A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim

[Cmdr Noast]

greetings

i have a question
does taking and letting missions expire for a certain faction still reduce their influence ?

we have 5 members taking up to 20 missions each every day since 3 days now and letting them expire (fail) for a faction we want to reduce
but we are only seeing a very small decrease in influence -0,1 % per day (the faction is in no state and has 6,6 % influence in this system )

thx in adnvance for your time

 

[Gemai]

It would appear that 2.2 has reverted back to the original mechanic.

Recorded now in 2 factions in separate systems over 3 conflicts (2 election 1 war). Has anyone had the same experience?

I saw the same. Which explains why suddenly wars are quick hard and devastating for the losing side if clear. Which, in honesty, I don't mind. It is fairer this way.

 

[Marcus Machiavelli]

greetings

i have a question
does taking and letting missions expire for a certain faction still reduce their influence ?

we have 5 members taking up to 20 missions each every day since 3 days now and letting them expire (fail) for a faction we want to reduce
but we are only seeing a very small decrease in influence -0,1 % per day (the faction is in no state and has 6,6 % influence in this system )

thx in adnvance for your time

Sorry, i am pretty sure this has been taken away for just this reason, as you could move into a player groups system and for minimal effort crash their influence.
Now you have to do missions for the other factions and out grind them, or murder their ships.

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

does taking and letting missions expire for a certain faction still reduce their influence ?

Abandoning some missions can leave you with stolen cargo. Selling this to a blackmarket will reduce the controlling faction. Or if the cargo isn't stolen, dump it just outside the station. The fines you get should reduce the controlling faction's influence a little.

 

[Schlack]

I saw the same. Which explains why suddenly wars are quick hard and devastating for the losing side if clear. Which, in honesty, I don't mind. It is fairer this way.

Thanks for the confirmation.

The reversion to the original mechanic has created unfortunate imbalance. All actions are available to the non conflict state factions while the actions available to the conflict state factions are limited to that particular state. Elections are particularly restrictive.

 

[_trent_]

Dumb question time. One of the factions in our system is pending election in a nearby system. Since when could Dictatorships go into election?

 

[Ian Phillips]

Since the Dictator decided that they could!

 

[Sentenza]

Dumb question time. One of the factions in our system is pending election in a nearby system. Since when could Dictatorships go into election?

Dictatorships go election with other dictatorships. Yes, it does not make sense

 

[_trent_]

If your faction gets it's influence above 60%, it will start a conflict for the control of the system.
But either faction in a conflict (election, war, civil war) in another system will stop this happening while that conflict lasts.

Just wanted to say that although your advice is spot on as usual, the rep I gave you was for the new Avatar.

 

[Gemai]

Dumb question time. One of the factions in our system is pending election in a nearby system. Since when could Dictatorships go into election?

They could always elect with other autocrats. So with Theocracy, Feudalism and Patronage.

 

[_trent_]

Since the Dictator decided that they could!

Ok, thanks.

Dictatorships go election with other dictatorships. Yes, it does not make sense

Thanks as well.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

They could always elect with other autocrats. So with Theocracy, Feudalism and Patronage.

Really. First time this faction has done it. Learn something new everyday. Thanks

Talking of things that don't make much sense, I've found out recently that every skimmer massacre mission I take lists the effect on the target faction as increasing the risk of famine. Took 4 different missions for 4 different factions over the past couple of days and every one listed the same state effects regardless of the economies of the stations/bases involved.

Spoiler

 

[CMDR Endincite]

All Faction types except anarchy can have elections within their *group* of types. E.g. dictatorships will have elections with patronage and iirc prison colonies. Democracy with cooperative. Sorry I don't have a complete list handy.

 

[Sentenza]

I saw the same. Which explains why suddenly wars are quick hard and devastating for the losing side if clear. Which, in honesty, I don't mind. It is fairer this way.

It is devastating for both then, because I can attest - seeing that right now - they can still lose to the other factions. So two factions in war can be crushed by the other factions with no chance to resist. Not good.

 

[Gemai]

So two factions in war can be crushed by the other factions with no chance to resist. Not good.

They always could. No war effort ever bested trade and missions if done in equal measure. A system in war is always a catastrophe. Hence using proxy warriors to path the way for an elective conquest.

Unless one thrives in combat, strategy in BGS is king.

 

[Sentenza]

They always could. No war effort ever bested trade and missions if done in equal measure. A system in war is always a catastrophe. Hence using proxy warriors to path the way for an elective conquest.

Unless one thrives in combat, strategy in BGS is king.

Yes but they could at least contain damage, or even put more effort than the others. Now this can't even be attempted.

 

[Gemai]

Yes but they could at least contain damage, or even put more effort than the others. Now this can't even be attempted.

They still can. If the difference is below 5% you can gain % from the non-war factions to win it. The assets were never connected below the war range of 7%.
If you do roughly as much as your enemy, the loss is minimal or mitigated.

It simply favors the side fighting in a war and offers a way to quickly retreat factions by destroying their % in war. So it can actually be useful.

 

[SaliVader]

They still can. If the difference is below 5% you can gain % from the non-war factions to win it. The assets were never connected below the war range of 7%.
If you do roughly as much as your enemy, the loss is minimal or mitigated.

It simply favors the side fighting in a war and offers a way to quickly retreat factions by destroying their % in war. So it can actually be useful.

Does this mean I could in theory steal a lot of influence from other factions by fighting equally for both sides?

 

[Gemai]

Does this mean I could in theory steal a lot of influence from other factions by fighting equally for both sides?

You read the text wrong. You need a minimum distance to win a war. To that end even in the old system factions could gain % they didn't own below 7% to reach 3 or 5% lead. Otherwise if both had 2% none could reach a winning 5%. The lock never occured below 7% even in the old system.

It does not mean you can game the system if both have 20+%. You just steal each others or destroy each others with both slowly dwindling down to 7%.

The war parties even in the previous version couldn't do that unless ONLY fighting occured. Once BGS trade or missions happen the war influence was so low one side simply "lost" less and won that way.

For the non war parties it is simple: Not fighting for any side at all. Just drain them during their war. But you could easily do that before.


Fighting NEVER, NEVER outperformed peace actions in BGS on equal manhour.

 

[Schlack]

Does this mean I could in theory steal a lot of influence from other factions by fighting equally for both sides?

That's a very interesting question. It may be possible but we haven't tried it under current conditions so it is unclear exactly how it would work.

I have asked on the bug forum for FD to confirm if this is working as intended as it represents a fundamental shift in the BGS mechanics that requires significant alteration of tactics and strategy.

 

[jimbeau1571]

Dictatorships go election with other dictatorships. Yes, it does not make sense

Dictatorship A 'Right, your all going to do this!'
Dictatorship B 'No your not, your all going to do this instead!!'
Dictatorship A 'We are in charge and we say this'
Dictatorship B 'To hell with what you say, this is what is happening'
Dictatorship A 'Right, lets have a democratically held election, and let the people decided which dictatorship decides what's going to happen'

And there folks, is Democracy in all its forms in a nutshell.