Instead of just letting them time expire, the most negative influence effect would be to complete them at the alternative offered by those chaps that contact you in super cruise.
A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
Instead of just letting them time expire, the most negative influence effect would be to complete them at the alternative offered by those chaps that contact you in super cruise.
I understand that part, but I was looking to verify time out missions didn't affect the BGS.
There is still LOTS of bad gouge out there regarding the BGS.
Frequent ones I heard just this week
- Donation missions hurt the faction giving the mission
- Abandoning missions hurts the faction giving the mission
- Timeout of missions hurts the faction giving the mission
- Turning in bounties only help the faction giving the bounty regardless of station turned in
i'd say so, if you don#t turn in major faction bounties, which help the station controlling faction. also you have to factor in, which ships you shoot: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=193064&p=3721127&viewfull=1#post3721127
Sorry miss understood your comment earlier, but regarding the above, that is definitely false.
Where you hand them in is important. I used a war in one system of a faction, then sold the bonds in another where it was present to raise them in the system where sold.
In the war system, there was no influence change. In the bond selling system it raised them as hoped. With no traffic in either system other than myself, I knew this was my work alone.
I believe this works just the same for bounties from BHing.
it does. bounties and bonds a) effect the system they are turned in b) effect the influence of the faction which gave them out, no matter at which station you turn them in c) major faction bounties effect the station owners influence.
the "bountyhunting"-effect in terms of BGS is handing in bounties/ bountie transactions.
Yes, but that's actual work to complete the alternative mission path. When the patch wasn't in a single CMDR could just tank influence without ever leaving the station.
Both combat bonds and bounties assist the paying faction in the system that they are cashed in. As we understand it the station is of no relevance. If anyone has testing results that have determined otherwise we would be very interested to see the results.
- Donation missions hurt the faction giving the mission
That would not concur with testing.
- Abandoning missions hurts the faction giving the mission
It did, but was fixed a long time ago. It was a common nuke when discovered but patched (undocumented I believe as many BGS changes are).
- Timeout of missions hurts the faction giving the mission
I don't believe that we have tested this, but it would have the same effect as above so we assume that this is also incorrect.
- Turning in bounties only help the faction giving the bounty regardless of station turned in
This one we believe to be correct, as above.
Absolutely, all failing missions by time elapsing does now is hurt your faction rep.
A questions regarding Systems and minor faction.
If a Faction (Lets call it bob) is in two systems System A and System B.
System A has a 10mil pop and System B has a 1k pop.
If someone Creates Lockdown for Faction bob in system B. Does that Cause lockdown in System A ?
And if Bob wanted to remove lockdown could they do it via system A ? (bad move but needs to be this way for the scenario )
If this is the case, is this not a Game mechanic bug ?
As you would only ever need to work on the small pop system to change state for all other systems belonging to bob.
Never needing to attack or Defend the high pop because you don't need too ?
If a Faction (Lets call it bob) is in two systems System A and System B.
System A has a 10mil pop and System B has a 1k pop.
If someone Creates Lockdown for Faction bob in system B. Does that Cause lockdown in System A ?
And if Bob wanted to remove lockdown could they do it via system A ? (bad move but needs to be this way for the scenario )
If this is the case, is this not a Game mechanic bug ?
As you would only ever need to work on the small pop system to change state for all other systems belonging to bob.
Never needing to attack or Defend the high pop because you don't need too ?
Last edited:
ongoing discussion some pages back...
yes. a faction can only have one active economical state at a time, it will be the same in all systems an effect all systems.
unknown/untested. i believe, that each system has its own state buckets, and a state needs to be countered in the system it comes from. other here believe, that a faction state-buckets are for all of its systems, and you can for exampel trigger lockdown by actions leading to lockdown in all systems, and also get out of lockdown via actions in all systems.
it is really hard to test, basically you'd need a faction in two systems with similar population and no traffic....
it might also be the case, that different states have faction wide buckets, and other have system-specific buckets...
parts of this is the case, and i wouldn't call it a bug, it actually is a finer way to control your minor faction when it gets into a lot of systems.
basically you'll set up a low population system, where you can counter any unwanted economic state in any system by getting into conflict. and if you are lucky, and you expand to a lowpopulation system, you can set it up for repeating expansion.
___
as for your question: attacking a high-population system is always hard, as it is controlling it. it will always come down to numbers/time ingame. if you have a large motivated group behind you, and the other group has less players or less motivation or less time, attcking the larger system can be a valid strategy - it will be hard to counter.
also - what means "attacking"? getting it into a state, or going for influence?
yes. a faction can only have one active economical state at a time, it will be the same in all systems an effect all systems.
unknown/untested. i believe, that each system has its own state buckets, and a state needs to be countered in the system it comes from. other here believe, that a faction state-buckets are for all of its systems, and you can for exampel trigger lockdown by actions leading to lockdown in all systems, and also get out of lockdown via actions in all systems.
it is really hard to test, basically you'd need a faction in two systems with similar population and no traffic....
it might also be the case, that different states have faction wide buckets, and other have system-specific buckets...
parts of this is the case, and i wouldn't call it a bug, it actually is a finer way to control your minor faction when it gets into a lot of systems.
basically you'll set up a low population system, where you can counter any unwanted economic state in any system by getting into conflict. and if you are lucky, and you expand to a lowpopulation system, you can set it up for repeating expansion.
___
as for your question: attacking a high-population system is always hard, as it is controlling it. it will always come down to numbers/time ingame. if you have a large motivated group behind you, and the other group has less players or less motivation or less time, attcking the larger system can be a valid strategy - it will be hard to counter.
also - what means "attacking"? getting it into a state, or going for influence?
Thanks for the reply goemon.
I see I was about right in my thinking.
By attacking, I meant changing the state to a non desirable one. I guess i'll go do some testing.
I think if you can force a state on a Large pop using a small pop system, that's wrong and needs looking at. As the amount of effort to put a small pop into a state is far less than a high pop.
And there are no indicators of which system caused the state, or so it seems to me. If you had to do the Defensive state change IE reverting it back to a preferable state, without the information of which of your 8 or so systems caused the state. Then surely Fdev would have supplied that info if it was the case that you needed to do it in the system that caused it.
Once again thanks... A testing I go
I see I was about right in my thinking.
By attacking, I meant changing the state to a non desirable one. I guess i'll go do some testing.
I think if you can force a state on a Large pop using a small pop system, that's wrong and needs looking at. As the amount of effort to put a small pop into a state is far less than a high pop.
And there are no indicators of which system caused the state, or so it seems to me. If you had to do the Defensive state change IE reverting it back to a preferable state, without the information of which of your 8 or so systems caused the state. Then surely Fdev would have supplied that info if it was the case that you needed to do it in the system that caused it.
Once again thanks... A testing I go
Last edited:
Thanks for the reply goemon.
I see I was about right in my thinking.
By attacking, I meant changing the state to a non desirable one. I guess i'll go do some testing.
I think if you can force a state on a Large pop using a small pop system, that's wrong and needs looking at. As the amount of effort to put a small pop into a state is far less than a high pop.
And there are no indicators of which system caused the state, or so it seems to me. If you had to do the Defensive state change IE reverting it back to a preferable state, without the information of which of your 8 or so systems caused the state. Then surely Fdev would have supplied that info if it was the case that you needed to do it in the system that caused it.
Once again thanks... A testing I go
well, you can counter an attack of the small system by actio in the small system --- it is balanced in that way. also, you can put your larger system into a state, and prolong it...
you have an info on where a state comes from via POI (like CZ, or "seeking goods"), i think.
I'm currently testing this. so far, 40 timed out missions in a remote, single station, low population system have had no effect on any influence.
If I understand this correctly,
1 - turning in major power bounties increases the influence of the faction controlling the station the bounty is turned in to
2 - minor faction bounties increase the influence of the minor faction giving the bounty, regardless of station turned in to
3 - the NUMBER of bounties turned in matters much more that the *_value_* of the bounties turned in
correct. even more correct: the number of bounty-transactions.
The station doesn't matter but the system does. If you have a faction in two systems and you collect bounties from them in system 1 and hand them in in system 2 you will get your increase in system 2. Provided you do not turn in any bounties in system 1 and only shoot wanted ships there will be no change in system 1 (apart from the daily decay like effect). This is a good way to push your faction in their new system after expansion.
... besides influence losses/gains via shipkills. the BGS doesn't care whether a ship is wanted or not for that basic effect. if you shoot a ship from a minor faction that minor faction looses influence in the system.
somehow, the BGS is very simplistic, but as we can see from the case "bounty hunting", it gets complex quite fast.
dynamicbob
Banned
the pirate / trader / police / military tags may affect other elements of the background sim, but not the basic influence factoring
Has anyone done any testing on missions offered by station personalities?
.
I've had a few lately from station Controllers (might be Commander), and in the past have had missions from the station Cleaning Operative.
They have all been assassination missions (but that's probably because I'm not such a nice CMDR).
.
These are fairly rare missions, so I understand if they haven't been tested much. They are also likely to dissapear altogether once 2.1 hits.
.
I've had a few lately from station Controllers (might be Commander), and in the past have had missions from the station Cleaning Operative.
They have all been assassination missions (but that's probably because I'm not such a nice CMDR).
.
These are fairly rare missions, so I understand if they haven't been tested much. They are also likely to dissapear altogether once 2.1 hits.
dynamicbob
Banned
another thing that needs testing with trade is a volume delivered versus transactions total ( i have a feeling that with buckets) is that 100x 1 of a good sold would as far as 100 transactions on the background sim, have 100x the factor of 100 of a good delivered in one trrade
Anyone want to test to see if such a tedius thing can bring about a boom, and that selling legal weapon types can break a boom as well (bust modifier)
Anyone want to test to see if such a tedius thing can bring about a boom, and that selling legal weapon types can break a boom as well (bust modifier)