A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim

Gemai · Oct 18, 2016

Patau82 said:
Myth buster: Its likely that FD have upgraded all controlling stations in inhabited systems added when horizons launched, Philliphent Point is the systems controlling station

They continue this praxis in 2.2 as it is already in the Beta Patchnotes for the remnant systems with those circumstances.

Now if they would finally ADD stations to the "inhabited" systems of Horizons WITHOUT stations...

irongut · Oct 18, 2016

Patau82 said:
Its likely that FD have upgraded all controlling stations in inhabited systems added when horizons launched, Philliphent Point is the systems controlling station

CMDR Endincite said:
Yes it's in a patch note that they did.

I immediately thought of that sytem and Philliphent Point when someone mentioned that patch note to me last week. I wonder if there are a lot of systems like that in the bubble or is it unique?

jimbeau1571 · Oct 18, 2016

So it would appear that the "" might not mean anything at all after all. depending on how your format the JSON, depends on how it displays it. SOmetimes with colours, sometimes with some "" removed some with all removed. So this doesn't really help any. It can even change the order of the info displayed. (Compare this with Sentenza's earlier posts).

name: "Domestic Appliances"
cost_min: 380.67291304348
cost_max: "716.00"
cost_mean: "487.00"
homebuy: 69
homesell: 66
consumebuy: 3
baseCreationQty: 21
baseConsumptionQty: 0
capacity: 2365
buyPrice: 360
sellPrice: 344
meanPrice: 487
demandBracket: 0
stockBracket: 2
creationQty: 1586
consumptionQty: 0
targetStock: 1586
stock: 918
demand: 1
rare_min_stock: 0
rare_max_stock: 0
market_id: null
parent_id: null
statusFlags:
categoryname: "Consumer Items"
volumescale: "1.2500"
sec_illegal_min: "1.15"
sec_illegal_max: "2.26"
stolenmod: "0.7500"

PS I know I said the weekend earlier, but managed to get some time aside in work to have a fiddle

)

dynamicbob · Oct 18, 2016

jimbeau1571 said:
So it would appear that the "" might not mean anything at all after all. depending on how your format the JSON, depends on how it displays it. SOmetimes with colours, sometimes with some "" removed some with all removed. So this doesn't really help any. It can even change the order of the info displayed. (Compare this with Sentenza's earlier posts).

name: "Domestic Appliances"
cost_min: 380.67291304348
cost_max: "716.00"
cost_mean: "487.00"
homebuy: 69
homesell: 66
consumebuy: 3
baseCreationQty: 21
baseConsumptionQty: 0
capacity: 2365
buyPrice: 360
sellPrice: 344
meanPrice: 487
demandBracket: 0
stockBracket: 2
creationQty: 1586
consumptionQty: 0
targetStock: 1586
stock: 918
demand: 1
rare_min_stock: 0
rare_max_stock: 0
market_id: null
parent_id: null
statusFlags:
categoryname: "Consumer Items"
volumescale: "1.2500"
sec_illegal_min: "1.15"
sec_illegal_max: "2.26"
stolenmod: "0.7500"

From that information, it would seem the background sim section of where trade goods cross over is actually very shallow and has lots of rooms for additional work by frontier.

CMDR Endincite · Oct 19, 2016

There's no telling what mechanics may be using this data - it's just an API after all - but yeah I see no reason to assume significant depth.

Sentenza · Oct 19, 2016

Some parts just look bogus. Look at the mean price for example - why is it even there? Reupdating all the commodities records in all the stations after calculating the mean values is a lot of useless work, you could just keep a separate single record for that. Plus, if you notice, it appears to be always the same as the "mean cost", which appears to be a constant instead - it really looks like the average price really isn't...

_trent_ · Oct 19, 2016

Limoncello Lizard said:
Things like this is why we need a seperate BGS section of the forum. Otherwise this will be quickly buried in this thread.

I'd like to see that.

The forum already has dedicated sub-forums for Powerplay, Engineers, Horizons, CQC and now CGs, so giving the BGS its own sub-forum seems to be both desirable and logical.

goemon · Oct 19, 2016

Sentenza said:
Some parts just look bogus. Look at the mean price for example - why is it even there? Reupdating all the commodities records in all the stations after calculating the mean values is a lot of useless work, you could just keep a separate single record for that. Plus, if you notice, it appears to be always the same as the "mean cost", which appears to be a constant instead - it really looks like the average price really isn't...

actually, the average price is dynamic.

i can tell from two exampels: 1. painite. painite average price changed significantly, since state depending profits were introduced 2. jaques quentian still. average price got up, when jaques moved.

to me both exampels look as if the average price is really a calculated average across all markets.

alternatively it is just a number, changed by FDev during patches.

jimbeau1571 · Oct 19, 2016

goemon said:
actually, the average price is dynamic.

i can tell from two exampels: 1. painite. painite average price changed significantly, since state depending profits were introduced 2. jaques quentian still. average price got up, when jaques moved.

to me both exampels look as if the average price is really a calculated average across all markets.

alternatively it is just a number, changed by FDev during patches.

In a galaxy of 1000's of markets, there is 2 ways of viewing the average price:

1. Pragmatically - every purchase and sale of commodities affects the pricing on a market and is reflected in the average price. But due to there being 1000's of markets and millions of tons of commodities being bought and sold every day, the average price change of any 1 commodity will be so minute, it barely registers. A price of 400 rises to 405. It won't even matter in the big scheme of things. But it did change.

or

2. Sceptically - every purchase and sale of a commodity will have such a insignificant affect on the average price across 1000's markets, what's the point of doing all that calculating. Lets just call it 400 and save the computing time. It at least looks like its doing it.

Limoncello Lizard · Oct 20, 2016

I've just started a thread in the Forum Support & Feedback section of the forum: Any chance of an ED BGS sub forum?.

~~It isn't displaying yet, as it's still waiting on moderation.~~ edit - Done

Please add your support, disagreement, or suggestions.

If it happens, and works out like the new CG sub-forum, there may be a need for volunteers for people to be moderators.

dynamicbob · Oct 20, 2016

Limoncello Lizard said:
I've just started a thread in the Forum Support & Feedback section of the forum: Any chance of an ED BGS sub forum?.

It isn't displaying yet, as it's still waiting on moderation. But when it does, please add your support, disagreement, or suggestions.

If it happens, and works out like the new CG sub-forum, there may be a need for volunteers for people to be moderators.

from a psychological and cultural point of view, if Fdev support it will be a sign they are onboard, if its ignored then we can assume that frontier dont have BGS overhauls on their development roadmap and dev plan for at least 12 months ( which is generally a long timeline that they start working on things)

So ill support it and let us know if they get on board or not

Adept Geraden · Oct 20, 2016

Could I trouble somebody to list the current known percentage difference figures to win a war, a civil war, and an election. I promise I'll write it down this time, and keep it updated every other week when FD change it (again).

irongut · Oct 20, 2016

commanda2212 said:
Could I trouble somebody to list the current known percentage difference figures to win a war, a civil war, and an election. I promise I'll write it down this time, and keep it updated every other week when FD change it (again).

War = 5%
Civil War & Election = 3%

I was actually able to prove the 5% for a War recently when I had my faction leading by 4.8% for a few days longer then the minimum length and it didn't end until I pushed them over 5%. Assets changed the day the difference went over 5% and the war ended the next day as normal.

Adept Geraden · Oct 20, 2016

irongut said:
War = 5%
Civil War & Election = 3%

I was actually able to prove the 5% for a War recently when I had my faction leading by 4.8% for a few days longer then the minimum length and it didn't end until I pushed them over 5%. Assets changed the day the difference went over 5% and the war ended the next day as normal.

Ah good, thankyou. Reason I ask, I have a war pending, and have pushed my favored faction to 6% infront already.

dynamicbob · Oct 20, 2016

commanda2212 said:
Ah good, thankyou. Reason I ask, I have a war pending, and have pushed my favored faction to 6% infront already.

If you push it to 10% ive found that there seems to be a high chance of ending a state early.

Limoncello Lizard · Oct 20, 2016

dynamicbob said:
If you push it to 10% ive found that there seems to be a high chance of ending a state early.

How long for a war then?

Sentenza · Oct 20, 2016

Limoncello Lizard said:
How long for a war then?

I had a war at +35% and it did not last one minute less...

jimbeau1571 · Oct 20, 2016

W/CW/Elec all minimum 3 days for win and asset change, +1 for the state to change.

_trent_ · Oct 20, 2016

Sentenza said:
I had a war at +35% and it did not last one minute less...

Yep, me too. In 2.0, the wars ended on the third tick. Since 2.1 wars end on the fourth tick.

We recently intervened in a war and got one faction into a 10% lead on the first day, 20% on the second and 32% on the third and it still didn't end until the fourth tick.

CMDR Endincite · Oct 20, 2016

Same. We've pushed many beyond a 20% lead, and they're never any shorter.

Edit: pushed during the pending phase, that is.