be easier nuked than generated in most scenarios. there are rare systems which are a castle .... and the circumstances for that are not in your hand once you expanded into it.
It was discussed to death everywhere there is a discussion about the BGS, in full view of anyone who cared to read.
How exactly did you want to be informed?
Last edited:
can you share more details - like population size, traffic etc.? anyway, thanks for testing
there is just a discussion about the blackmarket... and its basically just one guy crying about it, not actually telling how it works.
On the contrary ive seen tests showing positive results and i am well aware of groups actively using misinformation to hide these goings on, ive seen active proof of people doing it.
(Note I don't know where you're referring to)
Alright, I shouldn't get so frustrated. The BGS mega-thread is huge, and if you're not following it every day it's probably impenetrable.
A BGS subforum was asked for and denied, so really it's quite scattered - we take points from that thread and bring them back to both our group discussion and an Empire BGS thinktank for further testing etc.
There hasn't been any active move to hide it (well from our end), but specialized "tactical" info on the BGS is simply collected nowhere. Guides written so far don't go into that level of detail (meaning things like unit-trading - they usually mention that smuggling hurts influence).
As do we (for +influence/+profit), every day until yesterday when we re-tested -profit/-influence unit trading and produced no result.
(That's 13 mil pop, 6 ships other than myself for goemon
960 tons unit-sold at a 900 credit loss) The faction in question actually gained ~4%.
Last edited:
However groups actively do hide information from each other, for example the black out regarding the police issue which only got fixed after it started getting actively used on the major factions and certain players emailed the devs daily with about 10 emails to get it fixed.
They do indeed, but that is usually countered by groups who are open about things - it only takes one post to make it known, after all.
Edit: I'm actually surprised no one ever started an e.g. subreddit on the BGS - seemingly everything else has one (trading, mining, bounty hunting, every Power, exploration, CG-tracking, PvP, etc).
Edit: I'm actually surprised no one ever started an e.g. subreddit on the BGS - seemingly everything else has one (trading, mining, bounty hunting, every Power, exploration, CG-tracking, PvP, etc).
Last edited:
@deathwatch please share those test. and make sure they are later than the bugreport filed on the first page.
@ifred thank you. your test is a hint, but i wouldn't have expected a lot of influence shift in a 13 mio population system with "only" 960 t sold... anyway, that at least shows that it needs much more effort, if it works at all, which i doubt.
That was my test, actually
Indeed it's not a huge volume, but previous experience operating in 5-10 billion pop some decrease was seen at that level. To see an increase instead in such a low pop, either a) selling at a loss has no influence effect, or b) that bit of traffic did a tremendous deal of work for the faction I was 'attacking'.
This was not a great test - we have a campaign underway and I wanted to spend my time on something useful to it - soon I'll go find a zero-traffic system and try there.
Last edited:
That was my test, actually
ah ... two different tests ...?
My testing doesn't agree with what you claim about blackmarket trading.
Here are some figures for a smuggling CG. This is hundreds of players delivering illegal rare goods:
Note: the CG started in the middle of the graph.
The controlling faction's influence did indead drop dramatically, but it took 6 days to do this.
Granted, this is several months old. But it is after the 1-ton exploit was fixed.
Last edited:
I don't know anything about iFred or his test. He posted about it being B/S, and you asked for more data, so when I mentioned mine I put more data for you.
Note that recently in a no-traffic 12 mil pop system a mere 200 tons unit-sold at ~+1000cr profit produced +11%, so 960 tons @-900 per ton should have produced some effect if -profit/-inf were working.
I'll reiterate though re: "the 1-ton exploit was nerfed":
I never stopped using positive unit-trading (+profit/+influence) and it never failed to work. Yes, I saw tests that showed otherwise, and I can only assume some complication arose that threw off the data. (I do it manually rather than by macro, and there's never been a word/shadowban from FDev as several people received).
Last edited:
ah. thank you.
actually my last black market test showed no effect of profit whatsoever, the influence loss was looking as if bound to tonnage sold only - differently to profitable trading via the regular market.
well, looking forward to more tests! and in some point i'll run some tests, too. winter ... eh, hollidays is coming!
dynamicbob
Banned
beginning some testing of my own but will give it a few days before reporting