A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim

[Limoncello Lizard]

I hate the fact that a conflict in another system kills the influence in all the controlled systems. And its close to impossible to control.

What i think happens is the effects of the war state is faction wide, so your faction can only gain through combat actions. However, the rival factions in the other systems can all merrily gain from trade, etc. Anyone interested in combat for your faction will flock to the system where the war is active, so your faction generally suffers in the other systems whenever there is player activity present.

But without any player activity, there shouldn't be any change at all to your faction in any systems, including the active war one. This rule should apply to any states other than expansion and retreat. Also there can be small adjustments queued from previous ticks, but this is usually only 0.1% or so.

 

[zzUrbanSpaceman]

Selling goods at the opponent's station for loss

Does this work generally? e.g. If I have a faction that I want to reduce the influence of, if I sell lots of goods at a controlled station for a loss will this reduce their influence?

 

[Starwolfe]

Does this work generally? e.g. If I have a faction that I want to reduce the influence of, if I sell lots of goods at a controlled station for a loss will this reduce their influence?

It *should* still work.

The idea would be to buy something in another system and bring it to the market you want to sell at a loss for.

The lats time I made use of it was during the one-ton trading tricks, the new formula they do could make it... costly to do nowadays.

Well, that's if my suspicion of it weighing the value of the total trade being the larger factor. That and it gets rather time-consuming needing to haul stuff in and out of system, as you can't just sit in the station and do it.

 

[smiths121]

What i think happens is the effects of the war state is faction wide, so your faction can only gain through combat actions. However, the rival factions in the other systems can all merrily gain from trade, etc. Anyone interested in combat for your faction will flock to the system where the war is active, so your faction generally suffers in the other systems whenever there is player activity present.

But without any player activity, there shouldn't be any change at all to your faction in any systems, including the active war one. This rule should apply to any states other than expansion and retreat. Also there can be small adjustments queued from previous ticks, but this is usually only 0.1% or so.

I think the flocking to the conflict in itself has a negative effect. As Dav showed, influence needs to add to 100%. If there is activity for other factions (say some missions), then to keep to 100% factions that have no activity need to reduce a bit so the total still is 100%.

I am not so convinved the conflict state is faction wide, certainly we assumed otherwise. The fact that state is "none" in all other systems would suggest the effects of the conflict on hoe influence is gained is not faction wide. I mean that would be the UI absolutely lying., rather than just omitting important information. From BGS point of view, it has certaily done the latter - but not sure it has actually lied.

Simon

 

[the100thmonkey]

I think the flocking to the conflict in itself has a negative effect. As Dav showed, influence needs to add to 100%. If there is activity for other factions (say some missions), then to keep to 100% factions that have no activity need to reduce a bit so the total still is 100%.

I am not so convinved the conflict state is faction wide, certainly we assumed otherwise. The fact that state is "none" in all other systems would suggest the effects of the conflict on hoe influence is gained is not faction wide. I mean that would be the UI absolutely lying., rather than just omitting important information. From BGS point of view, it has certaily done the latter - but not sure it has actually lied.

Simon

Factions in conflict lose certain items from their commodities markets - basic meds, for example, disappear in all industrial/high-tech stations owned by that faction.

If you're concerned about losing influence in another system, you can just cash the bonds in that system.

 

[dynamicbob]

Factions in conflict lose certain items from their commodities markets - basic meds, for example, disappear in all industrial/high-tech stations owned by that faction.

If you're concerned about losing influence in another system, you can just cash the bonds in that system.

where u cash in the bonds has some importance as long as the minor faction is represented

 

[Schlack]

I think the flocking to the conflict in itself has a negative effect. As Dav showed, influence needs to add to 100%. If there is activity for other factions (say some missions), then to keep to 100% factions that have no activity need to reduce a bit so the total still is 100%.

I am not so convinved the conflict state is faction wide, certainly we assumed otherwise. The fact that state is "none" in all other systems would suggest the effects of the conflict on hoe influence is gained is not faction wide. I mean that would be the UI absolutely lying., rather than just omitting important information. From BGS point of view, it has certaily done the latter - but not sure it has actually lied.

Simon

All state influence modifiers are faction wide. Try it test it. It has been this way since 2.0(?). It caused a lot of strife back then until tactics were adjusted accordingly.

The war is located in one system. The effects are not. It is traditional by now for the game to give misleading info!

 

[dynamicbob]

All state influence modifiers are faction wide. Try it test it. It has been this way since 2.0(?). It caused a lot of strife back then until tactics were adjusted accordingly.

The war is located in one system. The effects are not. It is traditional by now for the game to give misleading info!

unless there are changes in 2.3 (and we should be testing BGS as well during the beta)

 

[the100thmonkey]

unless there are changes in 2.3 (and we should be testing BGS as well during the beta)

Does anyone want to set up a Discord to work together on it?

I'm down for a bit of testing. I'm pretty sure our TS admin would set up a channel for us on our Teamspeak server, but Discord is probably easier.

 

[Schlack]

Often bgs changes are not identified in the patch notes. We often can only tell something has changed when unexpected results arise. The mechanism that used to lock influence changes to conflict parties for instance was never documented. Difficult to test in the beta server.

I don't recall any bgs changes being highlighted, there's lots of bling in this one.

 

[dynamicbob]

Often bgs changes are not identified in the patch notes. We often can only tell something has changed when unexpected results arise. The mechanism that used to lock influence changes to conflict parties for instance was never documented. Difficult to test in the beta server.

I don't recall any bgs changes being highlighted, there's lots of bling in this one.

the assumption is for minimal or no patch notes, surfice to say, groups who have beta access and players should push and poke the BGS and see if anything happens just in case. And then take that into 2.3 proper

 

[smiths121]

All state influence modifiers are faction wide. Try it test it. It has been this way since 2.0(?). It caused a lot of strife back then until tactics were adjusted accordingly.

The war is located in one system. The effects are not. It is traditional by now for the game to give misleading info!

Good info thanks! My BGS knowledge is getting way dated - stopping around 1.4! Burnt out on it and avoided it like the plague in 2016.

I quite like that change though, it does make you open to an attack on a "2nd front" as you use conflicts to expand. As othes have said, use your coombat bonds with intelligence.

Simon

 

[Vent]

Has anyone recently successfully caused a conflict with the controlling faction of a system by having another faction get to high influence? Is 60% indeed enough and when does the conflict go into pending?

 

[the100thmonkey]

I think it's closer to 66%. The conflict will go pending the same tick that the threshold is reached.

 

[Matzov]

I think it's closer to 66%. The conflict will go pending the same tick that the threshold is reached.

Unless you already have a conflict, or a conflict pending...

 

[Schlack]

We had such a situation recently. The coup triggered after the second tick following the end of the war (4th no conflict day) Cannot say if this is the pattern in all cases. One thing to note, the coup did not trigger at tick time. The coup triggered some time afterwards. it was only spotted after more than 12 hours. We have noted this effect previously.

 

[goemon]

We had such a situation recently. The coup triggered after the second tick following the end of the war (4th no conflict day) Cannot say if this is the pattern in all cases. One thing to note, the coup did not trigger at tick time. The coup triggered some time afterwards. it was only spotted after more than 12 hours. We have noted this effect previously.

we had something similar with our last expansion. expansion ended, but it was ~8 hours till the faction was added to a new system.

 

[Sentenza]

From the beta notes:

Fix a rare opportunity for a conflict to start immediately after ending early
Fixed faction influence change from smuggling weapons
Faction influence change reduced from murder, interdiction and assault crimes
Faction influence change increased from redeeming bounty vouchers
Balanced faction effects from selling commodities with a zero purchase price
Removed faction reputation gains from smuggling cargo at a black market

 

[goemon]

2.3. Beta BGS related Patch Notes

Factions
Fix a rare opportunity for a conflict to start immediately after ending early
Fixed faction influence change from smuggling weapons
Faction influence change reduced from murder, interdiction and assault crimes
Faction influence change increased from redeeming bounty vouchers
Balanced faction effects from selling commodities with a zero purchase price
Removed faction reputation gains from smuggling cargo at a black market
Improved local news articles when faction conflicts end

Note: for the first time i think we have all BGS related changes in one place in the patch notes ... if i haven't missed something.

edit: ninja'd by sentenza

 

[Schlack]

limit of 3 X skimmer missions per cmdr. I hope this change survives the beta.