A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
This was a direct result of the Lugh War. The change to the way systems changed hands occurred immediately upon CSG taking over the main station. Before the war...a system had to be 'eaten'..smallest to largest station..with the last station fought over being the main one. After the war...anyone could take over a system just by going to war with the controlling faction...and winning against them since they immediately forfeit the controlling station at that point. Why did this change? Only the devs know. I have my ideas why...and others have theirs. <shrug>
- - - Updated - - -
That is the only way...unless system maps update, and you have access to them from the system you are in.
That makes sense - we pushed a native faction all the way.
Well, the way I see it - and especially with large and huge population systems - people organise themselves into factions. I see the idea of different factions as at least nodding in the direction of that reality: A system with some 9 billion people in it is always going to have different groups within it vying for power. The politics in Elite is essentially tribal. In a tiny population system like Mikunn, I can see the point of one system - one faction, but even in a system with a relatively small population like Manite (more than 1,000 times smaller than Sol), the idea makes much less sense.
More later - got to get ready for work.
Frontier: check your file permissions. You may have stationowner.txt set to read only 
Last edited:
In 1.3 I managed to expand my chosen Minor Faction into three neighbouring systems, then captured all the minor stations in those systems through civil war and ultimately took the main stations to became the Controlling Faction in each.
It may just be a matter of which particular bugs were active at any point in time
The BGS certainly moves in mysterious ways.
I have a minor faction (call it faction A) in my system my group is trying to steal a refinery from, so we've been looking to raise their influence to start a war with them. I used this opportunity to try and raise their influence using only bounty hunting to test the underlined portion of this theory, and after several days efforts proved completely fruitless. I have a new theory I'm currently putting to the test, specifically about the underlined part. I still have a few targeted tests I need to do to confirm this over the next couple sessions, but I think it works this way:
-
Bounties are currently divided into two categories: major faction bounty (Federation, Alliance, Empire) and minor faction bounty.
-
Major Faction Bounties - count towards the influence of whoever owns the station you hand them in at
Minor Faction Bounties - boost that faction's influence, regardless of where you turn them in
-
In my testing in trying to raise Faction A's influence, I've turned in about 30m in bounties in a four day span, yet their influence has gone nowhere. It may raise or lower a percentage point, but basically has hovered around 15%. Yet, I've previously proven in my tiny poulation system I can hand in a third of that value to my own faction's port, and reliably raise our influence. So why does Faction A go nowhere? Because, my own faction's bounty has a nullifying effect vs the influence gain Faction A may get from the major faction bounty.
-
Since my faction owns the system, the majority of bounties I collect are almost always for my faction, followed closely by the system major faction (Federation), and the other minor and major factions are ususally way behind those two totals. I'd estimate roughly that my faction and Federation usually represent about 35-40% each of what I collect (totaling 70-80%), leaving all other factions to make up the remaining 20-30%. The remaining faction's splits are never as consistant and seem to have nothing to do with their respective influence values. So, while faction A gets a minor boost from me turning in their bounties, they get a much larger boost from me turning in my Federation bounties at their port, and them it is all basically nulled out when I turn in my own faction's bounties. Now this may actually be the same as the way bounties worked prior to 1.3, but since major faction bounties were the large majority of what you collected back then, it was a viable way to move any faction's influence at their ports. Post 1.3, the new bounty system shifted the focus to minor factions, and the controlling minor faction now represents the lion's share of bounties you collect. If I'm right, this means that bounty hunting is now really only a viable option for shifting influence for controlling factions, and has a minimal to null impact by turning them in at stations the controlling faction doesn't own.
-
The Final Test to prove this out I've yet to do, involves me getting a good total of bounties, going to Faction A's refinery and handing in their bounties and the major faction bounties, but witholding all others. If I'm right, this will finally move their influence up where handing in the entire lump sum before has failed. Realise, that even if that proves successful still means that improving influence numbers for non-controlling minor factions through bounty hunting is not a viable option, since you can't turn in the controlling faction's bounties anywhere else.
Last edited:
well, you actually can, if that controlling faction expanded to another system.
Theoretically, no. Bounty hunting will help your controlling system expand, but once your faction reaches a new system, you will be a new non-controlling faction in that system, yes? That means hunting in your home system should have no impact on the influence of your faction in the new system as they are separate, and hunting in the new system will only benefit the controlling system there.
you were stating, you can't turn in the controlling factions bounties anywhere else. but you can - if that controlling faction expanded to another system. you can turn in the bounties there.
---
btw., there is one proofed way to help your factiom by bounty hunting if it is not the controlling faction.
you can shoot wanted ships of the controlling faction (but none else). this will lower the controlling factions influence (if you don't turn in the bounties in your system).
if your faction has expanded, and owns a station, you can also help your faction, by bountyhunting in the other system and turning bounties in the system you want to influence.
You're right. I didn't make the connection. +rep to you sir.
True, but there didn't really seem to be that many wanted of my own faction, certainly no where near as many as the local pirate faction, and so few as to probably not make much difference. My people are apparently mostly law-abiding. I could just blow them all to hades, but I don't want to make myself wanted with my own faction
We are not there yet. I actually wanted to seize the other refinery in my system before attempting expansion.
Last edited:
This is true but only of value if your faction is the Number 2 in the rating list.
Points lost by the Number 1 faction are passed to the the next one down, so if your faction is Number 3 you make no progress up the ladder.
While huge populations would contain several political parties, there is a great difference between this and the government allowing rivals to possess weapons as sophisticated as starships. Human governments have always monopolised the legitimate possession of armed forces. Political parties which develop their own forces are secessionists.
--
It is not clear how the settlements brought in with Horizons are to be integrated with the BGS. I suggest that we explore the possibility of a new approach based on a single minor faction owning all the space assets, both ships and stations, of a system. If one of the non-governing parties in a system gains both sufficient influence and the economic ability to pay for assistance, a revolution causes a civil war, if the system is invaded there would be war. If invaders are expelled from a system by civil war they would not remain as a non-governing party.
--
Minor factions could 'fortify' their systems before wars by bringing supplies to them to increase the resistance level of the system. Once maximum defence level has been reached, the surplus would go towards an invasion force. Another advantage is that influence updates can be once a week rather than daily, since they no longer have a direct impact on station ownership. If the attackers achieve enough one week without ending a war, it can go on to the next week. The progress to civil war in a system could be tracked in stages- unrest, lockdown/martial law, civil war. This allows the defenders time to quell trouble.
--
Then we can finally be rid of 'conflict zones.' Either a system is at war or it is not, there are not small arenas where you are permitted to attack enemy ships otherwise protected by system authority. Wars could be resolved by an adaptation of the CG method using two simultaneous CGs dependent on the resistance level of the system- if the defenders deliver enough supplies they win, if the attackers destroy enough trade ships they win. If the attackers make enough progress they can take subsidiary stations, otherwise the ships which declare for the attackers cannot dock. In a civil war, combat bonds would only be payable once the revolutionaries took a station.
--
Wars would be simple, the interdictor would become useful and the interdiction of trade convoys the main cause of fighting. This is how wars should work around heavily armed and indestructible stations which need constant resupply. An interdicted convoy could be reinforced and attackers join in as well, so that 'conflict zones' emerge from player activity. Trade ships would not jump out once interdicted, as this would make them easy prey.
--
The suggestion as outlined might be easier to integrate with Powerplay than the existing one. It also makes use of assets already developed for the game but not yet combined in an effective manner.
--
It is not clear how the settlements brought in with Horizons are to be integrated with the BGS. I suggest that we explore the possibility of a new approach based on a single minor faction owning all the space assets, both ships and stations, of a system. If one of the non-governing parties in a system gains both sufficient influence and the economic ability to pay for assistance, a revolution causes a civil war, if the system is invaded there would be war. If invaders are expelled from a system by civil war they would not remain as a non-governing party.
--
Minor factions could 'fortify' their systems before wars by bringing supplies to them to increase the resistance level of the system. Once maximum defence level has been reached, the surplus would go towards an invasion force. Another advantage is that influence updates can be once a week rather than daily, since they no longer have a direct impact on station ownership. If the attackers achieve enough one week without ending a war, it can go on to the next week. The progress to civil war in a system could be tracked in stages- unrest, lockdown/martial law, civil war. This allows the defenders time to quell trouble.
--
Then we can finally be rid of 'conflict zones.' Either a system is at war or it is not, there are not small arenas where you are permitted to attack enemy ships otherwise protected by system authority. Wars could be resolved by an adaptation of the CG method using two simultaneous CGs dependent on the resistance level of the system- if the defenders deliver enough supplies they win, if the attackers destroy enough trade ships they win. If the attackers make enough progress they can take subsidiary stations, otherwise the ships which declare for the attackers cannot dock. In a civil war, combat bonds would only be payable once the revolutionaries took a station.
--
Wars would be simple, the interdictor would become useful and the interdiction of trade convoys the main cause of fighting. This is how wars should work around heavily armed and indestructible stations which need constant resupply. An interdicted convoy could be reinforced and attackers join in as well, so that 'conflict zones' emerge from player activity. Trade ships would not jump out once interdicted, as this would make them easy prey.
--
The suggestion as outlined might be easier to integrate with Powerplay than the existing one. It also makes use of assets already developed for the game but not yet combined in an effective manner.
No. They are the same entity, as far as I can tell. Fines and bounties and reputation you accrue for that faction apply for all instances of that faction. You can also hand in bounties for that faction which you've accrued in other systems.
*However* something to bear in mind and possibly even question is this; You destroy "wanted" ships to hand in bounties. But destroying those ships also has an effect on influence, so that effect will apply to the factions of the system you destroyed the ships of. This is also assuming it's the effect of handing in bounties that changes influence, and not just the act of killing the ships (bearing in mind, since the change to make bounties specific to minor factions, it would be very hard to test now. Under the old system it would have been much easier).
If the act of handing in bounties alone doesn't change influence/changes it less than the ship kills, then yes, you would have trouble unless you were the controlling faction.
Maybe someone is aware of an experiment where ships were killed in a system, and bounties handed in to a different one?
On a tangent, I'm playing around with the idea of government affecting what actions have more favourable influence outcomes. Since I've started running (any) missions for my group's faction (Dictatorship), I've had a hard time causing change for my faction, unlike my previous faction (Patronage) which had reliable gains from running missions. Now instead of missions, I'm killing pirates and handing in bounties, and trading exclusively in weapons in the station. With a half dozen kills, 150k in bounties and 200t of weapons traded (usual inability to isolate other players) I saw a 10% increase overnight, after spending the last week consistently trending down.
Last edited:
Unless they fixed it since Sunday without me hearing about it, all transfers of station control are bugged.
I went to look at my faction, and after 'winning' the last civil war and maintaining ~60% influence to the controlling one's ~20%, they're pending for another civil war. Despite not stations changing hands in the previous war. I really think they should fix this ASAP.
Okay, I don't know if this has been reported yet but I just noticed that apparently charity missions increase the Civil Unrest state. I'm not sure if this is only when that state is active or if it also applies when it's Pending/Inactive.
Great news! Nice to see FD work on/improve the BGS.