Wars reduced to 14 days?

[MottiKhan]

As in the title. I saw two wars that ended after 14 days instead of the previously known 28 days. The factions at war were stable and the influence gap never went past 2% delta. Traffic was minimal in each system.

It's difficult to duplicate since any wars that we're directly involved in end quickly.

Has anyone else noticed a shortened war recently (as in the past month)?

 

[Starwolfe]

I have records of ones lasting 18 and 20 and 27.

From my experiences the duration gets shorter as the influence lowers.

What level was the influence at when it ended at 14?

For example the one last 27 ended at 14.9% to kick off again, and the 18 ended when it dropped under 6%

 

[MottiKhan]

I have records of ones lasting 18 and 20 and 27.

From my experiences the duration gets shorter as the influence lowers.

What level was the influence at when it ended at 14?

For example the one last 27 ended at 14.9% to kick off again, and the 18 ended when it dropped under 6%

That might be it. They were at 8.8% and 8.9% respectively on the first one. I didn't save the influence levels on the second, but as I recall, they were below 10% when it ended. Both went 14 days.

I have to spread some rep around, so virtual +1.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

wars essentially can resolve themselves in draws i think really at any time after 4 days (of course, early would be very rare, after 10-12 is more common). It certainly hasnt changed the max duration. We have one war currently in the area that is in its 22nd day.

 

[CMDR Endincite]

It's pretty odd. For a while we were monitoring wars in which someone was purposefully trying to keep them from ending - either supporting both sides constantly, or just when needed so they didn't get to a winning margin.
Not a single one lasted more than 7 days. They ended in a draw in 5-7 days. If conflicts with active participation last longer now, I'm glad to hear it.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

We're currently trying to let a War in a nearby System simmer down and hopefully get below the 2.5% threshold to initiate a Retreat. Both MF in question aren't worked on by any Players, constantly giving off small amounts of % to the remaining MF in the System. Both started around 7.0% (minimum threshold to initiate any conflict) and are now around 5.0%. The decay of % per day was between 0.2-0.3% (population density is quite high).

The constant loss of % was also the reason why we had the (today failing) Expansion to go pending in the first place. In a System of 5 we were the only ones not in an armed conflict and thus received all the % which was given to our MF on a daily basis from the other 4.

 

[CMDR pollycough]

Anecdotal

I generally leave wars alone in my second bubble, But I have noticed that if you push one side on day 1 (I am talking 1 eagle kill) enough to cause a 0.5+ difference, Then the degradation (war tax) is split differently. I.E Rather than 0.8 each, The one with the most inf loses 0.7 & the other 0.9.

 

[Starwolfe]

Anecdotal

I generally leave wars alone in my second bubble, But I have noticed that if you push one side on day 1 (I am talking 1 eagle kill) enough to cause a 0.5+ difference, Then the degradation (war tax) is split differently. I.E Rather than 0.8 each, The one with the most inf loses 0.7 & the other 0.9.

There is no "war tax"

What you are observing is the drain on the war pool by other missions or actions being done for other factions.
The loss in influence is proportional to the amount that they hold in the system, not really attributed to much of anything else.

 

[Walter2]

There is no "war tax"

What you are observing is the drain on the war pool by other missions or actions being done for other factions.
The loss in influence is proportional to the amount that they hold in the system, not really attributed to much of anything else.

I don't believe this is always so. Some Wars/Civil wars will result in each side losing approximately 0.5% influence per day. Others will lose none. This with no outside influence in the conflict or the system - a conclusion supported by the patterns observed and repeated over several days.

 

[Starwolfe]

I don't believe this is always so. Some Wars/Civil wars will result in each side losing approximately 0.5% influence per day. Others will lose none. This with no outside influence in the conflict or the system - a conclusion supported by the patterns observed and repeated over several days.

In every single case of a controlled system with limited to no traffic and no missions or other actions being done the influence remains static.

Its been documented to death - there is zero cases where the conflict itself drains influence unless its from an outside source.

The only cases where they loose ground will be in areas where missions or actions are done for other minor factions in the system.

 

[CMDR Endincite]

In every single case of a controlled system with limited to no traffic and no missions or other actions being done the influence remains static.

Its been documented to death - there is zero cases where the conflict itself drains influence unless its from an outside source.

The only cases where they loose ground will be in areas where missions or actions are done for other minor factions in the system.

Concur, or more to the point: every test we've ever done concurs.

No traffic + any state (except expansion), or none = no influence movement whatsoever. Nothing moves influence without direct daily player input, except the steady drain while Expansion is active.
I've even killed ships in CZ during a war without handing in the bonds, while I was the only traffic. No movement at all.

 

[Walter2]

Concur, or more to the point: every test we've ever done concurs.

No traffic + any state (except expansion), or none = no influence movement whatsoever. Nothing moves influence without direct daily player input, except the steady drain while Expansion is active.
I've even killed ships in CZ during a war without handing in the bonds, while I was the only traffic. No movement at all.

Here's an example of change occurring during a War with no intervention. I had the rate of change wrong in my earlier post - the attrition is 0.2%/faction and not 0.5% (late night comment before retiring and too tired to check facts).

It is clear that there is no player interaction from the 20th onward and factions C and D (independent Dictatorship and Corporate) both lose 0.02/day until they have nothing left to give. It's difficult to image any player-driven event that could be behaving so consistently.

This is not common - nor necessarily relevant - but it is a recognisable pattern of events during some conflicts that is possibly linked to specific systems.

 

[Starwolfe]

17 to 18 F climbed the most while E dropping, while A and B stayed static.
18 to 19 F, B and A climbed while E dropped.
19 to 20 F, E climbed while A and B dropped.
20 to 21 F, A and B dropped while E climbed.
21 to 26 F and E climbed while A and B stayed the same.
25 to 27 E climbed, the rest remained static.
27 to 28 F and E climbed while A and B stayed the same.
Has been static since 28

See the influence changes of Faction F and E? That is likely pushing the influence around as you watch them climb.

The evidence is in how factions A and B don't climb at the same rates as E and F - and those fluctuate. Its not a steady climb as influence is drained.

If it was a "war tax" as you claimed, A and B should have received more and the influence from E and F should have received the reversed amount.
E had more of the system's share and should have climbed the most - instead it was F. Then the numbers were not static nor consistently even with a steady drain.

 

[Walter2]

17 to 18 F climbed the most while E dropping, while A and B stayed static.
18 to 19 F, B and A climbed while E dropped.
19 to 20 F, E climbed while A and B dropped.
20 to 21 F, A and B dropped while E climbed.
21 to 26 F and E climbed while A and B stayed the same.
25 to 27 E climbed, the rest remained static.
27 to 28 F and E climbed while A and B stayed the same.
Has been static since 28

See the influence changes of Faction F and E? That is likely pushing the influence around as you watch them climb.

The evidence is in how factions A and B don't climb at the same rates as E and F - and those fluctuate. Its not a steady climb as influence is drained.

If it was a "war tax" as you claimed, A and B should have received more and the influence from E and F should have received the reversed amount.
E had more of the system's share and should have climbed the most - instead it was F. Then the numbers were not static nor consistently even with a steady drain.

I've not put any sort of label on this - it's just a phenomenon that I have noticed on several occasions that performs consistently in many more examples than the one I have given.

What one has to explain is the standardised behaviour that occurs between the 21st and the 28th. The two explanations are as follows:

1 For seven days a player is active in the system and performs exactly the same tasks. Each day faction E pulls exactly 0.3% from the conflict and F pulls exactly 0.1%. This activity stops on exactly the same day that the two warring factions drop to 1%.

2 There is no player activity from 20/12 to 4/1 (actually, nothing changes until the 7th). During the conflict, factions C and D daily lose 0.2% each. This 0.4% is proportionally distributed among the other factions in exactly the same way that a retreating faction's remaining influence is distributed when it leaves, with the leading faction getting the most and the trailing faction the least. We're talking very small fractions at the bottom end of the table - not enough to round up the decimal.

I'm in a very quiet sector with very few visitors, usually itinerant traders/mission takers. When I first saw this I also thought it was down to player activity, but having seen it on more than one occasion, sometimes lasting more than 14 days, I drew different conclusions. Unfortunately, I only keep records for the past 28 days and this example is the only one in the current data set out of 13 violent conflicts.

 

[Starwolfe]

Look, I am telling you it is missions or other work.

I have spent a year tracking dozens of conflicts across a score of systems and it always acts as expected.

The only changes are when i do work myself to change things - and my space has been remarkably quiet when it comes to traffic and actions - entire systems would remain completely static for months on end unless I did something.

What you are witnessing is nothing more than traffic or actions being done by passer-byes in those systems. Typical ambient traffic I say.

Its a nice stable show at least, and not too disruptive - but its still the changes from the work others do.

 

[Walter2]

Look, I am telling you it is missions or other work.

Well, you could be right and you have the means to test your hypothesis. Choose a system that gets no traffic and create influence changes in two or more factions that are identical for eight consecutive days.

Then do it again.

 

[Starwolfe]

Well, you could be right and you have the means to test your hypothesis. Choose a system that gets no traffic and create influence changes in two or more factions that are identical for eight consecutive days.

Then do it again.

I have a literal year of records showing that for dozens of conflicts. War doesn't drain a thing on its own.

 

[Dommarraa]

You can get a bit of drift for a few days that is explainable by rounding errors, but doesn't last longer than a day or 2 that we have observed.

 

[Sentenza]

Interesting. I just checked my logs and in fact I recorded at least three CWs lasting respectively 13, 14 and 17 days, none of which could end due to gap - one in fact ended with both factions at 1%.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

Interesting. I just checked my logs and in fact I recorded at least three CWs lasting respectively 13, 14 and 17 days, none of which could end due to gap - one in fact ended with both factions at 1%.

The result I'm hoping for over here