A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
60-65%... and yes.
If you'd like to be able to pledge to your minor factions, dont forget to vote here:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/308769-Would-you-like-to-pledge-to-factions
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/308769-Would-you-like-to-pledge-to-factions
Hmm. Very few dictators/emperor/absolute monarchs throughout history have been able to successfully retire - just one Roman emperor managed it, iirc. They usually died with their metaphorical boots on - where they still had metaphorical legs to put them on. Dictatorial election is still a difficult concept to swallow.
There are several impediments to creating and maintaining a guide to the BGS:if somebody is willing or able to write a new, updated to 2.0-2.2. thread, and maintain it, we could all move over
alas, everytime i start trying to write down the facts, i find out, i don't know enough. beside i wouldn't/couldn't maintain it next to my moderator duties (enough time with these forums)
1 Time - lack of it. While you're busy trying to keep things up to date someone sneaks in and messes with your faction(s).
2 Remembering how the various elements interact. If there's a change you have to go through everything just in case there's some little facet of the game that's getting a little push or pull. You need more time.
3 Evaluating the results of experiments that the players create. Are the experimental parameters watertight? How much is wishful thinking? Can the results be replicated? Strangely, experimental results often contradict the results of other experiments. You need time to come up with a tentative definitive answer.
4 Time. You always need more of it.
Writing up the BGS is always premature.
Because.
Welcome to my world. If the definitive answers weren't so tentative, this thread would have closed months ago and the devs would have lost their main task: relocating goalposts.
Apologies for the regurgitated history.
^^^^^^^^^In a nutshell^^^^^^^^^
So carry on regardless:S Because we will.
So carry on regardless:S Because we will.
Naturally. Is there another way?
Last edited:
Should do. Only combat actions don't work in an election.
Wait up a sec.
Negative inf caps have always been a thing, much like positive inf caps. I know this coz it's a common tactic of mine to destabilise player factions coming too close to my borders. I haven't done this since 2.2 dropped, so this sounds like something unintended/bugged.
Last edited:
dynamicbob
Banned
i wonder if its been bug reported, but it does have some interesting outcomes for sure
What I think is that a cap has been put in place per player, but not overall.
Maybe. Wouldn't be the first unintentional inconsistency between positive/negative effects.
dynamicbob
Banned
any ideas how it could be retested in other locales jmanis ?
my current impression is, that there is neither a positive nor negative single commander cap (but a general positive cap, while, yes, i can't see a negative cap, too.)
my impression is further, that there is somehow a single activity cap in place. might also be a cap of transaction counted during a market referesh or similar. but basically i see much more influence delta if i combine several activities .... cash in bountie, cash in mission, do a trade run.... you get the idea.
unfortunetly i'm curently working systems with a lot of traffic, so that might be more anecdotal.
How much per player do you think the cap could be?
I've lost 40%+ in 3 ticks in one system. 6 or 7 Gunship on the TR report each tick, which would suggest a lone shark as opposed to group. I don't think he was out to hit my faction but just unaware of his actions and its consequences.
I once single-handedly knocked a dominant (65%) faction in a population 120k system down 25% in one tick.
I've also raised a faction in a similar system 15% in the one night. Depending on the circumstance, there's easier ways to drop influence than to raise, thus the discrepency.
For what it's worth, the 25% was not an unexpected drop. I hounded them for 4 days and took them down to 15%. Needless to say they aren't in control now.
Last edited:
I tend to look at it as a sweet spot were there is no cap but the effort is not worth the reward. I also believe that 2 does not double the effect of 1 but maybe 1.1% and a hundred might effect things to a point of 1.2% and a thousand might get 1.4% but even if all the players did it, you would still not get double the effect of 1 player.
Just IMO
On another note, I am aware of a system that has 4 factions, The top one is in at 93.9% and is in civil war with the second at 3.3%. If there was a cap, Could that be possible without it being a bug.
Just IMO
On another note, I am aware of a system that has 4 factions, The top one is in at 93.9% and is in civil war with the second at 3.3%. If there was a cap, Could that be possible without it being a bug.
Last edited:
When I tested illegal BM selling, I found that a single Python load could immediately generate a ~-2% effect, but multiple load did not generate more than that.
OTOH, I could raise a faction 10% in a day with missions.
Last edited:
What were the other properties of that system?
Î agree with that question. My Pythonload did 7% damage to the faction involved which was 50% of its preday influence. That is why I know the BM mechanic is far too powerful combined to positive actions.
Sentenza must have overlooked a detail. I actually believe by his testimony in the bug thread that he traded illegal goods, of which profit is bound to the buying price.
The real griefer uses stolen goods...