Cool. I'll admit that's exactly how I began knocking over my first faction, but that was also when you could still dock when hostile
A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
Cool. I'll admit that's exactly how I began knocking over my first faction, but that was also when you could still dock when hostile
There are some pending states that get pushed aside by stronger pending states - I think (without any corroborating evidence) that Outbreak and Famine are quite low in the pecking order. The pending time is stated to be four days, but does the clock stop if the countdown is interrupted by a conflict, or does it just evaporate?
On a slight tangent, I'm seeing active Boom states appear without showing in the Pending queue on the day before - it's possible that they have been pending and got pushed aside while being invisible in the queue. This may happen with other states, but I would have to do some major spreadsheet reconstruction to record the history of the pending queues before being definitive.
Has this been confirmed? I am going to run some tests on this, but this has potential to be a problem.
It says so when you turn in the mission. Some types of passengers actually hurt the target faction's influence (protesters and rebels afaik).
Aha. Ok then.
Bulk trade test results (not the best test, but hopefully a useful addition to other data):
Code:
Market 1:
Population:2610
100 tons @816cr/ton
No state.
Influence Start: 55.2% End: 55.4%
Traffic (during period between sale & tick, other than myself): 0
Market 2:
Pop: 117420
100 tons @1500cr/ton
No state.
Influence Start: 44% End: 44.3%
Traffic: 0
Market 3:
Pop: 393599
100 ton @1500cr/ton
No state.
Influence Start: 1.0% End: 2.5%
Traffic: 2
Market 4:
Pop: 105653
100 tons @513/ton
No state.
Influence Start: 17.9% End: 18.2%
Traffic: 1
Market 5:
Pop: 105653 (Same system as 4)
100 tons @513/ton
No state.
Influence Start: 52.5% End: 52.8%
Traffic: 1There was a sixth market, but it saw a bit more traffic during the time period, went into Boom, and showed no change at all (much higher pop as well - 437mil - so perhaps just not visible).
Last edited:
I'm glad to see trading is more viable than I thought.
I have some results too.
Two anarchy systems with zero traffic. Did two different tests, one selling a single load and one splitting it in different goods.
System 1: population 23, controlling faction at 60.0% - sold 248t at profit 786 cr/t = result 61.7%
System 2: population 1820, controlling faction at 30.6% - sold 248t split over 9 goods, avg profit 518 cr/t = result 34.0%
In the second case we have double the increase but with half the initial influence, so I estimate the impact is the same. So it would appear there is no significant difference in how you sell.
Two anarchy systems with zero traffic. Did two different tests, one selling a single load and one splitting it in different goods.
System 1: population 23, controlling faction at 60.0% - sold 248t at profit 786 cr/t = result 61.7%
System 2: population 1820, controlling faction at 30.6% - sold 248t split over 9 goods, avg profit 518 cr/t = result 34.0%
In the second case we have double the increase but with half the initial influence, so I estimate the impact is the same. So it would appear there is no significant difference in how you sell.
Last edited:
The figures are the selling prices or the profits?
Last edited:
They have a full ground base!
And that's nothing. There is a system nearby with no bases and no factions, but it somehow has population 1. I wonder...
This warrants some more study IMO. You'll notice that Markets 4 & 5 in my test are from the same system, with two notably different influence levels and yet identical results from the same trade.
@sentenza Bug reported! https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ulation-but-no-stations?p=5070512#post5070512
Last edited:
This gives me some confidence that diversity of trade still matters, while transactional effects are mitigated/eliminated.
Excitebike!
Interesting indeed! So the next step is testing selling in different ways to the same faction.
- - - Updated - - -
In fact my initial hypotesis was that transactions are now joined by item type. This could indicate that it is right.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
In mission outcomes, one item from a category has the same effect as any other - so it may be that differentiation should be tested within and across commodity categories - are we saying the same thing Sentenza?
Last edited:
Actually, it could be both. I started thinking that since different categories have different effect on states, they would logically be differentiated. Now the point is what's easier to do server side - grouping by category is one more processing, and just grouping by item can still prevent fragmentation trading but with a simpler logic. I used goods from two categories, foods and legal drugs. We can add category grouping to the tests to be performed.
Confirmation bias at play in me for sure, but I really, really think that's a sensible suggestion.
We are pending conflict with a non controlling faction of a system. They are in possession of 5 assets in the system.
What do we gain when we have won, All? The best? or the unsecured ground settlement?.
What do we gain when we have won, All? The best? or the unsecured ground settlement?.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
Best assest only
Can't find it right now, will try later, but there was a recent post by someone who got multiple assets exchanged in a war result. Was reflected in the local Galnet article (apparently?) which suggests it wasn't just a bug and is meant to happen. One off for sure, but i'll try to dig the post out in a couple hours.
EDIT: Here we go: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/326703-Two-planetary-ports-conquered-after-the-same-War
Last edited: