You'll find if you look around the systems near you, it will be in another system to, and it is that one it is retreating from, not your system if that is it's home. Retreat is published to all systems the faction is present in despite it only retreating from the one. Just like Expansion is published Faction wide, although it actually expands from one system only.
A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
You'll find if you look around the systems near you, it will be in another system to, and it is that one it is retreating from, not your system if that is it's home. Retreat is published to all systems the faction is present in despite it only retreating from the one. Just like Expansion is published Faction wide, although it actually expands from one system only.
How can I know which system will reach the threshold first? If there's a way to know it, that is.
The threshold is 75%, so complete missions in one system until it passes 75%, Expansion goes pending and bobs your uncle, that's your expansion system. Where you go will be the nearest system with <7 factions in it.
The system with the highest influence when it first started. If there is no place from the system (within 30 LYs) where it started in the first place, the BGS will start the expansion from the nearest system (with your minor faction) from the system it has started started at the beginning (just read this in the local news).
So basically, a system has to be >75%, and if there are 2 or more, it's the one with the highest influence. That's very useful! Thanks a lot [big grin]
Not really. We had the one with less expanding too. It might be based on who is over 75% the longest or which has higher developement.
I have a post-patch question about the effect of war/civil war.
I understand that the war will lower influence in all systems of the group as a one-time hit when it starts.
However, I just had a fairly large trading day create no effect on a system whose group is in a war state elsewhere, but is not in a war state in that specific system.
So, question is this: when a group is in a war state, will trading affect the faction's influence in systems not shown as being in the war, or does the war state elsewhere create the "combat and combat missions are the only ways to affect influence" rule?
I understand that the war will lower influence in all systems of the group as a one-time hit when it starts.
However, I just had a fairly large trading day create no effect on a system whose group is in a war state elsewhere, but is not in a war state in that specific system.
So, question is this: when a group is in a war state, will trading affect the faction's influence in systems not shown as being in the war, or does the war state elsewhere create the "combat and combat missions are the only ways to affect influence" rule?
That's what we were discussing for pages
The hit is global, but the best hypotesis we have so far is that non-combat activities in the systems other than the one in war are greatly reduced in effect, but not nullified. The difference may be minimal though.
That's what we were discussing for pages
The hit is global, but the best hypotesis we have so far is that non-combat activities in the systems other than the one in war are greatly reduced in effect, but not nullified. The difference may be minimal though.
Heck, I'm sorry about that. I really did read a LOT of the recent posts, for pages and pages, without seeing it. Maybe I misunderstood the question people were referring to.
As I understand it the state is a faction state and not a system state. The effects are factionwide. The war itself will not reduce influence - there is no "war tax" as such. What is happening is that all the non combat related activities have no effect for your faction in every system, while all activities have effect for other factions. The random effects of other cmdrs that maintain influence levels is severely (and I would say unfairly) imbalanced during the war period.
This can be a very punishing for multi system factions making the BGS more like powerplay with a significant maintenance overhead. Until tweaked make sure to plan your conflicts with this in mind.
I tend to call this phenomenon "overextension" and use it in my wars against other player groups. Pushing them into war % locks and then slicing them up without any defense is my forte.
Extreme overextension is if at the same time you are not only in too many systems, but many of them are even unconsolidated. This just calls for your enemies to run you over like a wrecking ball.
A faction is not overextended if:
It can control the BGS in all their systems at any time to make sure they don't fight unnecessary or crippling wars and can keep ahead of pursuers if need be.
It can prepare their expansions in hostile enviroments to ensure "elections" being done instead of wars to prevent war locks.
If a faction can't deal with any of the above, it should consider to reduce their expansions for a while or cease them completely.
definetly not.
1. faction will expand from the system where it reaches 75℅ first
2. if more then one reaches above 75℅ and all stay there, all systems will expand in the row they reached 75℅ (like a hidden pending state)
- when you want control expansions, you have to keep influence below 75℅ in all systems other than the one you want to expand
Hi ya all,
I'm looking for some input on BGS stuff. The big galactic picture
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...cal-Landscape-Latest-Overview-System-Flipping
I'm looking for some input on BGS stuff. The big galactic picture
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...cal-Landscape-Latest-Overview-System-Flipping
About the effect of bounties, based on something stated in the very first post. It says that if you turn in bounties issued by a faction, but to a station owned by another faction, the faction owning the station gains more influence than the faction that issued the bounty. Does anyone know if this is still the case after all the patches subsequent to the beginning of the thread?
Just won my War on the latest tick. I was expecting to get the Outpost with a market owned by the losing faction, but instead I won the Planetary Base with no market.
I thought FD had sorted this 'Value' thing out so you won the most valuable.
Or have I missed something?
I thought FD had sorted this 'Value' thing out so you won the most valuable.
Or have I missed something?
If i recall correctly, MB stated it was based on population but weighted towards the more useful assets - I searched but couldn't find the reference.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Faction bounties will help the faction not the station owner.
Useful assets. That makes sense now as the only thing it doesn't have is a Commodity Market. The outpost has a few things missing but has a market.
Cheers Schlack
We queried one and the answer came back that it was population that was the deciding number.
We have had a discussion with them regarding the fact that station population is 'hidden' so we have to guess.
This makes me wonder about FD's logic sometimes. It really does.
This system has 2 Outposts, 1 Planetary station and a bundle of bases.
Both outposts have markets, one has no repair but restock, the other no restock but repair. The Planetary has both repair and restock, but no market.
And yet, the controlling station is an outpost without repair, the planetary station is of higher value than the other outpost because of population and all the while we are left p***ing in the wind and guessing what is what.