Thanks. I just love talking with geniuses. The rest of the world must seem so dim to them.
Influence caps/gains and the wine analogy
- Thread starter Jane Turner
- Start date
Wish I knew about the 10 transactions cap per tick earlier. Why isn't this cap highlighted to all players somewhere?
Is there a similar cap for winning CZs or combat bonds earned per tick?
I don't think it actually exists. There seems to be a maximum influence gained per tic but the number of transactions to make a difference varies wildly based on population and the actions of other players. In low population systems you may hit the influence gained/lost cap fairly quickly but in high population systems you'll still have to work really hard to make meaningful differences. I'm not a genius, now, and don't know the math. That's just a summation based on my observations and the feedback I've received from my player groups.
It only applies if there's absolutely no other BGS-affecting player activity in the system, which is a fairly uncommon case. In most systems there'll be at least someone passing through with a few trade goods, or a mission, or a little bit of exploration data, at least some days of the week. (And high population systems tend to have things which attract higher player traffic, so are doubly difficult)
Once any action for any other faction occurs, the cap goes from 10 to infinite (though with diminishing returns once you have the majority of all transactions) so if you're contested in the system it's basically irrelevant, and if you're not contested in the system, most BGS groups are too small in terms of controlled space to need to optimise their work that precisely.
It's not highlighted to all players for much the same reason the supercruise speed-mass relation isn't highlighted to all players: the number of players who would actually get some use out of knowing it and can solve the equations fast enough to be useful is minimal (and those who do can find it themselves)
what would be the formula? it's a basic lineair : -AX+ B, i got the A ...but what would be the B? ..something in the direction of (10-log (population))*3 + ?
Last edited:
Using the math that I have gotten from here and Turner directly, I am seeing some evidence that the cap has been changed to closer to 5+ INF. My squadron has perfectly flat systems unless we are active. so with the current math I am not seeing the expected gains, but when i change to a cap of just 5 the numbers match. with less than a .05% difference. Has anyone else seen this?
Last edited:
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
We've not detected any change
What's the "36" stand for?
the number "36"
it's the theoretical max influence change for a 0 population system, found by testing i presume.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
Best fit to the observations.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
There was also a bit of logic. Log base 2 is the easiest to programme in, FD use Log base 2 already in PP calcs, and the biggest system in the game has a population of 31.6 billion, the log base 2 of which is 34.9. So the constant had to be bigger than that but close.
There appears to be a small error - but its good enough to work with
There appears to be a small error - but its good enough to work with
we are seeing larger gains, than should be possible - more noticeable in larger population.
in a 5.700.000 population system controlling faction went from 60,3 to 67,7 (when the table gives 64,8% as max). that is quite severe (170% of what is possible)
in several smaller systems we saw exceeding what should be possible for 0,5-1% at high influence levels (65-70%).
anyone else sees similar?
in a 5.700.000 population system controlling faction went from 60,3 to 67,7 (when the table gives 64,8% as max). that is quite severe (170% of what is possible)
in several smaller systems we saw exceeding what should be possible for 0,5-1% at high influence levels (65-70%).
anyone else sees similar?
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
any sign of negative activity?
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
110% is a fairly constant error - but unpicking it make it more unstable, so we've not fiddled
no. small factions are not loosing less relative to the larger factions loosing (by the CF gaining), which would be a sign of negative influence actions applied.
also, as a single asset system it is hard to see how - outside of mission failing for all other factions. system is a destination for massacre missions (but not one of those sweet spots), but the anarchy faction is stable (now at 3%), which makes it unlikely someone is stacking kill pirate lord missions from the m-pad systems around, which might target other factions in systems ... it is weird.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
the only other thing I can think of is an exotic state
all other factions than the CF in state of none.
well, we anyway will monitor that system until it expands.
I didn't see this posted anywhere, but here is a brief statement a dev made about influence