A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
*facepalm *
I totally forgot about the descriptors.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Hard to tell tbh. The previous effect was per transaction, and functioned the same as 1t trading did, with quantity and value being meaningless. I haven't done any tests since the change and can't for two or so weeks still.
Last edited:
I am confused a bit. Lets say you have a low pop system. low traffic as well. There are 8 faction but the top three are the only I'm interested in.
Faction A 44%
Faction B 15%
Faction C 13%
Faction A controls the system I want to avoid conflict with Faction B. Faction A owns the only station. I want to raise Faction C's influence and lower Faction A and try and get into conflict between faction A and faction C. what would be the best course of action to go about this. I am being told that I need to attack faction B and not A. with faction B and C being so close to same influence its in prime position to go into conflict once Faction C passes Faction B.
Faction A 44%
Faction B 15%
Faction C 13%
Faction A controls the system I want to avoid conflict with Faction B. Faction A owns the only station. I want to raise Faction C's influence and lower Faction A and try and get into conflict between faction A and faction C. what would be the best course of action to go about this. I am being told that I need to attack faction B and not A. with faction B and C being so close to same influence its in prime position to go into conflict once Faction C passes Faction B.
Unless Faction B or C are in other systems, there's no good way for Faction C to skip over Faction B and start a conflict with Faction A. You'll have to equalize influence with Faction B and Faction C, then push Faction C once the conflict is pending. Win the conflict in minimum duration by opening up a large gap, then equalize with Faction A to initiate conflict with them.
If Faction B or C is in other systems, you can get them into conflict in the other system and move Faction C up while the conflict is going on.
If Faction B or C is in other systems, you can get them into conflict in the other system and move Faction C up while the conflict is going on.
well this makes a lot of sense faction B is indeed in a different system. Thank you!
You forgot to put the answer into the form of a question! However, this is the only answer to the above issue!
I was thinking maybe putting B into lockdown and pushing C...but I think the rule is that nothing during lockdown has an affect on influence.
That's indeed what we've been told, but the evidence continues to mount that various activities are seemingly unaffected by it.
Presumably it prevents something from having an effect...
Last edited:
What Endincite said, plus lockdown won't prevent conflict, so you can't use it to jump over. It might have once worked that way, but the current mechanics treat lockdown the same as other economic states. Conflict has higher priority.
Actually there is another way, but you have to be very very careful and extremely precise (I would recommend Szys' solution above first).
It is still possible to leap frog a faction if you throw enough at it. We've done it a few times recently - entirely accidental and the opposite of what we wanted I should add
. Firstly close the gap between A and B to about 5%. The accuracy of that is pretty critical, much closer and you risk conflict between A and B, much further apart and the next step might fail, so as close to 5% as possible. Then give Faction A an insanely big nuke via a murder spree or something, and try pushing Faction B up with missions at the same time. Push this step as hard as you possibly can; gaining a half million bounty on your head might be necessary. You'll probably manage to make Faction A leap past Faction B without a conflict and allow Faction C to attack it instead.Like I said, Szys' suggestion is preferred if you have A or B in another system, but the above will probably work for you otherwise. Just be careful getting them to the 5% gap stage.
Last edited:
reposting a screenshot of the table shown during the BGS livestream last week:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oa1o0ar3cqxo2s7/BGS_livestream_table.png?dl=0
@walt: there is one major difference to Michael Brookes third table in the OP: illegal trade has a negative influence effect (which meets my current testing).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oa1o0ar3cqxo2s7/BGS_livestream_table.png?dl=0
@walt: there is one major difference to Michael Brookes third table in the OP: illegal trade has a negative influence effect (which meets my current testing).
Test: Illegal Trade and Influence of a System Controlling Faction
I have run a brief test on the influence of illegal trade.
Set-Up:
System:
Population 1375
1 Outpost
>300 k ls from entry-point
with Black Market
Selling 50T of Illegal goods each day
Selling 100T and 150 T of Illegal Goods
Testing:
- Selling narcotics in different Batches (1*50, 2*25, 5*10) (Go to Blackmarket, sell batch, go back to "home", go back to Blackmarket...)
- Selling narcotics with different profit (361/T vs. 795/T)
- Selling stolen narcotics (Profit/T: 7167)
- Selling illegal rares with an average profit of 15 k/T
- Selling 150 T of stolen goods, 150 T of illegal goods, and 100 t of illegal goods
With the same tonnage I got the same Influence-Delta for the controlling faction each tick. Influence goes constantly down. Neither profit or selling smaller batches had any different effect.
-I got a very slightly higher Influence Delta for selling stolen goods, which might be an effect of them being stolen, but is probably- an effect of rounding up (retested, couldn't reproduce).
- I got a increasing effect with selling more tonnage (100 T, 150 T)
- Boom doesn't double the influence effect of Selling illegal goods
I got Bust pending and into Bust.
Last stage: selling stolen rares has to be skipped till Bust runs out.
____
edit: update 21.4.16: new values
update 2.5.16: tonnage influence effect
I have run a brief test on the influence of illegal trade.
Set-Up:
System:
Population 1375
1 Outpost
>300 k ls from entry-point
with Black Market
Selling 50T of Illegal goods each day
Selling 100T and 150 T of Illegal Goods
Testing:
- Selling narcotics in different Batches (1*50, 2*25, 5*10) (Go to Blackmarket, sell batch, go back to "home", go back to Blackmarket...)
- Selling narcotics with different profit (361/T vs. 795/T)
- Selling stolen narcotics (Profit/T: 7167)
- Selling illegal rares with an average profit of 15 k/T
- Selling 150 T of stolen goods, 150 T of illegal goods, and 100 t of illegal goods
With the same tonnage I got the same Influence-Delta for the controlling faction each tick. Influence goes constantly down. Neither profit or selling smaller batches had any different effect.
-I got a very slightly higher Influence Delta for selling stolen goods, which might be an effect of them being stolen, but is probably- an effect of rounding up (retested, couldn't reproduce).
- I got a increasing effect with selling more tonnage (100 T, 150 T)
- Boom doesn't double the influence effect of Selling illegal goods
I got Bust pending and into Bust.
Last stage: selling stolen rares has to be skipped till Bust runs out.
____
edit: update 21.4.16: new values
update 2.5.16: tonnage influence effect
Last edited:
Nice!
I'm pleased to announce that MoM has made it into the top five groups competing for power status! Considering that was determined by BGS ability... go figure!
Congrats to
Communist Interstellar
Interstellar Communist Union
AEDC
SEPP
as well!
Congrats to
Communist Interstellar
Interstellar Communist Union
AEDC
SEPP
as well!
That's really interesting. And by interesting I mean frustrating
Michael's chart indicates that illegal trade should be a positive effect on influence. The table shown by the devs in the stream shows all smuggling having a negative effect on influence. Nothing in the dev's table to distinguish between illegal goods and stolen goods like there is in Michael's.
I've observed the positive influence movement from selling illegal goods on the black market, and I've observed the negative influence movement from selling stolen goods on the black market. Now you're showing negative influence movement from selling illegal goods. This would agree with the dev's table, but not Michael's.
I trust your testing goemon, which just makes me frustrated not knowing if something has changed or if there are more factors involved. Factors such as commodity type and government type.
That's really interesting. And by interesting I mean frustrating
http://i.imgur.com/Ivuum68.jpg
Michael's chart indicates that illegal trade should be a positive effect on influence. The table shown by the devs in the stream shows all smuggling having a negative effect on influence. Nothing in the dev's table to distinguish between illegal goods and stolen goods like there is in Michael's.
I've observed the positive influence movement from selling illegal goods on the black market, and I've observed the negative influence movement from selling stolen goods on the black market. Now you're showing negative influence movement from selling illegal goods. This would agree with the dev's table, but not Michael's.
I trust your testing goemon, which just makes me frustrated not knowing if something has changed or if there are more factors involved. Factors such as commodity type and government type.
So, positive results from smuggling, but negative from pirating. Does that sum it up?
I'd like to see more and do some tests on this. I can't do them now because of RL time issues, but this is very interesting to me.
For instance, does the faction type make a difference? (independent/corporate/whatever). Does the smuggling/piracy affect just the station owner, or does it have some effect on the system controller if they're different from the station owner? That sort of thing.
Last edited:
that was why i started that test... there might be more into it, though. profits of 50T narcotics ain't huge (i had some with 360/T and some of 790/T) - i will retest with 50T of illegal rares later this week, or get some UA's - maybe a lot of profit changes makes an influence plus?
and i started with selling stolen + illegal narcotics today, might be that stolen goods have more of an influence hit.
i totally missed, that the livestream screenie didn't mentioned selling stolen goods at all! maybe what we see is a mis-fix - after anarchy/pirates factions complained about hurting their influence, maybe they changed that above? from michaels original answers ("no goods are illegal in anarchies") - and non-answers concerning piracy - i always suspected FD don't know, that you have to sell stolen goods at the black market even in anarchies...
yes, but it isn't working like that, at least not in my test. it is working like in this screenie: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=193064&p=3783424&viewfull=1#post3783424 - smuggling hurting a station controlling faction.
faction type difference would be great but i highly doubt it. goverment type already makes commodities legal/illegal.
a minor faction does extend their jurisdiction around a station - therefore they are "the controlling faction" there.
I thought it did, until reading the results of goemon's test
I now have the same questions you do about government type (and economic market type). Regardless, pretty sure it would just affect the station owner, as they control the market and have crime jurisdiction around the station. The system owner doesn't matter much within the 1000km station bubble.
Here is some proof of what goemon is stating:
.
The last 5 days is the effect that several hundred CMDRs smuggling illegal booze into a blackmarket has on a system.
.
The last 5 days is the effect that several hundred CMDRs smuggling illegal booze into a blackmarket has on a system.