A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim

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

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.

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

Edit: pushed during the pending phase, that is.

I have also had them in vast leads before they started, without them ending early. "Urban Myth" Sorry.

looks as if we have finally found some consistency in the backgroundsimulation [woah]
 
It might be worth monitoring the Farewell to Walter CG that has just started in the Gyvatices system. The CG is transporting fish and coffee to a station that is orbiting an Earthlike world. This station produces both fish and coffee, so what a huge influx of these commodities is going to do to the local economy could be interesting.
 
If you push it to 10% ive found that there seems to be a high chance of ending a state early.

I wouldn't listen to this man, he his notorious for making stuff up.


Now back to topic, I have a question: If the controlling faction of a system is anarchist and there are RES in the system, can I lower the controlling faction's influence by killing their ships in said RES?
 
It might be worth monitoring the Farewell to Walter CG that has just started in the Gyvatices system. The CG is transporting fish and coffee to a station that is orbiting an Earthlike world. This station produces both fish and coffee, so what a huge influx of these commodities is going to do to the local economy could be interesting.

I'd say it will be, considering that the system produces what is being delivered there! I honestly don't think much will change, other than the demand box will be at 999,999 for the next 7 days. And as we know, that is a FD input. Now, if the demand figure were to reduce down from the 999,999 to 0 it would perhaps offer some insight. But it won't.

I'm going to pass through it once just to run the API reading thing, then wait for the CG to finish and run it again for comparison. But I don't expect it to tell me anything.
Saturday will be my big test of my home systems using the reader, the little I have done so far has told me nothing with regards to an active economy in the backend, so far I just see front end figures that count up and down.
 
I wouldn't listen to this man, he his notorious for making stuff up.


Now back to topic, I have a question: If the controlling faction of a system is anarchist and there are RES in the system, can I lower the controlling faction's influence by killing their ships in said RES?


In anarchy all ships are clean, so I would say yes.
 
Ah I see, so killing wanted ships doesn't affect influence? Anyway, I've killed a bunch so I'll report here any changes tomorrow.
It doesn't matter whether ships are wanted, if you kill them it lowers influence. Wanted ships give an additional effect with their bounties helping the factino where you claim the bounty.

If you are commiting murder, there are additional effects on lockdown or civil unrest depending on whether they are authority or not.

I think killing ships in a CZ only counts if you claim the bonds.
 
Hey guys... just thought I'd post a quick update on the idiots guide to the BGS. Sadly I've not had much time to work it, OS on a work trip and this weeks been a major component of it so haven't really had a chance to blink most nights :/

It doesn't matter whether ships are wanted, if you kill them it lowers influence. Wanted ships give an additional effect with their bounties helping the factino where you claim the bounty.

If you are commiting murder, there are additional effects on lockdown or civil unrest depending on whether they are authority or not.

I think killing ships in a CZ only counts if you claim the bonds.

All correct :)
 
Last edited:
All correct :)

Nope. Killing ships in a CZ without declaring allegiance also works, albeit differently. It doesn't help the other unchosen side win the war, but it still "upsets" the faction you shot.
If you declare allegiance, you help your faction in the war and you lose no reputation with the enemy, as war actions don't count as a hostile act.
 
Nope. Killing ships in a CZ without declaring allegiance also works, albeit differently. It doesn't help the other unchosen side win the war, but it still "upsets" the faction you shot.
If you declare allegiance, you help your faction in the war and you lose no reputation with the enemy, as war actions don't count as a hostile act.

But having declared, you must hand in the bonds or nothing happens.
 
Now an interesting question. We know that working influence is easier the smaller the local population is; but what about states? Can you influence a state faster working in a small system or, being the faction state bucket global, it does not matter?
 
Some people claim it is local. But that would make small pop systems a huge security risk for any faction. Personally my observations would support a faction bucket not a system bucket. Unless it is a state dependent on influence (election/war), triggering Unrest by weapon trade or boom by general trade in systems of 5k wasn't harder than 5-10M.
 
Some people claim it is local. But that would make small pop systems a huge security risk for any faction. Personally my observations would support a faction bucket not a system bucket. Unless it is a state dependent on influence (election/war), triggering Unrest by weapon trade or boom by general trade in systems of 5k wasn't harder than 5-10M.

I agree it is faction wide. An act puts a token in the bucket. The question becomes - how do you define the bucket?

Expansion although not bucket orientated is obviously easier to do from a smaller population world than a larger, as all action have a larger affect. I would not be surprised to see this mirrored for the other states. We once had Civil Unrest, Lockdown, Bust and Boom to work through back in 1.3/1.4 days, generated over 1 week - clearly someone was having a go (ok I would not rule out complete stupidity on out part!). As our biggest system was a few million.

I think the small systems are the security risk, but they often do not have the resources to allow a mechanic (no black market for example).

Simon
 
Hey guys, remember I killed a bunch of pirates from the controlling anarchy faction? Well, their influence hasn't changed at all after today's tick :/
 
I can hereby confirm a third case of Hyperexpansion. This time it was our Otohime that decided 2 new systems are better than 1 and grabed HIP 11886 and Khemaraui.

This 'feature' ("Bug with Benefits") is as elusive as weird.
 
Which is why I said THIRD case. It is a rare event and we still try to determine how to reliably conduct a Hyperexpansion. I personally know of 3 cases by now.

Did the faction expand to those systems from the same system? If it expanded from different systems it may be a bug with queued expansions, where 2 trigger at the same time. Also, how does it appear in the news board? 2 different news or a single article naming both systems?
 
Did the faction expand to those systems from the same system? If it expanded from different systems it may be a bug with queued expansions, where 2 trigger at the same time. Also, how does it appear in the news board? 2 different news or a single article naming both systems?

The same system Vader. It is not a two system bug, it is also not reliant on 90% double expansion % loss. Neither is necessary.

The news will only report the closest expansion, not the secondary. You have to check yourself.
 
Back
Top Bottom