A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim

[SaliVader]

Skimmers can cause famine. Thanks for the confirmation. This was introduced in 2.2 so at least prior to that famine appears to have been caused by some bgs mechanism independent of player action. We can't confirm yet whether that is still the case.

That doesn't mean killing skimmers (with no missions) triggers famine too, biowaste haul missions trigger outbreak but selling biowaste does not, at least according to a test I did last week. I sold 3840t (I wasn't tracking the profit), 2880t with a profit (of 1 cr per ton lol) and 720t with the 1t method over 3 days. No outbreak pending.

 

[Matzov]

That doesn't mean killing skimmers (with no missions) triggers famine too, biowaste haul missions trigger outbreak but selling biowaste does not, at least according to a test I did last week. I sold 3840t (I wasn't tracking the profit), 2880t with a profit (of 1 cr per ton lol) and 720t with the 1t method over 3 days. No outbreak pending.

I suspect some of this - ie what might be triggered by doing certain actions - is determined by the hidden buckets. So, if the famine bucket is filling, then massacre might also contribute a bit to that, as well as the lockdown bucket etc. as a kind of secondary effect.

 

[Jmanis]

I'm not convinced about this. I always thought that the help to one faction and the harm to another is taken completely seperately. So if you knock 5 points of one faction and add five points onto another, the other factions in the system will also be affected going both up and down. These differences mostly cancel out, but occasionally result in small changes to the other factions.

exactly.

of course we need to speculate how this is actually done by the BGS algorythm.

does it calculate first all actions for and against a faction, goes on to the next faction, and so on? i actually don't think so - you can see changing influence values during the tick...

I had a much larger post planned, but then I ran some numbers. Long story short, I agree Using CoatOSilver's bucket theories (which IMO are incredibly solid, it's the only thing that explains variance in influence levels when no commanders act in a system for a whole tick) I admittedly expected to see some significant differences between values as I applied changes. But the results honestly surprised me a little.

Basically, if you apply positive and negative actions at the same time, you get an exact transfer, but I don't think that's the case. Keeping it simple, we know (from livestreams) there's different buckets for positive and negative actions. I think it applies one set of changes (Positive, for arguments sake) and then applies the other (negative) i.e empties one "bucket" of changes, then empties the other bucket of changes.

I ran with a bucket size of 200, and faction influences A(55%), B(15%), C(10%), D(10%), E(10%). Applying 5 points of positive work to faction D and 5 points of negative work to faction A (first the positive, then the negative) the resultant influences are:
A(52.53%), B(15.01%), C(10.01%), D(12.45%), E(10.01%)
If we run with negative first, we get *closer* but not exact:
A(52.47%), B(15.01%), C(10.01%), D(12.51%), E(10.01%)

Finally, if we inverse the numbers on these results (i.e do a second tick with 5 points negative to D and 5 points positive to A) we get close to, but not exactly the same result.

A(55.00%), B(15.01%), C(10.01%), D(9.95%), E(10.01%)

Interestingly, this becomes much more skewed (in neither A or D's favour, but D is hit harder) if we up the amount of points traded in both ticks to 30

A(54.85%), B(15.70%), C(10.47%), D(8.5%), E(10.47%)

These results don't include the rounding that goes on according to CoatOSilver's theory; I didn't bother and just punched in big fractions in a spreadsheet. No doubt the impact of rounding would have even more effect on the, well, "chaos" of these numbers.

 

[Nyra Amarin]

FYI: Not sure if this IS a new discovery, But while doing skimmer kill missions in a neighbouring system, I noticed this

Spoiler

http://i.imgur.com/P6J9pp1.png

That's what I love about changes in the BGS in 2.2
That info in the mission panel is cool.

 

[goemon]

I had a much larger post planned, but then I ran some numbers. Long story short, I agree Using CoatOSilver's bucket theories (which IMO are incredibly solid, it's the only thing that explains variance in influence levels when no commanders act in a system for a whole tick) I admittedly expected to see some significant differences between values as I applied changes. But the results honestly surprised me a little.

Basically, if you apply positive and negative actions at the same time, you get an exact transfer, but I don't think that's the case. Keeping it simple, we know (from livestreams) there's different buckets for positive and negative actions. I think it applies one set of changes (Positive, for arguments sake) and then applies the other (negative) i.e empties one "bucket" of changes, then empties the other bucket of changes.

I ran with a bucket size of 200, and faction influences A(55%), B(15%), C(10%), D(10%), E(10%). Applying 5 points of positive work to faction D and 5 points of negative work to faction A (first the positive, then the negative) the resultant influences are:
A(52.53%), B(15.01%), C(10.01%), D(12.45%), E(10.01%)
If we run with negative first, we get *closer* but not exact:
A(52.47%), B(15.01%), C(10.01%), D(12.51%), E(10.01%)

Finally, if we inverse the numbers on these results (i.e do a second tick with 5 points negative to D and 5 points positive to A) we get close to, but not exactly the same result.

A(55.00%), B(15.01%), C(10.01%), D(9.95%), E(10.01%)

Interestingly, this becomes much more skewed (in neither A or D's favour, but D is hit harder) if we up the amount of points traded in both ticks to 30

A(54.85%), B(15.70%), C(10.47%), D(8.5%), E(10.47%)

These results don't include the rounding that goes on according to CoatOSilver's theory; I didn't bother and just punched in big fractions in a spreadsheet. No doubt the impact of rounding would have even more effect on the, well, "chaos" of these numbers.

fantastic

i missed the point for "there's different buckets for positive and negative actions" - do you have a source for that? i always assumed there are state buckets only.

 

[Jmanis]

fantastic

i missed the point for "there's different buckets for positive and negative actions" - do you have a source for that? i always assumed there are state buckets only.

Think it was the first BGS livestream. Not in a position to check atm (fighting a war)

EDIT: My notes from the first stream are here, and includes the line:

"There's two flavours of buckets for state changes: Economic bucket changes up and down, Influence bucket up and down. There's other sub-things (I lost the plot a bit here) but ultimately it's those two flavours"

I'd need to trawl the video to try and remember exactly what I meant there.

 

[Schlack]

That doesn't mean killing skimmers (with no missions) triggers famine too, biowaste haul missions trigger outbreak but selling biowaste does not, at least according to a test I did last week. I sold 3840t (I wasn't tracking the profit), 2880t with a profit (of 1 cr per ton lol) and 720t with the 1t method over 3 days. No outbreak pending.

Yes, I should have been clearer, Skimmer missions can cause famine. I doubt killing skimmers on their own do. Are there other mission types that fill the famine bucket?

There is some anecdotal evidence (pre 2.2 at least) where apparently 0 traffic systems were entering into famine and outbreak on their own. It is possible that some systems do not have enough (hidden) food/health characteristics to keep the system out of famine outbreak without human interaction (delivery of food/relevant missions). Please note however that this is a theory. I am not aware of any FD statements to support this.

 

[SaliVader]

Yes, I should have been clearer, Skimmer missions can cause famine. I doubt killing skimmers on their own do. Are there other mission types that fill the famine bucket?

There is some anecdotal evidence (pre 2.2 at least) where apparently 0 traffic systems were entering into famine and outbreak on their own. It is possible that some systems do not have enough (hidden) food/health characteristics to keep the system out of famine outbreak without human interaction (delivery of food/relevant missions). Please note however that this is a theory. I am not aware of any FD statements to support this.

Yes, I have absolutely no sliver of doubt that the lack of player activity triggers outbreak and famine. These states seem redundant though, taking into account they have the same effect (combat actions don't affect influence). They are also triggered by missions (biowaste hauling and skimmer massacre missions), and as far as I know no other player actions can fill their buckets, unlike other states.

 

[goemon]

Yes, I have absolutely no sliver of doubt that the lack of player activity triggers outbreak and famine. These states seem redundant though, taking into account they have the same effect (combat actions don't affect influence). They are also triggered by missions (biowaste hauling and skimmer massacre missions), and as far as I know no other player actions can fill their buckets, unlike other states.

it is very complicated to test, no?

you'd need 2 similar systems without player traffic, having an outbreak just ended, so the outbreak bucket is empty.

you monitor the one, and sell waste to the other without loss or profit (or any other action you suspect adding to outbreak), so you don't cause bust or boom... and measure how long both systems (factions) take to get back into outbreak...

 

[CMDR Endincite]

as far as I know no other player actions can fill their buckets, unlike other states

Selling anything at a loss has negative state effects. *What* you sell at a loss is the fairly intuitive key here. As you might imagine it's not always possible to find a market in a particular system for which you can produce a negative return on medicine, food, or weapons. Suppliers of those are the easiest targets.

 

[Fire Dragon]

Do you know if I can spawn an election with a faction that is in retreat in another system?

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

Do you know if I can spawn an election with a faction that is in retreat in another system?

You should be able to. It is likely to stop the faction from retreating if the election goes from pending to active before the retreat completes.

 

[goemon]

Do you know if I can spawn an election with a faction that is in retreat in another system?

yes, any conflict state will break retreat (as well as expansion).

 

[Fire Dragon]

Thanks guys, your the best

 

[Walter2]

Has anyone come across an instance of a faction retreating from its home system to one it had expanded into? We've got such a case in Colonia, but Colonia itself might be a special circumstance.

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

Has anyone come across an instance of a faction retreating from its home system to one it had expanded into? We've got such a case in Colonia, but Colonia itself might be a special circumstance.

It shouldn't be possible to retreat from a home system any more. But it did used to happen a while back (at least pre 2.1, maybe earlier). It may well be coded different in Colonia.

edut - An example of a faction that was displaced is the Cartel of Jotun. It was booted out of Jotun quite a while ago, and has only recently returned.

 

[_trent_]

Has anyone come across an instance of a faction retreating from its home system to one it had expanded into? We've got such a case in Colonia, but Colonia itself might be a special circumstance.

If I remember correctly, in the initial email about the Colonia Bubble it was mentioned that it was possible to be booted out of Colonia itself if your influence fell low enough. Since our faction isn't taking part at the moment I've not really been keeping up to date with it recently.

 

[Adhock]

If I remember correctly, in the initial email about the Colonia Bubble it was mentioned that it was possible to be booted out of Colonia itself if your influence fell low enough. Since our faction isn't taking part at the moment I've not really been keeping up to date with it recently.

That's recently been changed up with the actual initiative that's being run now. Players are voting which groups get out there from those that step forward and the top 10 are selected for their own mini-CG to run data stuffs out there to establish their own planetary base in a system of their choosing near colonia. Or something to that effect. The initial email is only half true at this point but it was only meant as a rough draft for player groups to give their feedback on.

 

[_trent_]

That's recently been changed up with the actual initiative that's being run now. Players are voting which groups get out there from those that step forward and the top 10 are selected for their own mini-CG to run data stuffs out there to establish their own planetary base in a system of their choosing near colonia. Or something to that effect. The initial email is only half true at this point but it was only meant as a rough draft for player groups to give their feedback on.

Ok, fair enough. The point of contact in our faction isn't me, I just remember seeing an email that was sent to the group leaders waaaaay back in September. I was quite keen on the idea at the time but we couldn't reach a consensus and in the end the decision was to focus more on our home system and the surrounding area. With hindsight, I'm actually quite pleased that we're sticking to our own neck of the woods for now.

 

[Adhock]

Ok, fair enough. The point of contact in our faction isn't me, I just remember seeing an email that was sent to the group leaders waaaaay back in September. I was quite keen on the idea at the time but we couldn't reach a consensus and in the end the decision was to focus more on our home system and the surrounding area. With hindsight, I'm actually quite pleased that we're sticking to our own neck of the woods for now.

They're going to keep running those voting processes monthly so once the big groups clear out and get their piece of turf, the smaller groups who remain persistent will get their chance. So even if you don't get in the running at first, persistence will pay off. It's not a one time thing though.

But I agree on the semantics. As a player group of one I certainly wouldn't want the hardship of supporting two sets of factions by myself. I'll settle here in Core space and let the numbers clear out. By the time everyone gets bored or established, I'll have enjoyed myself in a relatively quiet part of space.