it can happen. a capital ship would be a bug imho. can you specify which goverment type it had?
A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
it can happen. a capital ship would be a bug imho. can you specify which goverment type it had?
Its Anarchy, I guess everything goes in Anarchy? ^^
Short question... what can cause an expansion state to fail? We have one currently active, but no new presence in system 30ly around the expansion system.. heck not even 50ly (just to be sure 
). We had a bugged war (no CZ spawns) on our last expansion system, could it be this is bugged too?
). We had a bugged war (no CZ spawns) on our last expansion system, could it be this is bugged too?Short question... what can cause an expansion state to fail? We have one currently active, but no new presence in system 30ly around the expansion system.. heck not even 50ly (just to be sure
Could be there was no system in a state it could expand to so didnt go anywhere.
It's also possible it has gone to one of the unpopulated ones nearby. This has happened before.
Did your expansion pull an extra faction in? That can sometimes help find it and at least confirm it went somewhere.
Last edited:
well, the closest system with tiny pop was the one we expected it to go to has no states at all and is just 15ly away, the other 2 possible ones within 15ly has a cw between the nr 3 and 4 (5 in total, closest, 240k pop) and one with a cw between the nr 4 and 5 (5 total furthest, 90k pop). We do live on the edge of the human bubble so it expanding to an empty system is a good possibility, although there are enough choices within 30ly to expand to. It atleast didn't pull a faction into ours.
If its an empty expansion is it worth putting up a ticket? or putting up a ticket at all?
If its an empty expansion is it worth putting up a ticket? or putting up a ticket at all?
If you've looked everywhere, then sure. They won't tell you where it went, but they might confirm whether it failed or succeeded. Just give as much detail as you can (system names, faction names, influence values, dates) so it's easier for the devs to look up.
Since you have populated systems available within 20ly then yes I'd put in a ticket.
I had intended to do some testing of fines recently but after inconclusive results from my first test war broke out in my test system so I switched focus to combat bonds.
The test system in question has 5 factions and a population of 238k. My faction is the only non-native faction and neither faction involved in the war owns any assets so bonds were turned in at a third party port. There were no crime or bounty hunting reports and I was the only ship on the traffic report for the duration of the test. Since the only planets, stations and CZs are over 200k ls from the A star interference is unlikely.
Day 1 - 10x approx 500k combat bonds, roughly 5.2m total. After the tick my faction's influence increased by 4.2%.
Day 2 - I was too intoxicated to shoot straight so took the day off from war.
Day 3 - 1 combat bond worth 5.2m. After the tick my faction's influence increased by 0.4%. (0.4% seems to be the smallest change I can cause in my systems)
Day 4 - 5x approx 500k combat bonds, roughly 2.6m total. After the tick my faction's influence increased by 1.6%.
My conclusion is that once again quantity of transactions is more important than their value.
Last edited:
Thanks guys! Will wait for tomorrows tick, maybe its the Thursday thing, after that i will put in a ticket!
combat bonds.
The test system in question has 5 factions and a population of 238k. My faction is the only non-native faction and neither faction involved in the war owns any assets so bonds were turned in at a third party port. There were no crime or bounty hunting reports and I was the only ship on the traffic report for the duration of the test. Since the only planets, stations and CZs are over 200k ls from the A star interference is unlikely.
Day 1 - 10x approx 500k combat bonds, roughly 5.2m total. After the tick my faction's influence increased by 4.2%.
Day 2 - I was too intoxicated to shoot straight so took the day off from war.
Day 3 - 1 combat bond worth 5.2m. After the tick my faction's influence increased by 0.4%. (0.4% seems to be the smallest change I can cause in my systems)
Day 4 - 5x approx 500k combat bonds, roughly 2.6m total. After the tick my faction's influence increased by 1.6%.
My conclusion is that once again quantity of transactions is more important than their value.
amazing test. looks like it is working as with bounties. good news for kinetic-weapon-lovers!
and good to now for cmdrs not in maxed out corvettes.
What was the effect on the faction who controlled the station you handed the bonds into?
And did it make any difference to this faction how the bonds were cashed in?
i actually don#t think so - it was mentioned in the BGS livestream explicitly: bonds and bounties help the faction, which gave it out - differently to trade.
Day 2 - I was too intoxicated to shoot straight so took the day off from war.
.
A good time to leave it and see what the general movement is without your input
No effect. They had some decay during the test but just what I normally see in that system if no one does anything.
dynamicbob
Banned
is the bgs with fixes, addition, and secret things going to get turned on its head for 2.1 and we will have to reconfigure and refigure it again ?
Thinking about Combat Bonds and Bounties.......
Assuming that the potential Influence Increase is based on the total value handed in, but is limited by the Cap (based on number of player actions/transactions in the system). Can you bump up the cap, with for example a large number of small trades, and then hand in your Bounties/Bonds in one go?
Also wondering where the population number fits in. Is it scaling the potential Influence Increase or the amount of actions required to raise the Cap?
EDIT - Just listened to the BGS stream again and apparently the population is linked to the Cap. High population gives lower Cap and low population, higher Cap.
Assuming that the potential Influence Increase is based on the total value handed in, but is limited by the Cap (based on number of player actions/transactions in the system). Can you bump up the cap, with for example a large number of small trades, and then hand in your Bounties/Bonds in one go?
Also wondering where the population number fits in. Is it scaling the potential Influence Increase or the amount of actions required to raise the Cap?
EDIT - Just listened to the BGS stream again and apparently the population is linked to the Cap. High population gives lower Cap and low population, higher Cap.
Last edited:
for bounties i can answer this with: no, doesn't work. there is no (visibible) difference of influence swing with for exampel 3 bounty claims of 50 k total, and 3 bouty claims of 300 k total.
Just thinking out loud, but could the influence gain for the 50k bounties meet or exceed the cap (assuming no other, or limited, player actions in the system), so increasing the bounties to 300k doesn't get to raise the influence any higher? The cap may need to be raised by more player actions, of whatever type, to get the benefit of the extra bounty values.
It's something that sounds testable, so I'll try and do just that
Just thinking out loud, but could the influence gain for the 50k bounties meet or exceed the cap (assuming no other, or limited, player actions in the system), so increasing the bounties to 300k doesn't get to raise the influence any higher? The cap may need to be raised by more player actions, of whatever type, to get the benefit of the extra bounty values.
It's something that sounds testable, so I'll try and do just that
tested that. i got more of a influence swing with increasing number of bounty transactions, so i didn't hit the cap with increasing bounty value before. the increase isn't linear though (e.g. 12 bounty transactions don't give 4 times influence swing of 3 bounty transactions, more like 1,5 times. but 12 bountie transactions give 20 times the influence swing of one bountie transaction - with the same value) - and that non-linear increase might be an effect of influence cap moving.
I'm all for other players retesting my tests! my test-systems have pros and cons - really low population (around 1500 people ...), a low number of factions (2 minor factions, 3 minor factions), no traffic. I'm sure that this restricted set up misses out a lot of finer effects of the bgs, if there are any. i'm just testing the very basic effects. so you can say: this is the case, do that.
in case of bounty hunting: claim your bounties as often as possible, value is neclectable.
which is good news for newer players, who want to influence a system. and also makes interdicting or going for signal sources as or more powerfull than res-farming. basically you can play that part of the BGS as effective with an eagle/ viper as with a FAS/FDL. and you can use kineic weapons, if you like. you can even use railguns
I recently used a CW in one of my systems to get bonds, then sold them in another system for that faction to raise them in another system.
The result ... no % influence change in the system when the CW was current, but it raised the same faction 2.6% in the system I sold them in.
