uh, i didn't know that! ty!
A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
uh, i didn't know that! ty!
Sterling MH
Banned
Random thought here.
If there are player factions and a desire for "player bases", could these be linked together? If, for example, a faction patch were purchasable for a sum that gave that user the right to start a faction, design that patch and proffer it (and a paint job specific to that faction? maybe too much work, maybe a Faction++ pack...) to players joining to add to their livery, and to power play for enough influence to create a player base that every faction member can be a part of, would
a) FD go for it?
b) Players with factions go for it?
The power of the faction determines both the presence and size of the maximum station possible, and that community goals for that faction would be automatically generated as a credit sink in the game to create or upgrade the faction station. If the faction loses the station, unless it's the last one, the station goes offline, denying access to everyone, and it undergoes dilapidation, which disables platforms and won't disappear until the faction regains hold of it and undergoes enough CG to pay for its rehabilitation. If it's the last station, then the faction is defunct and all followers disenfranchised and the faction decal removed from play.
Any working faction station gives "free parking" to the owners' ships and some storage space (or it just uses the player ships cargo space and a ship-to-ship cargo/module transfer). If a station is not working, and if only the faction users can come in and land when the station is offline, this could be a risky rescue mission to get their stuff out of the station. Maybe a good dynamic, maybe it should just be available at a remaining station (e.g. a massive hauler evac happens), so only losing stuff when the last station is captured. Whether you can remote sell your stuff on a working station has pros and cons.
The original owner of the faction can rebuy (real cash? Probably, but not a substantial amount, all assets are approved) the faction and start afresh but in a different location. Maybe the original faction owner can discard the faction and the patch become another insignia for digital purchase like any other, and the faction owner gets to keep the insignia.
It's a revenue stream for FD, gives users a common base to store their ships, with some risk to their access, and gives some RP kit to play around with.
To make it work, other players must sign up for the faction and can't play for any other faction (except, maybe PP? And if the C&P add law and crime factions, them too, but these may be limited by the faction's rules of entry).
The goals give a reason for people to stick with a faction (unless it looks like the faction is losing everything soon), the patch gives someone a sense of community, and the creator of the faction can keep a momento, even if it fails. Meanwhile user requests for a garage can be seen to without giving every clump of rock yet another player base to add to the server load. And because it's a single paid for insignia (unless expansions are sold...?), vetting the sign may be paid for, and someone has signed up to agree to change it if it is ruled infringing on something, so legal should be fine with it. Possibly.
Faction owners and those playing factions will know better what has to be changed, what's irrelevant, what's doable and what's offputting there. And FD can work out if it's worth their time adding.
If there are player factions and a desire for "player bases", could these be linked together? If, for example, a faction patch were purchasable for a sum that gave that user the right to start a faction, design that patch and proffer it (and a paint job specific to that faction? maybe too much work, maybe a Faction++ pack...) to players joining to add to their livery, and to power play for enough influence to create a player base that every faction member can be a part of, would
a) FD go for it?
b) Players with factions go for it?
The power of the faction determines both the presence and size of the maximum station possible, and that community goals for that faction would be automatically generated as a credit sink in the game to create or upgrade the faction station. If the faction loses the station, unless it's the last one, the station goes offline, denying access to everyone, and it undergoes dilapidation, which disables platforms and won't disappear until the faction regains hold of it and undergoes enough CG to pay for its rehabilitation. If it's the last station, then the faction is defunct and all followers disenfranchised and the faction decal removed from play.
Any working faction station gives "free parking" to the owners' ships and some storage space (or it just uses the player ships cargo space and a ship-to-ship cargo/module transfer). If a station is not working, and if only the faction users can come in and land when the station is offline, this could be a risky rescue mission to get their stuff out of the station. Maybe a good dynamic, maybe it should just be available at a remaining station (e.g. a massive hauler evac happens), so only losing stuff when the last station is captured. Whether you can remote sell your stuff on a working station has pros and cons.
The original owner of the faction can rebuy (real cash? Probably, but not a substantial amount, all assets are approved) the faction and start afresh but in a different location. Maybe the original faction owner can discard the faction and the patch become another insignia for digital purchase like any other, and the faction owner gets to keep the insignia.
It's a revenue stream for FD, gives users a common base to store their ships, with some risk to their access, and gives some RP kit to play around with.
To make it work, other players must sign up for the faction and can't play for any other faction (except, maybe PP? And if the C&P add law and crime factions, them too, but these may be limited by the faction's rules of entry).
The goals give a reason for people to stick with a faction (unless it looks like the faction is losing everything soon), the patch gives someone a sense of community, and the creator of the faction can keep a momento, even if it fails. Meanwhile user requests for a garage can be seen to without giving every clump of rock yet another player base to add to the server load. And because it's a single paid for insignia (unless expansions are sold...?), vetting the sign may be paid for, and someone has signed up to agree to change it if it is ruled infringing on something, so legal should be fine with it. Possibly.
Faction owners and those playing factions will know better what has to be changed, what's irrelevant, what's doable and what's offputting there. And FD can work out if it's worth their time adding.
How does one become a power?
Asking for a friend.
Asking for a friend.
Found a nice source of narcotics and took them to Crom to have a look at the market. I couldn't sell them there, but this is the blackmarket:
Even tobacco illegal in an anarchy outpost.
Even tobacco illegal in an anarchy outpost.
Last edited:
this simply sounds like a bug.
I hope so. I've already got a bug reported, so I added the blackmarket picture as proof.
edit - the Crom Silver Boys are currently getting hammered in all the surrounding systems. Probably because the real pirates are laughing at them.
edit - the Crom Silver Boys are currently getting hammered in all the surrounding systems. Probably because the real pirates are laughing at them.
Last edited:
Not quite how they explained it in the recent livestream, as far as I understand it. Essentially what happens is that the factions in conflict are still locked into one influence unit, but are susceptible to the way the system calculates changes.
Suppose, for ease of calculation, that all 5 factions in system X have 20% influence.
If one faction gains 10% for the day (and nothing else happens) the first part of the iterative process will have total system influence at 110% with factions at:
30%
20%
20%
20%
20%
Only later is the total squashed down to 100%, resulting in all factions having their %s (which for the moment are out of 110) reduced somewhat, regardless of present state or conflict lock.
Result:
30/110 = 27.27%
20/110 = 18.18%
18.18%
18.18%
18.18%
If correct this would mean that outside influence can only enter the conflict (or conflict influence exit) in specific circumstances.
Last edited:
The devs know how the BGS should work, but in practice they aren't always right.
A common enough stance, and possibly true. Most often, however, I've found that the shreds of BGS rules & hints the Devs have given us turn out to be true, there's just some factor we had not considered or didn't know about. The above falls into that category I think.
As a Powerplay veteran, I can tell you that the way numbers are processed ingame is often unbelievably obtuse. The software engineer in early ALD who deciphered much of it for us was often, for lack of a better term, flabbergasted.
Edit: Somewhere buried in the depths is a comment from Braben about how Cambridge-based FDev was awash with "mathematicians who think they can code". Their influence seems clear to me if you look deep enough.
Last edited:
Oh and now we have new instances of the recurring-conflict issue that...well I at least thought fixed with 2.2.03.
Two factions at war going to war again with one another, with only one day in between.
So either the three day pending requirement - which afaik should be set in stone - is variable somehow, or the two are pending one another during the active conflict (which explicitly shouldn't happen) and not displaying it.
I'm inclined toward the latter. Saw quite a few pending phases that were invisible for the faction in conflict but not the other (which wasn't in conflict at the time). Doesn't seem a great leap to imagine a bug-induced pending state being invisible when both factions are in conflict.
Two factions at war going to war again with one another, with only one day in between.
So either the three day pending requirement - which afaik should be set in stone - is variable somehow, or the two are pending one another during the active conflict (which explicitly shouldn't happen) and not displaying it.
I'm inclined toward the latter. Saw quite a few pending phases that were invisible for the faction in conflict but not the other (which wasn't in conflict at the time). Doesn't seem a great leap to imagine a bug-induced pending state being invisible when both factions are in conflict.
Last edited:
Updated OP through the State guide.
Added models from CMDR Irongut with credit
Added corrections from CMDR Jmanis on investment
Added models from CMDR Irongut with credit
Added corrections from CMDR Jmanis on investment
Thanks Walt Kerman
You might add the following about investment:
Investment is the only time where more than one faction state can be active. Investment and War/CW can be active at the same time. For the duration of investment the CZs are in ceasefire. It is not yet clear what actions are effective for the duration. Once investment state clears the war/CW will reactivate. Not enough data at this time to confirm effect conflict state duration. It is assumed to be suspended.
the only way that ever happened was through the "dangerous games" - player groups which minor factions had a lot of systems in control back then where automatically asked whether they want to take part; also there was a wildcard competitors event.
Added Schlack's input to the OP
Minor factions undermining themselves
I'm getting a little frustrated with minor factions undermining...themselves.
I can understand some missions to a system they control, where you can RP the idea that 'we just need to give these guys this stuff, even if it hurts our inf'. But every single 'take some stuff to this system' mission yesterday was to the same system, and same faction. And I saw this in multiple systems.
Meaning Faction A in system A was giving missions to take 'some stuff' to Faction B in system X, which Faction A also controls. Fine. But Faction A was giving these missions from systems they control B, C, and D, and they were all to system X delivering to Faction B. If I had gone ahead and done them, that would have piled a lot inf into Faction B in system X, essentially undermining Faction A, the giver of the missions. [wacky]
Anyone else notice this? Is that intended, or is the BGS just not that self aware to keep it from happening?
I'm getting a little frustrated with minor factions undermining...themselves.
I can understand some missions to a system they control, where you can RP the idea that 'we just need to give these guys this stuff, even if it hurts our inf'. But every single 'take some stuff to this system' mission yesterday was to the same system, and same faction. And I saw this in multiple systems.
Meaning Faction A in system A was giving missions to take 'some stuff' to Faction B in system X, which Faction A also controls. Fine. But Faction A was giving these missions from systems they control B, C, and D, and they were all to system X delivering to Faction B. If I had gone ahead and done them, that would have piled a lot inf into Faction B in system X, essentially undermining Faction A, the giver of the missions. [wacky]
Anyone else notice this? Is that intended, or is the BGS just not that self aware to keep it from happening?
Deleted member 115407
D
Frankly, I think it's all part of the "background" thing. The purpose of the sim is to have states and conditions in the bubble constantly shifting and moving, hence the quasi-randomness of who orders what missions to send where. Every little downward shift in influence could be anything, from the expose a shady arms deal, to a theocrat getting caught with his pants down, to military loss. Were factions only giving missions that helped themselves and harmed others, it would give players too much control over them.
In context of us (the players) to the many minor factions that inhabit the bubble, we don't know what's all going on between these factions. Trade deals, trade embargoes, backroom deals, negotiations, private sales, small military actions.... We can't even get the various politicians and key players that we have now to do everything on the level and in the best interest of the electorates and organizations that they represent. As players, we are just facilitating small pieces of a much larger, more complicated puzzle. We do have some freedom to help guide things, but in context to us, the galaxy just keeps rolling on. And the missions that we complete are not necessarily the "reasons" that influence levels shift. They are mechanics-wise, but not necessarily narrative-wise.
I mean, let's face it. It's pretty unimaginative to think Vin Delanos delivered 32T of power generators to Faction X, and thus Faction Y decided it was election time. It's more likely that while I was delivering those generators, some term of office hit its expiry date and now elections are taking place. It's all an abstraction that gives us as players the freedom to steer things a bit.
And, honestly, I like it that way. Not being tied to a particular minor faction lets me watch it all fold and unfold without any regrets or worries. Just me, and my spaceship, and handful of friends. For a good time I felt the other way - that these should truly be "player controlled". I've changed my tune. I like the fact that it's a "background" sim.
*edit*
I'll add that what's good for a faction today may not be good for a faction tomorrow. US military and foreign aid during the cold war is a good example of that.
Last edited by a moderator:
i have quite the different impression ... but i could imagine that the mission generator takes influence levels into account? more influence=more often target? at least where i'm active i get much more missions to the same faction than to others.
i have put up a suggestion some time back, that if a faction generates missions to a system where that faction is active, it always uses its own faction as a target... would make sense.
Deleted member 115407
D
I considered it, too, but in context of inter-faction relationships, it just wouldn't make sense. There's always a little give and take here and there, favors change hands, compromises are made, etc.
To me, the 'randomness' and 'I'm just one Commander' comes from the many other commanders 'doing things' that I don't know about and/or can't change. And I usually hop around supporting various minor factions, rather than tying myself to just one.
The idea that I go about doing things, things that are counter productive to what I'm trying to do, is what I try to avoid.
And the BGS is the main reason I still play. PP is 'the horde' and the while all the little individual things you can do in game can be fun, I prefer to have a reason for doing things, whether they are fun or not. The BGS is enough to provide that, for me.
- - - Updated - - -
Right! Right?
Like I said, I could see a few missions here and there to other factions in systems "your" faction controls, but this was over the top.
Deleted member 115407
D
Actually, not to get too off-topic, but I just made my first pledge and am enjoying it
Just got interdicted by and killed my first two hostiles.