Wars reduced to 14 days?

[Walter2]

Sorry to revive an old post just to emphasise a point, but I have just noticed four current Wars in which the combatants are regularly and evenly losing influence.

Case 1 - Each side loses 0.2%/day from 31/01 to date.

Case 2 - Identical pattern, each side loses 0.2%/day

Case 3 - Two Wars in the same system. The first - between the Cooperative and Nyament Silver - begins on 27/02 with some uncertaintly, then settles to a regular loss by each side of 0.1%/day.
The second starts on 30/01 and drops straight into a similar routine.

Four consistent patterns can't be a coincidence. It doesn;t happen with any other conflict and does not occur in every War. It's either a very specific set of circumstances, a feature of certain systems, or a random bug.

I can't be the only one to observe this.

 

[_trent_]

Checking back on one of our systems which has had a lot of NPC faction wars over the past few months, 14 and 17 seem to be the most common duration before the war ends in stalemate. Outwith those durations, one side or the other got enough influence to win the war.

At first I thought it was as simple as Civil War = 14 days, War = 17, but there were several outliers where the reverse was true, including 3 wars between the same 2 fatiions which ended in 14, 17 then 17 days.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

Checking back on one of our systems which has had a lot of NPC faction wars over the past few months, 14 and 17 seem to be the most common duration before the war ends in stalemate. Outwith those durations, one side or the other got enough influence to win the war.

At first I thought it was as simple as Civil War = 14 days, War = 17, but there were several outliers where the reverse was true, including 3 wars between the same 2 fatiions which ended in 14, 17 then 17 days.

I guess the one I watched over the last couple days and weeks was out of the norm then. Lasted until yesterday; total amount of 22 days (1st live day until State disappeared). Was a Civil War though.

And I can say that both MF evenly dropped in Inf until around the 9th day, then a small swing towards one side was noticeable. Yet they already were so low it didn't make any difference anymore.

 

[Starwolfe]

Sorry to revive an old post just to emphasise a point, but I have just noticed four current Wars in which the combatants are regularly and evenly losing influence.

Case 1 - Each side loses 0.2%/day from 31/01 to date.

http://frinkbottle.uk/ElitePics/100212a.jpg

Case 2 - Identical pattern, each side loses 0.2%/day

http://frinkbottle.uk/ElitePics/100212b.jpg

Case 3 - Two Wars in the same system. The first - between the Cooperative and Nyament Silver - begins on 27/02 with some uncertaintly, then settles to a regular loss by each side of 0.1%/day.
The second starts on 30/01 and drops straight into a similar routine.

http://frinkbottle.uk/ElitePics/100212c.jpg

Four consistent patterns can't be a coincidence. It doesn;t happen with any other conflict and does not occur in every War. It's either a very specific set of circumstances, a feature of certain systems, or a random bug.

I can't be the only one to observe this.

If the influence does not split appropriately between all other factions either equally or by influence % and consistantly I do not see the pattern you do.

First I see the Progressive Party gaining, taking influence from the War Pool.
Second, I see irregular influence gains that appear more as someone doing a couple missions on occasion.
Third is much the same - influence gains that are erratic and not constant daily showing more as trade or mission effects.

The War Pool does not drain unless some other faction is doing something.

 

[Schlack]

If the influence does not split appropriately between all other factions either equally or by influence % and consistantly I do not see the pattern you do.

First I see the Progressive Party gaining, taking influence from the War Pool.
Second, I see irregular influence gains that appear more as someone doing a couple missions on occasion.
Third is much the same - influence gains that are erratic and not constant daily showing more as trade or mission effects.

The War Pool does not drain unless some other faction is doing something.

Check out from around 32 mins


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGqndJFKOfA

 

[Walter2]

If the influence does not split appropriately between all other factions either equally or by influence % and consistantly I do not see the pattern you do.

First I see the Progressive Party gaining, taking influence from the War Pool.
Second, I see irregular influence gains that appear more as someone doing a couple missions on occasion.
Third is much the same - influence gains that are erratic and not constant daily showing more as trade or mission effects.

The War Pool does not drain unless some other faction is doing something.

I'm quite happy to be proved wrong, but need evidence to be convincing.

Take Case 1. Chak has a single market and a population of 8509, so you can imagine just how easy it is to change influence levels - a good sneeze should suffice to modify the flatline graph. So just what is the mechanism that starts a process on the second day of War and applies exactly the same numerical changes for 12 consecutive days? And how is this process migrated to other systems? Are there any other examples of such metronomic changes over such periods under any other circumstances?

The challenge remains: is it possible to replicate this process?

 

[Starwolfe]

I'm quite happy to be proved wrong, but need evidence to be convincing.

Take Case 1. Chak has a single market and a population of 8509, so you can imagine just how easy it is to change influence levels - a good sneeze should suffice to modify the flatline graph. So just what is the mechanism that starts a process on the second day of War and applies exactly the same numerical changes for 12 consecutive days? And how is this process migrated to other systems? Are there any other examples of such metronomic changes over such periods under any other circumstances?

The challenge remains: is it possible to replicate this process?

You provided the evidence, I cannot understand why you cannot see it.

None of the systems had the same influence drops.

We all see Expansion drops pretty consistently 3% no matter the system size - so why would a conflict be different if it was the case?

Instead what I see is a pretty typical influence change of someone running a mission for different population sizes, not proof that a conflict influence changes all on its own.
See case 3 dates 05/02 - 07/02 the influence for Dominion and Collective were not consistent leading me to suspect its not as quiet as to claim an un-trafficked area.

Check out from around 32 mins


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGqndJFKOfA

Yeah, jammering and nonsese from ED - but the case brought was how 2.2 allows the pool's influence to change from outside forces or vice versa because the system must match 100%.

A convoluted explanation, but its pretty consistent for how to explain a war pool to drop as other factions do missions in the system.

 

[Walter2]

You provided the evidence, I cannot understand why you cannot see it.

None of the systems had the same influence drops.

We all see Expansion drops pretty consistently 3% no matter the system size - so why would a conflict be different if it was the case?

Instead what I see is a pretty typical influence change of someone running a mission for different population sizes, not proof that a conflict influence changes all on its own.
See case 3 dates 05/02 - 07/02 the influence for Dominion and Collective were not consistent leading me to suspect its not as quiet as to claim an un-trafficked area.


Yeah, jammering and nonsese from ED - but the case brought was how 2.2 allows the pool's influence to change from outside forces or vice versa because the system must match 100%.

A convoluted explanation, but its pretty consistent for how to explain a war pool to drop as other factions do missions in the system.

Sigh.
Granted, the Case 3 scenario is complex, but the patterns are there. Graphs for the other two systems - visual regularity:

Spoiler

 

[Schlack]

Walter2.



I can see three possible explanations to the graphs.

1. Cmdr activity - from your posts I gather that you believe that the consistency of the decline suggests that it is not cmdr activity.

2. A "war tax" type inbuilt reduction of influence for war parties. This is a result of an unannounced BGS mechanic that automatically reduces faction influence during wartime. Many other people, including ourselves have evidence showing no decline during wartime where there was no activity.

3. A Bug. following on from the above, it is not an intended mechanic and not something which happens everywhere, to every faction, then the BGS hamster is running loose.

Personally I would discount 2 in the absence of corroborating experience from other cmdrs. This leaves 1 & 3. I suggest a bug report and request specific confirmation if the influence changes are due to cmdr activity. You may or may not get a response considering FD are preparing launch of 3.0!

 

[Walter2]

I think I'll do that and hope for the best: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-lost-during-wars-without-apparent-Cmdr-input

Incidentally, I've just visited both systems and neither had traffic, crime or bounty reports for the last 24 hours.

 

[CMDR pollycough]

Sorry to revive an old post just to emphasise a point, but I have just noticed four current Wars in which the combatants are regularly and evenly losing influence.

Case 1 - Each side loses 0.2%/day from 31/01 to date.

http://frinkbottle.uk/ElitePics/100212a.jpg

Case 2 - Identical pattern, each side loses 0.2%/day

http://frinkbottle.uk/ElitePics/100212b.jpg

Case 3 - Two Wars in the same system. The first - between the Cooperative and Nyament Silver - begins on 27/02 with some uncertaintly, then settles to a regular loss by each side of 0.1%/day.
The second starts on 30/01 and drops straight into a similar routine.

http://frinkbottle.uk/ElitePics/100212c.jpg

Four consistent patterns can't be a coincidence. It doesn;t happen with any other conflict and does not occur in every War. It's either a very specific set of circumstances, a feature of certain systems, or a random bug.

I can't be the only one to observe this.

I have witnessed several of my systems losing inf when in conflict but I have planned to set a test up before refuting the "debunked theory".

 

[Schlack]

I have witnessed several of my systems losing inf when in conflict but I have planned to set a test up before refuting the "debunked theory".

Losing influence yes, but its the cause that is in question by some. Our factions in systems infected with traffic lose influence during wartime, others lose influence during elections. Our understanding is that this is down to the fact that during these periods all other factions in system have the benefit of all activities, while those in conflict are restricted to those effective for that conflict type.

There is much data that says where there is no activity there is no influence movement (other than tiny rounding movements). Personally I'm open to correction on this but the simplest and most likely explanation is player activity. I have seen no evidence yet of a current BGS mechanism that automatically reduces influence other than the 15% reduction due to expansion. (I do have a hazy recollection of a reversion to the mean mechanic or theory from many iterations of the BGS ago).

That said the consistent reduction does bear a second look. QA have reverted on walter2's bug report saying everything is working ok and his response is suggestive that it was player activity that caused the decline.

To be more substantive evidence would be needed to prove absence of player activity (in so far as that is possible). Zero movement over time before the war, traffic reports showing only the reporting cmdrs, 0 bounties cashed and 0 crimes. no best sellers and anything else you can muster.

 

[CMDR pollycough]

Losing influence yes, but its the cause that is in question by some. Our factions in systems infected with traffic lose influence during wartime, others lose influence during elections. Our understanding is that this is down to the fact that during these periods all other factions in system have the benefit of all activities, while those in conflict are restricted to those effective for that conflict type.

There is much data that says where there is no activity there is no influence movement (other than tiny rounding movements). Personally I'm open to correction on this but the simplest and most likely explanation is player activity. I have seen no evidence yet of a current BGS mechanism that automatically reduces influence other than the 15% reduction due to expansion. (I do have a hazy recollection of a reversion to the mean mechanic or theory from many iterations of the BGS ago).

That said the consistent reduction does bear a second look. QA have reverted on walter2's bug report saying everything is working ok and his response is suggestive that it was player activity that caused the decline.

To be more substantive evidence would be needed to prove absence of player activity (in so far as that is possible). Zero movement over time before the war, traffic reports showing only the reporting cmdrs, 0 bounties cashed and 0 crimes. no best sellers and anything else you can muster.

Finding time[where is it]!!!
But yes, I will have to look back to see where it happened, Set up a couple of wars, But most importantly go check the systems daily.
I am only going by the regularity & consistency of the reduction in the past.

 

[Starwolfe]

Bah, I can't rep ya Schlack

I think I'll do that and hope for the best: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-lost-during-wars-without-apparent-Cmdr-input

Incidentally, I've just visited both systems and neither had traffic, crime or bounty reports for the last 24 hours.

Traffic Reports are platform-specific.

Unless you visit there on PS4, XBox and PC you can't rely on them.

Some of my systems are devoid of PC traffic, but I have become aware of XBox players in the region - but I can't see the reports about them.


If I find the time, I'll see about pulling my records of months of next-to-nothing influence outside the few time I have done a mission to display how static conflicts can be.

 

[CMDR pollycough]

"Traffic Reports are platform-specific.

Unless you visit there on PS4, XBox and PC you can't rely on them."

Have you had specific confirmation of this? Because if true, It muddles the data.

 

[Starwolfe]

"Traffic Reports are platform-specific.

Unless you visit there on PS4, XBox and PC you can't rely on them."

Have you had specific confirmation of this? Because if true, It muddles the data.

Sadly, not as specific as I would wish - but the information I get is pretty consistent about it.

It shouldn't be hard to replicate with a friend or two - just find what appears as a low or no traffic system and travel through it and as a friend to repeat it and report what it says.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

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.

There actually is, but several conditions must be met.
1) Low Activity type System (zero or extremely low number of Player Inputs for approx. 7 Days or longer)
2) it seemed to me both War Factions must reside in a somewhat low Influence band (unconfirmed though)
3) Factions must be entirely unsupported

Under these circumstances, both Factions at Conflict will lose 0.x% per Day like clockwork. Losses typically range from 0.4% per day to 0.2% per day depending on remaining Influence.
Zero Player traffic and no single Faction gaining disproportionally in any way (with BGS de-normalization applied, Pattern clearly indicates only the Factions at Conflict directly lost Influence, which got evenly distributed among all other Factions).
Those Influence losses will cease, if
- Factions approach Retreat levels, i.e. Inf losses appear to cease around ~3.5%|-4%
- War ends in a draw (18 Days is what I've repeatedly witnessed in entirely unsupported Conflicts with 0.0% Delta movement spanning the entire duration)

To me, that always looked like a BGS mechanic to avoid two unsupported Factions enter an endless, perpetual series of Conflicts.
Then, the BGS drops them in Influence until they eventually reside below the minimum Trigger threshold, effectively ending their Conflict potential.

 

[Schlack]

"Traffic Reports are platform-specific.

Unless you visit there on PS4, XBox and PC you can't rely on them."

Have you had specific confirmation of this? Because if true, It muddles the data.

I seem to recall that reports list traffic from all platforms - my google-fu fails me though.

One way of assessing would be to cross check a traffic report on another platform with PC. Might have to take into account different report update times on the different platforms.

 

[Starwolfe]

There actually is, but several conditions must be met.
1) Low Activity type System (zero or extremely low number of Player Inputs for approx. 7 Days or longer)
2) it seemed to me both War Factions must reside in a somewhat low Influence band (unconfirmed though)
3) Factions must be entirely unsupported

I have several systems that meet that low traffic criteria and unsupported.

In every recorded case where it is clear no other faction in the system is supported the influence remains static.

Over the last year - and in every case of me observing it (system check, not always visiting) the influence has remained static with no perceived 'war tax'

The ONLY exception to the observations is a rounding error with the controlling faction fluctuating 0.1% once every so often - unless it was clearly a mission being completed for another faction or something else.


The entire theory on the 'war tax' having any degree of "low influence" or the like makes me question its implication further. If its not consistently observed I doubt its the case.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

I have several systems that meet that low traffic criteria and unsupported.

In every recorded case where it is clear no other faction in the system is supported the influence remains static.

Over the last year - and in every case of me observing it (system check, not always visiting) the influence has remained static with no perceived 'war tax'

The ONLY exception to the observations is a rounding error with the controlling faction fluctuating 0.1% once every so often - unless it was clearly a mission being completed for another faction or something else.


The entire theory on the 'war tax' having any degree of "low influence" or the like makes me question its implication further. If its not consistently observed I doubt its the case.

I agree it's a weird thing. The lack of consistency is a given, but the effect has been observed and confirmed by many Players.
It exists, but we simply don't understand exactly what triggers it.

If anything, it doesn't carry much benefit or risk to Player-supported Factions. These I've never seen to suffer from that phenomenon, observed/feared Inf losses were commonly contributed to other normal Factors.