A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim

[Jmanis]

Quick question regarding influence percetages and mission rewards.

How much percentage goes towards my faction for a Medium Increase?

How much for Small Increase?

Won't ask for Large Increase as they don't appear to ever be offered.

Thank you.

This came up in the livestream.

tl;dr the displayed influence/rep gain display text is bugged. Under the hood, you/your faction is receiving the right amount of influence/rep beneath the hood, but because of the display text bug, it's impossible to know.

Food for thought though, influence as a % gain isn't a good measure, because of all the factors that affect that. A better measure is one using points in buckets. It's been a long time since I worked on this, but I once speculated that:

High Influence = 4 points
Med Influence = 2 points
Low Influence = 1 point
... where 1 point = 1% in a very low population system, = 0.03% in a high population system, for example, without even considering diminishing returns.

... but as mentioned, with the bugged display text, it's actually impossible to work out at the moment.

 

[White Shark]

This came up in the livestream.

tl;dr the displayed influence/rep gain display text is bugged. Under the hood, you/your faction is receiving the right amount of influence/rep beneath the hood, but because of the display text bug, it's impossible to know.

Food for thought though, influence as a % gain isn't a good measure, because of all the factors that affect that. A better measure is one using points in buckets. It's been a long time since I worked on this, but I once speculated that:

High Influence = 4 points
Med Influence = 2 points
Low Influence = 1 point
... where 1 point = 1% in a very low population system, = 0.03% in a high population system, for example, without even considering diminishing returns.

... but as mentioned, with the bugged display text, it's actually impossible to work out at the moment.

Haha oh great!

But regardless, thanks for this info! Still very useful to know!

Just makes it so hard when you want to take control of a system as you have to equalise with the controlling faction exactly. This mechanic is a bit strange in my opinion.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Haha oh great!

But regardless, thanks for this info! Still very useful to know!

Just makes it so hard when you want to take control of a system as you have to equalise with the controlling faction exactly. This mechanic is a bit strange in my opinion.

Or just murder them into retreat

Oh... erm.. war them into retreat.

 

[goemon]

Haha oh great!

But regardless, thanks for this info! Still very useful to know!

Just makes it so hard when you want to take control of a system as you have to equalise with the controlling faction exactly. This mechanic is a bit strange in my opinion.

equalising exactly is something that will happen automatically, if a conflict is not blocked, and you are "somewhere close".

do some missions in the system, and watch out how much you move things.... gives you an idea what is needed to get close.

it is practically only a problem when you operate first time in a system ... we reduced a faction from 7 to 1% and pushed a faction last week from 7% to 19% overnight, where we only wanted to end a war... had to pedal back to hold the second faction out of another war...

 

[Jmanis]

Or just murder them into retreat

Oh... erm.. war them into retreat.

Yeah,, until you hit said war state, and the pubbies realise they can do this coz your enemy happens to be the only one fielding a capship at a CZ 3 LS from the only station.

Took down over 80 ships up to Python/FGS in size, vulture on average, my side still lost 10% overnight...

Average traffic population was around 20 for the last while, spiked to over 50, mostly combat vessels.

- - - Updated - - -

Haha oh great!

But regardless, thanks for this info! Still very useful to know!

Just makes it so hard when you want to take control of a system as you have to equalise with the controlling faction exactly. This mechanic is a bit strange in my opinion.

Alternately, just get to 60 (70)% influence and trigger a war that way.

* 60% is the official forum value. 70% is all I've ever seen it trigger at. YMMV

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Yeah,, until you hit said war state, and the pubbies realise they can do this coz your enemy happens to be the only one fielding a capship at a CZ 3 LS from the only station.

Took down over 80 ships up to Python/FGS in size, vulture on average, my side still lost 10% overnight...

Average traffic population was around 20 for the last while, spiked to over 50, mostly combat vessels.

- - - Updated - - -



Alternately, just get to 60 (70)% influence and trigger a war that way.

* 60% is the official forum value. 70% is all I've ever seen it trigger at. YMMV

I won't argue that the skimmer/massacre things is a poor mechanic!

I just meant instead of equalizing them, force them into retreat.

 

[Jmanis]

I won't argue that the skimmer/massacre things is a poor mechanic!

I just meant instead of equalizing them, force them into retreat.

Oh yeah. I'm just being openly cynical, totally got what you meant

 

[Sentenza]

A related argument: I just confirmed that regular (not BM) slave trading decreases boom and increases bust.

there are several actions that can lead to civil unrest, loosing an election is non of it.

- trading weapons, legally or illegally

- shooting a faction ships, wanted or not, without cashing in bounties often enough.

- other crimes/fines

- a bunch of missions can add to civil unrest - illegal passenger missions for exampel, some skimmer missions etc.

civil unrest isn't much of a problem; only effect is that bounty hunting has double the effect - which is also the counteraction to civil unrest. it is the number of bountie transactions, not the value of bounties cashed in, that counts!

http://i.imgur.com/cwqqik4.png

 

[Deleted member 115407]

A related argument: I just confirmed that regular (not BM) slave trading decreases boom and increases bust.

BM?

5char

 

[Sentenza]

BM?

5char

Black Market

 

[goemon]

A related argument: I just confirmed that regular (not BM) slave trading decreases boom and increases bust.

what? can you share numbers? looks strange ... but would be great!

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Black Market

So, does that mean I can "smuggle" slaves into the open commodities market and have them count against the buying faction?

 

[Sentenza]

what? can you share numbers? looks strange ... but would be great!

I suspected that for a while actually. I sold about 6000t of Imperial Slaves over three days to a faction pending boom, immediately saw boom downtrending, the third day pending bust showed up.

ETA: I also sold them at loss in small transactions, don't know if it adds to the effect. It may be a combination of all.
Also that faction ended another bust just a few days before so the bust bucket was empty when I started.

- - - Updated - - -

So, does that mean I can "smuggle" slaves into the open commodities market and have them count against the buying faction?

Black Market selling always had that effect.

 

[Jmanis]

A related argument: I just confirmed that regular (not BM) slave trading decreases boom and increases bust.

Yeah, I want to see what you've found too

Like that picture Goemon linked (and other stuff) there's always been suggestions that trading different types of goods has different effects (like famine/food, outbreak/meds etc), or as that suggests, weapons/civil unrest, but nobody has ever really confirmed them (especially ones like weapons, slaves, drugs)

 

[goemon]

weapons/civil unrest, but nobody has ever really confirmed them (especially ones like weapons, slaves, drugs)

i could confirm that for weapons -> civil unrest. we have used it several times as a tool to get into civil unrest instead of lockdown during player group attacks.

 

[goemon]

I also sold them at loss .

that bust will be an effect for selling at a loss, not of commodity type :-/

 

[Starwolfe]

I suspected that for a while actually. I sold about 6000t of Imperial Slaves over three days to a faction pending boom, immediately saw boom downtrending, the third day pending bust showed up.

ETA: I also sold them at loss in small transactions, don't know if it adds to the effect. It may be a combination of all.
Also that faction ended another bust just a few days before so the bust bucket was empty when I started.

Normal positive profit trades gain influence, so it stands to reason that negative loss-making normal trades are negative influence. Selling it in smaller batches has more weight than volume, something to do with individual transaction sales being the main counter.



But from that, positive BM sales are negative influence for the station owner... would a loss-making BM sale count positive for the controlling faction?

 

[goemon]

But from that, positive BM sales are negative influence for the station owner... would a loss-making BM sale count positive for the controlling faction?

last test i made, profit or loss has no influence effect for black market sales, only tonnage counted.

 

[Sentenza]

Normal positive profit trades gain influence, so it stands to reason that negative loss-making normal trades are negative influence. Selling it in smaller batches has more weight than volume, something to do with individual transaction sales being the main counter.



But from that, positive BM sales are negative influence for the station owner... would a loss-making BM sale count positive for the controlling faction?

Yes the news is the bust effect. That was never observed before.

 

[Jmanis]

Yes the news is the bust effect. That was never observed before.

So, that did get observed recently in the other thread here, but the topic focus wasn't really on that sort of thing unfortunately (guy sold 1000t of nerve agents at a 3000cr loss per tonne)

I think what people are trying to get clarity on here is because you said

A related argument: I just confirmed that regular (not BM) slave trading decreases boom and increases bust.

... specifically referencing "slave trading", not "trading for a loss".

Granted yes, the bust state resulting from loss trading is new behaviour (or at least, unobserved), I would suggest that the fact you traded slaves is unrelated to the cause of bust, and more related to your sales at a loss, akin to the "My car won't start when I buy vanilla icecream" tale.

Good work nonetheless