Hard to argue with that. Thanks commander. Does the station owner have Bust pending?
A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
They have gone into an election with one of the other factions, which they are likely to lose.
2 Communist factions, and they arent even capable to choose different words to their names :x
By the wat, Congrats for MoM, it is really well deserved for you guys
Ive done 3 shadow missions for my faction this morning in the 3 hours before the tick, each was a med/high influence and yet nothing changed in the %'s from yesterdays tick!
I'm in expansion state (4th day) into this system, I have raised my faction and now have pending elections (since yesterdays tick).
Is there an issue with doing missions close to the tick change?
I'm in expansion state (4th day) into this system, I have raised my faction and now have pending elections (since yesterdays tick).
Is there an issue with doing missions close to the tick change?
+++ Please everybody, stay on topic. For discussion of "The Dangerous Games: The Rise to Power" use the appropriate thread (here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=243226). Grats to all contributors to this thread who made it into the top 5 +++
in the livestream it was mentioned, that they don't give a timeframe which actions count to which tick, but made clear, that no action should be lost. if you don't see an effect tomorrow, that would be a bug.
We've been seeing some issues with a war we are in right now. Despite only a handful of unaccounted for traffic, and handing in around 50m in Bonds, we lost 2.8% over the last 3 days. At first I though this might be 'missed' data, but now I think either we're doing something very wrong (not any different from other wars though) or something is up.
Actually, just thinking out loud here, but isn't there a significant blockade going on trying to prevent the CG participants from delivering the illegal goods? Any murder in the jurisdiction of the station would be driving the faction's influence down. Anyone pirating the rares from other commanders and selling them as stolen goods would also be driving down the faction's influence by the previously used model. The effects of selling stolen goods should be overwhelmed by the effects of selling illegal goods (far more successful deliveries than pirates), but we know that murder has a much stronger effect than either of those.
How do the crime reports look?
Are you facing Federation factions with Capital Ship present on CZ? We faced it two times and was very painfull wars.
No so far this time. We have done so in previous wars (in another system) and seen them off.
EDIT - I have just been told that we gained 11.3% overnight. So... pleased, but baffled.
Last edited:
this is just an untested assumption, but from one remark in the bgs livestream connecting bounties and bonds in function, the discussion around a player faction loosing their system due to arbitrary player interaction (and, uhm, stupidness/stubborness), and my bhing test three weeks ago, i could imagine, that the number of bond-transactions is the important value, not the total value.
it is harder to test... but in your situation i would give it a try: cash in your bonds as often as possible.
also look for the crime report! maybe someone is racking up system security kills without leaving the system?
Yes, we were tracking the BHing situation. There was nothing untoward happening. Moreover, thanks to your earlier posts, we were checking in Bonds on a regular basis (about every 30 mins). As I just edited in my above post, however, last night saw a 24% swing... so perhaps some data had been 'missing' and is now caught up, because in my experience, for a 6m pop system, that is an enormous overnight change.
24% is massive!
My little BGS project is going quite well, after I took over my first system with a war I took now over my second system with an Election. Granted both system have a very low population count, which is probably the reason why I could do this so well all on my own. Still feels great! Even more so since both systems where independent and are now under Fed Control 
But one thing I wonder, my Faction is Federation and Political but on every station they take over they establish a black market. Which I like, so no complains here, alltough I do wonder about it. The Govermenttype does not scream Black Market to me, what exactly are the criteria for black markets?
But one thing I wonder, my Faction is Federation and Political but on every station they take over they establish a black market. Which I like, so no complains here, alltough I do wonder about it. The Govermenttype does not scream Black Market to me, what exactly are the criteria for black markets?
I've been smuggling booze into Epsilon Indi for the CG, and I've noticed that my reputation has increased to the point where I'm now allied with the station's controlling faction (about to become previous).
I've made a point of not doing anything else that would help my reputation in the system, so it will only be the blackmarket trading that has increased my reputation.
I think this is wrong, as smuggling illegal goods should have the opposite effect. Illegal trade should reduce your reputation, especially if it now lowers influence.
.
I also think that stolen goods traded to a station controlled by a faction your CMDR is allied with shouldn't reduce the faction's influence. especially pirates selling in anarchy systems.
.
I've made a thread in the suggestion section to get players ideas on this. Please comment.
I've made a point of not doing anything else that would help my reputation in the system, so it will only be the blackmarket trading that has increased my reputation.
I think this is wrong, as smuggling illegal goods should have the opposite effect. Illegal trade should reduce your reputation, especially if it now lowers influence.
.
I also think that stolen goods traded to a station controlled by a faction your CMDR is allied with shouldn't reduce the faction's influence. especially pirates selling in anarchy systems.
.
I've made a thread in the suggestion section to get players ideas on this. Please comment.
It seems your 'friends' running the black market have a sizable investment within the ruling party of the station..is it the ruling party of the system? That's actually what would be weird...however, it seems that the Main faction of the system should be different...and the market is set up by the owners of the station.
In short hand, the ownership of the stations does not matter, only the ownership of the system. This would suggest that the black market is run by the secondary faction/owner of the station..and the system faction is setting the rules.
If you want a black market, put the feds in control of the system and another non-fed agent in control of a station or outpost.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
My little BGS project is going quite well, after I took over my first system with a war I took now over my second system with an Election. Granted both system have a very low population count, which is probably the reason why I could do this so well all on my own. Still feels great! Even more so since both systems where independent and are now under Fed Control
But one thing I wonder, my Faction is Federation and Political but on every station they take over they establish a black market. Which I like, so no complains here, alltough I do wonder about it. The Govermenttype does not scream Black Market to me, what exactly are the criteria for black markets?
Careful Bomba...Fed support might be problematic! ;P
Gratz on the outcomes, though.
Black Market sales increasing reputation and decreasing influence is something I've consistently observed while selling UAs and narcotics. Black Market sales also lead to economic bust, while "normal" sales lead to economic "boom".
On the idea of whether that's the correct function or not (rep up, inf down), I lean towards "yes" but could be convinced otherwise. Think of it like this. Station A is owned by Faction A. Faction A is made up of a majority of "good eggs", and a minority of "bad eggs". Those bad eggs have an interest in illegal goods, but are still "representatives" of Faction A. You bring these guys the goods, they put in a good word for you, but ultimately, funneling illegal goods is bad for that faction's control, and is an activity purely of self interest by the interested minority.
On the idea of if black market sales should reduce the influence of anarchy systems, I think that's "correct" for two reasons.
- If you're take on an "anarchy" system is the dictionary definition of "anarchy" i.e an absence of an authoritive body, which does not necessitate otherwise "criminal" activity is the rule of law, it makes sense.
- If you're take on an "anarchy" is a pure criminal situation, it still makes sense. There's still some illegal goods (Toxic Waste and I *think* UA's), so shipping them will be "bad for the crims", meanwhile shipping "stolen" goods, while that might not make much sense, the idea of "black market sales" within a criminal industry is the idea that your activity is undermining the business of the criminal power. So, "the mob" might sell narcotics on the black market. You steal some from someone and sell them (at a reduced cost as they're stolen). You're basically undermining the business of that group. That to me says "reduce influence".
EDIT: BTW, in that thread you mention "The recent update"... I've been doing black-market sales to reduce influence for several months now... ?
Last edited:
with you in most cases, but:
this is a big problem for player backed piracy factions. basically, they can't sell stolen goods to their homebase, if they don't want to reduce their influence.
while toxic waste is illegal, no other goods are illegal - only if they are stolen (an UA is illegal, because it is marked as stolen, the one non-stolen UA wasn't illegal anywhere). an easy solution would be, to allow selling stolen goods via an anarchies regular commodity market.
i think, this all started with MB's table (which still can be seen in the first post of this trade) - he noted illegal trade as having a positive effect on influence.
this is a big problem for player backed piracy factions. basically, they can't sell stolen goods to their homebase, if they don't want to reduce their influence.
while toxic waste is illegal, no other goods are illegal - only if they are stolen (an UA is illegal, because it is marked as stolen, the one non-stolen UA wasn't illegal anywhere). an easy solution would be, to allow selling stolen goods via an anarchies regular commodity market.
i think, this all started with MB's table (which still can be seen in the first post of this trade) - he noted illegal trade as having a positive effect on influence.
Has anyone taken a non-landable (no landing pads) planetary port as a result of winning a conflict?
We are in day 4 of a cw, that is, today is the 4th tick in cw state, and it should be over in the sense that the asset normally changes hands after 3 days and we have a 18% lead today (tomorrow should no longer show the cw state). FWIW, the day we went cw pending, we were tied in inf, and the day the CW kicked off, we had a 10% lead.
We expected to take the planetary outpost with landing pads. We did not. I did notice the no landing pads outpost right next to (literally, within sight of the other outpost) the one with the landing pads is under our control. As it was not a place you can land at, I was not even watching who owned it before the cw. The faction we were in conflict with has no other assets.
Does this mean the no landing pad port, if it was indeed owned by the faction we were in conflict with, had a higher pop than the one with the landing pads??
:S
We are in day 4 of a cw, that is, today is the 4th tick in cw state, and it should be over in the sense that the asset normally changes hands after 3 days and we have a 18% lead today (tomorrow should no longer show the cw state). FWIW, the day we went cw pending, we were tied in inf, and the day the CW kicked off, we had a 10% lead.
We expected to take the planetary outpost with landing pads. We did not. I did notice the no landing pads outpost right next to (literally, within sight of the other outpost) the one with the landing pads is under our control. As it was not a place you can land at, I was not even watching who owned it before the cw. The faction we were in conflict with has no other assets.
Does this mean the no landing pad port, if it was indeed owned by the faction we were in conflict with, had a higher pop than the one with the landing pads??
:S
To play devils advocate... If a pirate steals stuff they could sell the stolen materials and deliver to another BM, and then ship back legit goods to their station. Now, whilst I agree with you that ideally in an anarchist system ALL trade should be profitable in terms of influence, this might be tricky to programme and the above is a work-around.
But, in general, I agree with Jmanis's post. A BM should be harmful to the control. On the other hand, there should be ways and means to shut one down.... however, again, its how it works and you need to work with what you got until it works like you'd like it to
Last edited: