Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
It may of course be that there are actions which accelerate the onset - this is not incompatible with negligence also resulting in outbreak/famine
A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
Deleted member 115407
D
Yeah, they definitely added this to skimmer missions. It has been a while since I did them in earnest, so I can't say that every skimmer mission results in an uptick in famine.
Kietrax
Volunteer Moderator
Pretty sure that wasn't a "natural" BGS consequence though but FDev inserted "story" ...
dynamicbob
Banned
UA bombing is a hidden mechanic
- - - Updated - - -
Inserted story, and then they enhanced localised outbreaks to occour more often, they just lack imagination to put a proper spreading outbreak mechanism in.
Yes. I felt that FDev's were *testing* themselves at the time, And the Cmdr reaction when they locked your ship up.
Last edited:
Deleted member 115407
D
Been meaning to test this. I'll be happy to do so this weekend. I love killing skimmers.
So, something unsettling* me at the moment... has anyone noticed how *beneficial* for influence gain purposes it is to be in a "Negative" state?
In that regard, I'm saying Outbreak, Bust and Famine are absolutely fantastic states to be in for getting missions (strictly) to increase influence. Specifically, I've had experience now with Outbreak and Bust (imagine Famine is the same) where I've been able to gain around 11% influence per day and push my faction from low 30%'s right up to triggering a conquest war?
It seems to be a result of the new 20-mission loading rule which not only has made mission boards load faster, but lets you churn missions by accepting your own faction's missions, or accepting and subsequently rejecting (and losing rep in the process) missions of 'enemy' factions. Once you do that, going back to the mission board you'll find there's new missions to replace the ones you accepted (not necessarily for your faction though). You can do this to get a significant amount of donation missions in these states (whether cargo or credits) without mode switching or anything like that, plus there's a rep + fine (in some cases) hit so it means the action isn't without consequence.
Obviously as your rep *decreases* with other factions, it's a greater chance of becoming hostile (accidentally even, and potentially locking yourself out of a station), and as your rep drops you can "churn" less enemy missions. *shrug* This feels like a good compromise with mode-scumming for more missions and actually introduces a way to generate more missions with an additional consequence.
* Reason this unsettles me is that you'd assume a positive state is a good thing. The difference between positive and negative states is that negative have far more donation missions, which are comparatively quick to do compared to "fetch me ore, ferry these messages and cargo", but granted, have no credit reward for them. Swings and roundabouts i guess?
In that regard, I'm saying Outbreak, Bust and Famine are absolutely fantastic states to be in for getting missions (strictly) to increase influence. Specifically, I've had experience now with Outbreak and Bust (imagine Famine is the same) where I've been able to gain around 11% influence per day and push my faction from low 30%'s right up to triggering a conquest war?
It seems to be a result of the new 20-mission loading rule which not only has made mission boards load faster, but lets you churn missions by accepting your own faction's missions, or accepting and subsequently rejecting (and losing rep in the process) missions of 'enemy' factions. Once you do that, going back to the mission board you'll find there's new missions to replace the ones you accepted (not necessarily for your faction though). You can do this to get a significant amount of donation missions in these states (whether cargo or credits) without mode switching or anything like that, plus there's a rep + fine (in some cases) hit so it means the action isn't without consequence.
Obviously as your rep *decreases* with other factions, it's a greater chance of becoming hostile (accidentally even, and potentially locking yourself out of a station), and as your rep drops you can "churn" less enemy missions. *shrug* This feels like a good compromise with mode-scumming for more missions and actually introduces a way to generate more missions with an additional consequence.
* Reason this unsettles me is that you'd assume a positive state is a good thing. The difference between positive and negative states is that negative have far more donation missions, which are comparatively quick to do compared to "fetch me ore, ferry these messages and cargo", but granted, have no credit reward for them. Swings and roundabouts i guess?
Last edited:
Deleted member 115407
D
Goes back to my previous post about the "reason" or "motivation" behind the BGS. That reason being to keep the bubble shifting, keep things interesting, and keep gameplay varied.
Last edited:
Hey guys, I've got a question regarding bounty vouchers:
If I bounty hunt in a system coontrolled by faction A and get some vouchers, and then I go to another system where faction A is present, will the bounties increase faction A's influence in the system where I got them or in the system where I turned them in?
If I bounty hunt in a system coontrolled by faction A and get some vouchers, and then I go to another system where faction A is present, will the bounties increase faction A's influence in the system where I got them or in the system where I turned them in?
... at least last time i tested it personally.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
Agreed
dynamicbob
Banned
but nothing new is added, upgraded, downgraded or changed, its a shifting sands within a static paradigmn
Worked yesterday.
Thank you
I agree, I understand the main reason for the BGS is to have a more or less dinamic galaxy, but if they bother to give player groups minor factions they could give us more tools to improve them, like the possibility to build new assets or to improve the current assets (for instance, turn an outpost into a coriolis, permanently increase the wealth or security of a system...).
I think something like mini-CGs would work perfectly for this. Say you want to upgrade an asset, so you make a mini-CG: "Deliver 100k tons of X here." There's no time limit, so even smaller groups can achieve it eventually. This would run alongside regular CG, which are usually for storyline related stuff.
So, we've kinda confirmed the "transactional" nature of trading has been fixed, but I'm curious... I was handing in some bonds for a war tonight and I recall the same "transactional" effects for handing in bonds, bounties and exploration scans*. Anyone checked to see if they've been corrected too?
* that is...
- handing in 10,000 in bonds/bounties 10 times, had 10 times the effect of handing in 100,000 once.
- Handing in 50 system scans one at a time had fifty times the effect of selling a page of 50 at once.
* that is...
- handing in 10,000 in bonds/bounties 10 times, had 10 times the effect of handing in 100,000 once.
- Handing in 50 system scans one at a time had fifty times the effect of selling a page of 50 at once.
I have a war that I am deliberately holding. I was going to test that when I want it ended in about 5 days.
- - - Updated - - -
Yes to this, But knowing FD, they may have it planned for the future.
Deleted member 115407
D
Ooh, I hope so, otherwise I have a customer who's going to be mighty disappointed come the tick :|
Thank you
I agree, I understand the main reason for the BGS is to have a more or less dinamic galaxy, but if they bother to give player groups minor factions they could give us more tools to improve them...
Well, thing do change, a bit, as control levels, government types, and states, shift around. System security levels change, commodities get locked out, mission availabilities change. I'll agree that I would like the changes to be a little more impactful.
As for the player groups thing, have they bothered? At this point player factions are nothing more than a vanity. Your name on something that doesn't necessarily belong to you.
Regarding the mini-CGs thing Vader mentioned. I haven't considered it and would have to put some thought into the idea before commenting. I am however a fan of making most mission types CG-style, so instead of hauling or killing or supplying a static amount of something, you could instead haul/kill/supply as much or as little as you wished within a given time-frame, with min and max success points and inf/rep/payout levels that scaled accordingly.
...Sorry, I know that's OT, and I'm not trying to turn this into a suggestions thread.
9.1
This behavior has been observed enough time's that I am confident in saying you will always enter a system with 9.1%.
How it resolves after that is down to the activity.
This behavior has been observed enough time's that I am confident in saying you will always enter a system with 9.1%.