Also, I've noticed the MF I'm supporting is now under "Pirate Attack", which I guess means they are fighting by killing MF ships, rather than fighting CZ's (or in addition to CZ's). That must be pretty effective, since I've been clearing medium CZ's, usually 8 or 9 per day.
War and Civil War: BGS Guide - Best Current Thinking
- Thread starter Jane Turner
- Start date
Ah, ok, thanks.
no - Pirate Attack is one of the triggering-per-chance states. Trade and smuggling (and redeeming bonds? paging @Jmanis) is said by FDEV to increase the chance of it to trigger. It is either unrelated to the war, or - if redeeming bonds increases the chance - it is more likely to trigger, but it has nothing to do with attacking MF ships.
Cool, thanks again. Looks like I'll give Low's a try.
Life is hard when you have not played in almost 2 yrs...I'm finding that out. The MF under Pirate Attack doesn't own any stations, so I guess it's down to the number of CZ bonds they are claiming?
it's complicated... to quote Ian D.s thread on the matter: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/pirate-attack.514189/
"Pirate Attacks are also much more common for controlling factions than non-controlling factions. " - so, they can trigger for any, but some things increase the chance. this is very different to, let's say, bust - which you trigger by "moving the economy slider" - that will go pending, once you have applied enough negative trade actions or missions. but there is no such thing for pirate attack. even if trade or smuggling increase the chance (and there is some reasoning that at some point it gets to an almost 100% chance) - it can trigger before that, just with a low probability.
so it could be an effect of you raising influence by trade (mission?), increasing the chance of pirate attack, and the dice rolled every day, but today it rolled "Pirate Attack!"
Combat bonds shouldn't cause it as they're a positive security action (with no negative action for other factions), while Pirate Attack is triggered by positive economic actions and negative security actions.
Presumably, @Abil Midena or someone undertook positive economic actions [1] to raise the faction and get them into conflict. Then you're getting opposed, and if the enemy is taking massacre missions and clearing CZs against you, that will cause negative security. Though I'd also note that Pirate Attack has a (7? 14? @Ian Doncaster ?) day silent leadup (or i could be confusing that with cooldown) so likely the Pirate Attack triggered as a result of supporting the faction in the first place.
[1] such as running missions
I thought it did in 3.3, but if it did, this has definitely changed since 3.6 - the data shown is now most consistent with 0 days pending and 14 days (visible) cooldown.
This I think is hard to tell either way - it's possible that the function is a step one, with 0% below a threshold and 100% above it (assuming another state doesn't trigger first), and the counter decaying away from the threshold over time. That would also be consistent with observations so far: it would require extensive and very detailed tests to tell them apart.
Almost certainly there's some minimum amount of actions required to get the chance over 0%, given some factions (in visited but quiet systems) can go for years without one.
That still holds at least... positive economic action gets pa close to triggering on the war leadup, and opposition tipping it over the edge with -ve security
the screenshot of frontiers BGS livestream notes outbreak up for bonds (so no negative effect for other, but the same faction afaics)- and lists pirate attack without up or down - at least the one i know.
Yup... my original post noted outbreak, but i dropped it before i posted XD
Is it still true that nothing you do matters on a "pending" war day? Or is it that nothing you do impacts the war, but effects the %INF after the war ends?
And then the day of "none" state when war ends...anything you do that day just changes the next day %INF as usual.
One day cooldown before another conflict...i.e. War day 7, "none" post war day, regular day, day conflict can go pending again? So if you want to start another conflict the day to act is "regular day"?
Thanks.
And then the day of "none" state when war ends...anything you do that day just changes the next day %INF as usual.
One day cooldown before another conflict...i.e. War day 7, "none" post war day, regular day, day conflict can go pending again? So if you want to start another conflict the day to act is "regular day"?
Thanks.
Correct. Nothing matters "before" the war starts.
Yes
The "none" post war day is the cooldown day, so if you push influence enough that day, you can cross-and-lock another faction on the tick at the end of that day, and get another conflict pending. You don't need a day with neither pending nor recovering in the middle.
Thanks everybody. I have a much better understanding of the "new to me" war mechanic and how to make the best effort. I appreciate all the help.
Since Odyssey launched, BGS things have been... strange(er).
Huh. I was under the impression that running positive actions for your faction (as well as negative actions for the opposing factions) "bank" the resultant points and cause a bigger INF gap after the war ends.