I'll happily fly shooty-shooty-pew-pew with you. Count me in.
Hey monkey. Thanks for the offer but we got things wrapped up on today's tick!
I'll happily fly shooty-shooty-pew-pew with you. Count me in.
Oh.Hey monkey. Thanks for the offer but we got things wrapped up on today's tick!
Directing expansions is easier than ever.
I'm not sure the interpretation is correct. You can positively influence a factions influence, however you are limited in the tools you can use for the duration of the conflict. This can make it quite a challenge in busier systems which can wipe out weeks of hard won gains. As you say a real pain in the proverbials.
The BGS is always evolving. I don't believe that this latest iteration is an improvement. Far too much time is now spent on maintenance rather than expansion or taking system assets. It has probably been introduced to limit development of a faction once it hits a certain size, or at least provide a challenge for larger faction management.
My assumption is this is very deliberated and in fact precisely intended to limit faction expansion unless you have the manpower to cover all your systems. How much sense does it make for, say, a single player to expand a faction into 100 systems without any problem? That should need the coordinated efforts of many players.
Just to make sure im not misintepreting what your saying here, I'll clarify my earlier point.
System A has Fac A and B in conflict.
System B has Fac A in a None state.
Doing missions of any variety for Fac A in System B WILL NOT INCREASE its Influence % in System B. The current conflict in system A precludes this.
I've tested this, a friend has tested it yesterday and it was mentioned here before.
All in systems where we are the sole traffic.
Worse part is, you can smash a Faction in a system where it is None state but in conflict elsewhere. 40% in 3 days is easily achieveable.
Any word yet on if 2.2 will introduce any passanger or tourism related states into the background simulation ?
Only combat related activities (e.g. cashing combat bonds) still have an effect across the faction during wartime.
I'm sure I did this at some point also, fighting in the War system, cashing in elsewhere and it made no difference but I will test again soon as I have conflict coming again.
I can't see how to locate this, and it may be somewhere in these 270+ pages of posts, but how do CGs affect the BGS?
And do things like the Sothis/Ceos runs completely screw up the BGS in those systems? Aren't they so out of whack due to how many players use(abuse) their existence that there's no real semblance of faction interplay in those systems and the ones nearby?
I'm looking for a little clarification on Retreat. My understanding is that the active phase is 3 days and the retreating faction has to remain under 2.5%, but I'm not sure how many days countdown there is for retreat and do they have to remain below the 2.5% threshold for the countdown period also?
Factions are considered to be in withdrawal if their level of influence within a system drops below a certain level. If the faction's influence remains low for a total of five days, the faction must leave the system entirely. If the faction manages to increase its level of influence, it remains in the system.
I can't see how to locate this, and it may be somewhere in these 270+ pages of posts, but how do CGs affect the BGS?
And do things like the Sothis/Ceos runs completely screw up the BGS in those systems? Aren't they so out of whack due to how many players use(abuse) their existence that there's no real semblance of faction interplay in those systems and the ones nearby?
I can't see how to locate this, and it may be somewhere in these 270+ pages of posts, but how do CGs affect the BGS?
And do things like the Sothis/Ceos runs completely screw up the BGS in those systems? Aren't they so out of whack due to how many players use(abuse) their existence that there's no real semblance of faction interplay in those systems and the ones nearby?
Thanks! That's what I suspected. Might be time to move to another system then.Systems hosting a CG often end up being seriously effected by the CG. A smuggling CG will almost always cause a system to change ownership. A trade CG will usualy cause boom, and often expansion. Bountyhiunting CGs aren't so good for many of teh factiosn in a system. Rare goods CGs often push the source system into expansion as well as the destination.
It's not just CGs. I've been involved in canpaigns to change the ownership of a system, and due to several players running a large number of missions, all the nearby systems have ended up in civil unrest, lockdown or conflict.
I guess that Sothis, Ceos and Robigo are pretty messed up systems.
A CG could be used as a weapon for or against a particular faction. Hopefully FD are paying attention to the CGs that they are setting up for players. They do ask the factions directly involved in the CGs, but may not know about other factions in the area that would be affected.Anybody running a faction on the BGS probably has 'CG Aversion', symptoms similar to the Plague in it start with cold sweats when a Thursday comes round and developes into violent vommiting when you find its near your systems. Time is your only cure, or death.
I think it's been proven that it makes no difference what system is expanded into. Pity really, as it would be nice to be able to have some influence.Is it possible to direct an expansion by doing only doing courier missions to the system you want to expand to? (If you're lucky and they spawn at all)
I think it's been proven that it makes no difference what system is expanded into. Pity really, as it would be nice to be able to have some influence.