A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim

[Roybe]

did you push any of the factions before?

We pushed one of the factions to 90% and it remained there until someone came into the system. Like I said, it was months ago.

To test it again...just find one of the out of the way permit systems and get a permit....this generally guarantees that you will not have much interference from anyone....and most of the smaller systems only have a single outpost so the traffic counter HAS to be moved for any one to do anything within the system (well except for BH and killing sys authority).

 

[Jmanis]

Complete segue, has anyone done any research on what fines /bounties do if anything for the bgs? When i get home, i might grab 10 unknown artefacts and get deliberately scanned in a low pop system and see what happens over a few days.

 

[Jedirogue]

Quick question for those more knowledgeable with the BGS.

What effect if any does PP have in regards to delivering materials (fortification) or merits (undermining) have on the influence of the faction in the receiving station. What I mean to ask is does dropping off these things raise influence?

Sorry if this question has been answered before but I couldn't find an answer when I searched.

 

[irongut]

We tested this months ago in a secluded, permitted system and there was no decay. Makes me wonder how accurate the traffic reports are.

Based on the video, I would track your systems and turn in a bug report for the devs. If what you state is true, either the BGS is wonky, or the traffic numbers are.

One thing to remember about traffic reports, it only counts those that enter or exit the system. If you have a homebody that is bounty hunting, trading internally, etc. you will see no traffic.

This is not down to buggy traffic reports. Not only do I not see any traffic report, crime report or bounty report but one of the systems I'm monitoring has a population of 16k. It is impossible for me to change influence in that system by the observed 0.1%, even turning in one bounty is worth way more. I'm happy to conclude that what I see as decay is the result of something else in the bgs and not a built in decay but it is not other players.

 

[irongut]

Complete segue, has anyone done any research on what fines /bounties do if anything for the bgs? When i get home, i might grab 10 unknown artefacts and get deliberately scanned in a low pop system and see what happens over a few days.

We were talking about fines & bounties on Canonn discord the other day. I'm thinking about testing it soon myself.

 

[Abil Midena]

Quick question for those more knowledgeable with the BGS.

What effect if any does PP have in regards to delivering materials (fortification) or merits (undermining) have on the influence of the faction in the receiving station. What I mean to ask is does dropping off these things raise influence?

Sorry if this question has been answered before but I couldn't find an answer when I searched.

I don't think it has any. However, people who come in to get leaflets will likely come in with a hold full of commodities, and trade them before loading up on leaflets. Then the reverse when they are coming back. So there are those ancillary PP effects that will change inf. Also, those turning in bounties from hunting undermining targets will change inf as well.

 

[Jmanis]

I don't think it has any. However, people who come in to get leaflets will likely come in with a hold full of commodities, and trade them before loading up on leaflets. Then the reverse when they are coming back. So there are those ancillary PP effects that will change inf. Also, those turning in bounties from hunting undermining targets will change inf as well.

I thought there were some issues that came up with PP "merit bombs" so to speak? I dont know much about this, but I thought I read something somewhere?

Interestingly, I haven't observed any effect of powers boosting/reducing influence gains/losses for the factions they're meant to (e.g imperial powers benefit imperial influence gains, reduce others).

 

[Walter2]

We tested this months ago in a secluded, permitted system and there was no decay. Makes me wonder how accurate the traffic reports are.

Based on the video, I would track your systems and turn in a bug report for the devs. If what you state is true, either the BGS is wonky, or the traffic numbers are.

One thing to remember about traffic reports, it only counts those that enter or exit the system. If you have a homebody that is bounty hunting, trading internally, etc. you will see no traffic.

Sorry, Roybe, but I have to disagree as well. I have a system with a Tiny population on a single outpost 471kLs out - not exactly a honeypot. When our expanding faction was added to the two originals it entered at about 10 - we only keep records for 28 days so I'm half guessing. With very few exceptions it has taken 0.1 from the leading faction every day and it now stands at 18.1. We have other records that show similar behaviour with from 0.1 to 0.4 sliced off the leader - and sometimes also the second - and distributed to the lower ranking factions.

But it's not in every system. Some of the larger systems frequently don't move at all. It may be a coincidence that these systems also have leaders with ratings of 70% plus.

It's also possible that it's a proportional slice and therefore more noticeable in the systems with a smaller population, but I think unlikely on the basis of feeling rather than evidence.

We're in a quieter part of the galaxy; in the past six months or so I think we've actually met only one commander, although we know some have passed through. This phenomenon may be an artefact, but it is real.

 

[Abil Midena]

I thought there were some issues that came up with PP "merit bombs" so to speak? I dont know much about this, but I thought I read something somewhere?

Interestingly, I haven't observed any effect of powers boosting/reducing influence gains/losses for the factions they're meant to (e.g imperial powers benefit imperial influence gains, reduce others).

I believe what was happening, and was changed, was PP kills were negatively impacting the controlling faction. This would happen in PP control systems where undermining occurs. So basically, you had a constant negative impact on whoever the controlling faction was. Of course, that led to constant flipping of the controlling faction, and as each one became controlling, they'd get that negative impact, and so on, and so on. It made player groups that had their system taken over as a control system in PP just give up.

Now, it seems you get the slow but steady trickle of positive inf as the controlling faction, as bounties (added after PP began to appease complaints) are cashed in at the control system where the PP kills are taking place. Also, as I said, some pos inf for whichever station people are selling/buying and taking/giving PP leaflets.

 

[dciskey]

Quick question for those more knowledgeable with the BGS.

What effect if any does PP have in regards to delivering materials (fortification) or merits (undermining) have on the influence of the faction in the receiving station. What I mean to ask is does dropping off these things raise influence?

Sorry if this question has been answered before but I couldn't find an answer when I searched.

Should be no effect. They fixed the bug related to undermining hurting the controlling faction, and you don't sell PowerPlay materials to the market. Power players buying goods for back haul will have an effect, of course.

 

[Schlack]

The opening weeks of PP made any BGS work in control systems impossible. Wild swings totally obliterating factions influence one day and raising them to astronomical values the next.

 

[CoatOSilver]

I get the impression that the influence decay is just some rounding effect.

We know that actions are put into buckets, normal ones for states and "influence" ones for influence. We also know that the tick empties them somehow, likely refering to state changes, and we have the understanding the nomal buckets are used up by actions like delivering food into famine.

To me it seems the systms influcence buckets have "standard" size depending on system population. Influence actions add (or subtract) to/from those standard buckets. The tick now calculates new percentages based on the new content of the buckets, afterwards it normalizes the buckets again back to standard size, rounding (or truncating) if necessary. Due to the rounding/truncating the percentages on the next tick might again change a bit, which are rounded/truncated again. Depending on the numbers and bucket sizes involved this should end sometime generaly, thus leading to the observed effects.

I'm not knowledable enough on the BGS nor patient enough to test it out but we should see some effects:
* same actions should have more effect for smaller factions than for large ( (1+1)/101 is more visible than (99+1)/101) )
* repeated actions in the same tick should have diminishing effect ( (50+10)/110 larger increase than (60+10)/120), independent from caps that also exist
* it should be possible to deduce actual bucketsizes from the untouched influence changes, at least for small systems. And maybe even the progression depending on popoulation (I'd expect some logarithmic thing like the CC-progression for powerplay)

 

[goemon]

I get the impression that the influence decay is just some rounding effect.

We know that actions are put into buckets, normal ones for states and "influence" ones for influence. We also know that the tick empties them somehow, likely refering to state changes, and we have the understanding the nomal buckets are used up by actions like delivering food into famine.

To me it seems the systms influcence buckets have "standard" size depending on system population. Influence actions add (or subtract) to/from those standard buckets. The tick now calculates new percentages based on the new content of the buckets, afterwards it normalizes the buckets again back to standard size, rounding (or truncating) if necessary. Due to the rounding/truncating the percentages on the next tick might again change a bit, which are rounded/truncated again. Depending on the numbers and bucket sizes involved this should end sometime generaly, thus leading to the observed effects.

I'm not knowledable enough on the BGS nor patient enough to test it out but we should see some effects:
* same actions should have more effect for smaller factions than for large ( (1+1)/101 is more visible than (99+1)/101) )
* repeated actions in the same tick should have diminishing effect ( (50+10)/110 larger increase than (60+10)/120), independent from caps that also exist
* it should be possible to deduce actual bucketsizes from the untouched influence changes, at least for small systems. And maybe even the progression depending on popoulation (I'd expect some logarithmic thing like the CC-progression for powerplay)

from what i get from this concept, it sounds very interesting. can you (or somebody) add a hypothetical example? would help somebody like me to compare to my "real galaxy"-numbers.

 

[CoatOSilver]

from what i get from this concept, it sounds very interesting. can you (or somebody) add a hypothetical example? would help somebody like me to compare to my "real galaxy"-numbers.

Ok, lets do an example and see where it leads us:

Spoiler

Let's assume a system with a influcene bucket of 100. 3 Factions (A: 65%, B 25%, C: 10%) as a start. Percentages and per-factions buckets match in this state.

Action 1: 10 positive influence actions for A
A bucket: 65 + 10 = 75
B bucket: 25
C bucket: 10

At tick 1.1:
new bucket sum: 110
new A%: 68.2% (68.1818..) (+3.2)
new B%: 22.7% (22.7272..) (-2.3)
new C%: 9.1% (9.0909...) (-0.9)

normalized buckets after tick 1.1:
A: 69
B: 23
C: 10
(Note: Sum is not 100 but 102 due to rounding up)

No further actions on day 2. So we get to tick 1.2:
new bucket sum: 102
new A%: 67.6% (67.6470...)
new B%: 22.5% (22.549...)
new C%: 9.8% (9.803...)

normalized buckets after tick 1.2:
A: 68
B: 23
C: 10

No further actions on day 3. So we get to tick 1.3:
new bucket sum: 101
new A%: 67.3% (67.326..)
new B%: 22.7% (22.7722...)
new C%: 9.9% (9.9009...)

normalized buckets after tick 1.3:
A: 68
B: 23
C: 10
(Note: same as before, so no further visible changes)
End of example 1

Example 2:
Same systems and starting factions.

Actions 2: 20 postive actions for Faction A
A bucket: 65 + 20 = 85
B bucket: 25
C bucket: 10

At tick 2.1:
new bucket sum: 120
new A%: 70.8% (70.333..) (+5.8) (Note: smaller than 2*3.2 = 6.4)
new B%: 20.8% (20.8333..) (-4.2)
new C%: 8.3% (8.333...) (-1.7)
(Note: rounding error in the percentage sum)

normalized buckets after tick 2.1:
A bucket: 71
B bucket: 21
C bucket: 9

No further actions on day 2. So we get to tick 2.2:
new bucket sum: 101
new A%: 70.3% (70.2970..)
new B%: 20.8% (20.7920...)
new C%: 8.9% (8.9108..)

normalized buckets after tick 2.2:
A bucket: 71
B bucket: 21
C bucket: 9
(same as before, no further changes)
End of example 2

Example 3:
Bigger system with a standard bucket of 333. Same starting factions (65, 25, 10)

Actions 3: 10 postive actions for Faction A
A bucket: 333*65% = 217 (rounded up) + 10 = 227
B bucket: 333*25% = 84
C bucket: 333*10% = 34

At tick 3.1:
new bucket sum: 345
new A%: 65.8% (65.797...) (+0.8)
new B%: 24.3% (24.347..) (-0.7)
new C%: 9.8% (9.855..) (-0.2)

normalized buckets after tick 2.1:
A bucket: 333*65.9% = 220 (rounded up)
B bucket: 81
C bucket: 33

No further actions on day 2. So we get to tick 3.2:
new bucket sum: 334
new A%: 65.8% (65.868..)
new B%: 24.2% (24.251..)
new C%: 9.8% (9.880..)

normalized buckets after tick 3.2:
A bucket: 220
B bucket: 81
C bucket: 33
Same as before.
End of Example 3

Depending on precission used and actual bucket sizes and relative action value the percentages can adjust for quite some time.
I'm sure there are various details that could be different, but I was surprised myself how those numbers turned out. I honestly expected to see very wild swings due to the small numbers I used in the examples and the real thing was smoothed out by bucketsizes in the thousands. But it seems I was not too far off.

Back to lurking for me, hope the concept helps a bit.

 

[Jmanis]

Ok, lets do an example and see where it leads us:

Spoiler

Let's assume a system with a influcene bucket of 100. 3 Factions (A: 65%, B 25%, C: 10%) as a start. Percentages and per-factions buckets match in this state.

Action 1: 10 positive influence actions for A
A bucket: 65 + 10 = 75
B bucket: 25
C bucket: 10

At tick 1.1:
new bucket sum: 110
new A%: 68.2% (68.1818..) (+3.2)
new B%: 22.7% (22.7272..) (-2.3)
new C%: 9.1% (9.0909...) (-0.9)

normalized buckets after tick 1.1:
A: 69
B: 23
C: 10
(Note: Sum is not 100 but 102 due to rounding up)

No further actions on day 2. So we get to tick 1.2:
new bucket sum: 102
new A%: 67.6% (67.6470...)
new B%: 22.5% (22.549...)
new C%: 9.8% (9.803...)

normalized buckets after tick 1.2:
A: 68
B: 23
C: 10

No further actions on day 3. So we get to tick 1.3:
new bucket sum: 101
new A%: 67.3% (67.326..)
new B%: 22.7% (22.7722...)
new C%: 9.9% (9.9009...)

normalized buckets after tick 1.3:
A: 68
B: 23
C: 10
(Note: same as before, so no further visible changes)
End of example 1

Example 2:
Same systems and starting factions.

Actions 2: 20 postive actions for Faction A
A bucket: 65 + 20 = 85
B bucket: 25
C bucket: 10

At tick 2.1:
new bucket sum: 120
new A%: 70.8% (70.333..) (+5.8) (Note: smaller than 2*3.2 = 6.4)
new B%: 20.8% (20.8333..) (-4.2)
new C%: 8.3% (8.333...) (-1.7)
(Note: rounding error in the percentage sum)

normalized buckets after tick 2.1:
A bucket: 71
B bucket: 21
C bucket: 9

No further actions on day 2. So we get to tick 2.2:
new bucket sum: 101
new A%: 70.3% (70.2970..)
new B%: 20.8% (20.7920...)
new C%: 8.9% (8.9108..)

normalized buckets after tick 2.2:
A bucket: 71
B bucket: 21
C bucket: 9
(same as before, no further changes)
End of example 2

Example 3:
Bigger system with a standard bucket of 333. Same starting factions (65, 25, 10)

Actions 3: 10 postive actions for Faction A
A bucket: 333*65% = 217 (rounded up) + 10 = 227
B bucket: 333*25% = 84
C bucket: 333*10% = 34

At tick 3.1:
new bucket sum: 345
new A%: 65.8% (65.797...) (+0.8)
new B%: 24.3% (24.347..) (-0.7)
new C%: 9.8% (9.855..) (-0.2)

normalized buckets after tick 2.1:
A bucket: 333*65.9% = 220 (rounded up)
B bucket: 81
C bucket: 33

No further actions on day 2. So we get to tick 3.2:
new bucket sum: 334
new A%: 65.8% (65.868..)
new B%: 24.2% (24.251..)
new C%: 9.8% (9.880..)

normalized buckets after tick 3.2:
A bucket: 220
B bucket: 81
C bucket: 33
Same as before.
End of Example 3

Depending on precission used and actual bucket sizes and relative action value the percentages can adjust for quite some time.
I'm sure there are various details that could be different, but I was surprised myself how those numbers turned out. I honestly expected to see very wild swings due to the small numbers I used in the examples and the real thing was smoothed out by bucketsizes in the thousands. But it seems I was not too far off.

Back to lurking for me, hope the concept helps a bit.

I like the concept. A lot. If i had to suggest any improvements, it'd be defining what an 'action' is. My observations on mission influence and diminishing gains might help in that regard, but that's a great way of showing how 'decay' gets observed without actually having a decay mechanic.

 

[sutex]

OMG the Bible ! Thx you very much Walt

Adding in the bug : Actually you can win a civil war but the losers keep the station / outpost. It's not possible to win it

The Bible , with corrections , finally

 

[goemon]

Back to lurking for me, hope the concept helps a bit.

looks brilliant.

I like the concept. A lot. If i had to suggest any improvements, it'd be defining what an 'action' is. My observations on mission influence and diminishing gains might help in that regard, but that's a great way of showing how 'decay' gets observed without actually having a decay mechanic.

you mean, that kind of (100-INFLUENCE)-factor? also, it might be, that population is simply a factor in influence-bucket size.

 

[CoatOSilver]

.... If i had to suggest any improvements, it'd be defining what an 'action' is. ...

Well it just presents a theory how influence buckets may work. Someone has to design some experiments that might prove or disprove it.

It does not explain the parameters that go into into it but some theories for that too:

Actions: Well basicly the numbers from Michel Brooks "Actions" table, influence column (thats why I termed it so, and the term was used in the lifestream)

Influence-Bucket-size: Thats actualy a misnomer. It should be influence scaling factor. Likely population, maybe other factors like wealth, security contribute to it. I would expect population to enter as a logarithmic term (e.g. pop 1000 add 10 to the factor/bucketsize, 10.000 adds 20, 100k 30, 1M 40, .....) with some factor, but I have no other hint to that than the CC-scaling in powerplay.

Precission in the calculations might be an issue: The concept can be done with integer mathmatics, but even as FDev seems to be very CPU-cycle aware, this might be a bit too much for a background task. So likely it is done with some floating point arithmetic, but hard do know when rounding may kick in.

BTW: I always rounded up in the examples. This is to make sure no faction-bucket is ever empty (from the calculations, actions might empty it I guess), also it provides an advantage to the smaller factions in the decay phase.

Outside, i.e. done before, is any cap on the (actions)-numbers, as well as the question which player interactions actually lead to one or more bucket-actions. Obviously the 1t trade single action was nerfed. There should be some tests, what really are single actions of the various types and how much action-value missions provide.

 

[Jmanis]

you mean, that kind of (100-INFLUENCE)-factor? also, it might be, that population is simply a factor in influence-bucket size.

<Useful things and stuff>

You know what, stuff it, I tried to write something twice and failed both times.

Long and the short is, I think CoatOSilver's idea is bang-on the money. I also ran his theory over some of my own stats i dismissed as "outliers" or "poisoned by other players" and it actually predicted the results almost perfectly, *and* neatly explains so-called "decay". ThingsI guess we need to look at now are:
1. The exact effect of population on the buckets (logarithmic is most logical, but how logarithmic is it?), and;
2. How a mixture of positive and negative effects impact a faction; and
3. What effect more players could have?

e.g of 2, If Faction A has 75% influence, and receives 10 points in the positive bucket for running missions, and gets 10 points in the negative bucket from authority ship kills, is this a net zero impact (10 - 10), or because Faction A has 75% influence, the negative impact is more effective than the positive impact, resulting in a net loss for that faction? Or maybe it's just KISS?

On a note of 1t trading, I my guess is each transaction would put 1 point in the positive bucket if it's for profit, one in the negative bucket if it's for loss, as trying to factor in QTY of goods sold and total profit made would be a PITA in that sort of system. How that was then fixed or mitigated, I have no idea.

EDIT: For what it's worth, I'm going to assign low/med/high missions "action values" of 1,2,4 as a start point... based on observations I've made on that I'm also going to run with the following bucket sizes:

1,000 - 200 "points"
10,000 - 400 "points"
100,000 - 600
etc.

 

[Matzov]

In the spirit of KISS -
We know that the game has descriptors for population; very small, very large etc. The simplest explanation is that these are the various levels that help determine bucket size.
Add to that, we know from the stream, that some things are hidden and remain hidden -- wealth, standard of living etc. We could perhaps make some guess-timates about these, based on economy types, and what we see in the outfitting/shipyard?