A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim

goemon

goemon
Belthize said:
Since it appeared more as an exploit than a bug to me I used the 'exploit' reporting feature...
Click to expand...

Jmanis said:
See, that changes if your line of thought is that selling 700t in one transaction should have the same (current) effect selling them individually has. Reason I think this is I may have observed this bug manifest in a different way.

Bug report created here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=238057&p=3674559#post3674559
Click to expand...

thanks for those reports, and thank you for asking for clarification, whether it is seen a an exploit. i personally think, it is safe to assume, that buying/selling 1 T per time isn't using the commodity market as intended :)
... whether the one or the other effect of it is a bug (e.g. whether this gives the sum of influence change selling your goods in one transaction should have, or whether this is pushing influence changes massively) - I'd like the idea of Jmanis being right that it is the first, because it would give trade/economy a lot of power in the game.

on the other hand, this might be a strong hint, that some aspects we used to describe as "single commander influence cap" is in reality a single transaction influence cap. e.g. - it might be, that cashing in lower bounties more often, or a lesser sum of combat bonds more often, is more effective then casing them in at once.
 

Jmanis

Jmanis
goemon said:
on the other hand, this might be a strong hint, that some aspects we used to describe as "single commander influence cap" is in reality a single transaction influence cap. e.g. - it might be, that cashing in lower bounties more often, or a lesser sum of combat bonds more often, is more effective then casing them in at once.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the case, but is in the right ballpark of what I'm calling "potential other consequences".

Reason I don't think bounties/bonds are affected is I've done plenty of wars now where one day I'll hand in, say, 2m in bonds in one batch and get an effect, then the next day hand in 4 x 500k bonds and get roughly the same effect.

However, one potential consequence could be the issues mentioned a while back about the reported "Powerplay merit" effect on influence? For example, you might be loading a T9 with transportable "merit cargo" in batches of 10, coz you're a low rank. What if that is having a similar effect?
 

Roybe

Roybe
Jmanis said:
See, that changes if your line of thought is that selling 700t in one transaction should have the same (current) effect selling them individually has. In that case, the "individual" transactions is the correct behaviour, and the bulk sales are actually bugged. In this case, that is my take on this. Basically, it's a difference of persepctive between the words "exploit" and "workaround".

Reason I think this is I may have observed this bug manifest in a different way. But I need to wait to see if that's true or not.

Bug report created here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=238057&p=3674559#post3674559
Click to expand...


I agree something is wrong/bugged. Since the last change the devs announced on trading was to nerf it for the BGS..the swings that are available for singular sales appears out of whack with the their expectations.
 

bsnaylor

B
Jmanis said:
See, that changes if your line of thought is that selling 700t in one transaction should have the same (current) effect selling them individually has. In that case, the "individual" transactions is the correct behaviour, and the bulk sales are actually bugged. In this case, that is my take on this. Basically, it's a difference of persepctive between the words "exploit" and "workaround".

Reason I think this is I may have observed this bug manifest in a different way. But I need to wait to see if that's true or not.

Bug report created here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=238057&p=3674559#post3674559
Click to expand...
Sounds right...
We'll run a test in our systems for further info.
Good work :)
 

Ben Ryder

Ben Ryder
Quick question and a bit of an observation. Do expansions make a faction immune to civil wars for the period of the expansion.


Here what happend.

Faction A had about 45% influence and was in active expansion
Faction B got just enough influence to be slightly a head of faction A whiel A was still in expansion.
A was at 40%
B was at 41%

Faction A remained in active expansion
Faction B went in to a Boom cycle at 41%

A day passed.
Faction A dropped to 38% and had no active or pending states
Faction B went to 43% and remained in a boom. Still no pending Civil War

Another day passed.
Faction A has entered Expansion again and is back up to 44%
Faction B has dropped to 39% but remains in a Boom state.


So it seems that something odd goes on when an expanding faction is challenged for control of a system. It seems that expansion blocks civil wars. The other odd thing was there was only a day before faction A began expanding again.


Can any one explain what might be going on here?
 
Last edited:

Schlack

S
Ben Ryder said:
Quick question and a bit of an observation. Do expansions make a faction immune to civil wars for the period of the expansion.


Here what happend.

Faction A had about 45% influence and was in active expansion
Faction B got just enough influence to be slightly a head of faction A whiel A was still in expansion.
A was at 40%
B was at 41%

Faction A remained in active expansion
Faction B went in to a Boom cycle at 41%

A day passed.
Faction A dropped to 38% and had no active or pending states
Faction B went to 43% and remained in a boom. Still no pending Civil War

Another day passed.
Faction A has entered Expansion again and is back up to 44%
Faction B has dropped to 39% but remains in a Boom state.


So it seems that something odd goes on when an expanding faction is challenged for control of a system. It seems that expansion blocks civil wars. The other odd thing was there was only a day before faction A began expanding again.


Can any one explain what might be going on here?
Click to expand...


Ben,

Are these factions present in any another system? If so are/were any in a conflict state?

An active conflict that Faction B was engaged with in another system would block conflict (or conflict pending) with Faction A
 
Last edited:

Ben Ryder

Ben Ryder
Schlack said:
Ben,

Are these factions present in any another system? If so are/were any in a conflict state?

An active conflict that Faction B was engaged with in another system would block conflict (or conflict pending) with Faction A
Click to expand...

Faction B is present in other systems but not engaged in anything other than active expansion. Would this block conflict?
 

Schlack

S
Ownership of an asset can change at the conclusion of one of the following states:


•War
•Civil War
•Elections


These conflict states take priority over economic states and are triggered by the factions’ influence level relative to other factions in the system. Conflicts cannot end before their minimum duration. Conflicts that reach their maximum duration are considered to end in a ceasefire, and no assets change owners. A faction can only take part in a single conflict, no matter how many systems they are present in.
Click to expand...

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=221826

Expansion shouldn't block a conflict. But as we know with MBs pronouncements, the reality can be sometimes a bit more nuanced. I strongly suspect that there was an active conflict in another system at the time the influence levels of A & B passed each other which prevented the triggering of the conflict.

The joys of peering into the black box!
 

Ryan Murdoc

Ryan Murdoc
Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen...


We had a Civil War between two of our Minor factions in our Home system. Both of them owned no Space Stations but all planetary Ports. We supported the one faction that owned 2 to see if it would take over the remaining one from the other.

As of today this has been verified (CW ended, only one Minor faction now holds sway over all planetary Ports in the System. For now...).

Next will be to trigger a War in our newest expanded System with the current biggest Minor faction there and see how much of their property (3 Space Stations, 1 planetary Port) we'll take over after winning.

If this information was already shared in this thread or another I apologize for being repetitive.

Be safe and have a good day :cool:
 

Szyslak22

S
jimbeau1571 said:
Right before I go mad .... War stops expansion going active .... but does not stop expansion from becoming pending, correct?
Click to expand...
Stops it from going pending too. Pending, Active, or Recovering Conflict won't stop an economic state from going pending, but it will stop expansion from going pending. So frustrating to see a boom pending while a conflict is active. [mad]
 

Jmanis

Jmanis
I strongly suspect that influence-gaining activities are tapered by some form of S-Curve function like this:
S-curve.png

Basically, influence gaining/losing activities apply their full value until you gain a certain amount (dictated by the population of the system). If your population is higher, you can gain more. If it's lower, you can gain less. For large (100m populations) this is almost instantaneous, and so the shaded area would occur at around 1-2%, even less for higher populations. Meanwhile the shaded area occurs at around 18% for low population systems (e.g 1,000 people)
 
Last edited:

Boby

B
Hi ! (sorry again for my english)

My faction is still in war (with no CZ) but we do a lot of missions and now, the difference of influence is 14.7% :)

If tomorrow, we have a difference > 15%, the war will end immediately ? after one day ?
Same question about the flip of the outpost (we need it :p)

--

So
I confim it is more difficult to Up influence with a big influence.
With average same effort
10% -> 25%
25% -> 34 %
34% -> 38%

And with the bug War with no CZ (and we don't have any station).
Only do missions work as inttended. (i don't know Only combat missions but i think).
It's boring but it seems work.
 
Last edited:

dazzlerbing

dazzlerbing
Boby said:
Hi ! (sorry again for my english)

My faction is still in war (with no CZ) but we do a lot of missions and now, the difference of influence is 14.7% :)

If tomorrow, we have a difference > 15%, the war will end immediately ? after one day ?
Same question about the flip of the outpost (we need it :p)

--

So
I confim it is more difficult to Up influence with a big influence.
With average same effort
10% -> 25%
25% -> 34 %
34% -> 38%

And with the bug War with no CZ (and we don't have any station).
Only do missions work as inttended. (i don't know Only combat missions but i think).
It's boring but it seems work.
Click to expand...

You really need to report it as a bug so the Devs can manually sort it out....I have had the same before and the influence just kept increasing but the war would not end until the Devs stepped in.
 

Boby

B
We have already report to frontier for no CZ...
In response : We can do nothing / we working on it / soon [ugh]....etc...

The war begins 10 days ago.
The question is : The war stop immediately with the influence > 15% or we should wait one day more ? (if no bug / in theory)

If influence > 15% and war continue, of course we go for a new report...
 

DaveC

DaveC
Boby said:
We have already report to frontier for no CZ...
In response : We can do nothing / we working on it / soon [ugh]....etc...

The war begins 10 days ago.
The question is : The war stop immediately with the influence > 15% or we should wait one day more ? (if no bug / in theory)

If influence > 15% and war continue, of course we go for a new report...
Click to expand...

The station should change hands at the next tick (11:00 GMT the next day), the war state will disappear the following day.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom