A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim

[Limoncello Lizard]

Yikes, so if one of the factions is in the control position in a nearby system and loses in a system they expanded to, they will give up that controlling position ?

Also, how much influence is gained or lost after a war?

No. Only assets in the system where the war is being fought.

When two factions are at war, mostly only combat effects will raise or lower their influence (CZ bonds, assassination missions or bountyhunting). Any influence one side gains is at the expense of the other. A war can drop a faction down to 1% influence, so the other faction could gain all of that influence. You win a war if you get 5% more influence than the other faction after 3 days of war, civil war is won with a 3% difference. elections work similar, but it's everything except combat that works in an election, with a 3% difference to win.

 

[ShimEnki]

No. Only assets in the system where the war is being fought.

When two factions are at war, mostly only combat effects will raise or lower their influence (CZ bonds, assassination missions or bountyhunting). Any influence one side gains is at the expense of the other. A war can drop a faction down to 1% influence, so the other faction could gain all of that influence. You win a war if you get 5% more influence than the other faction after 3 days of war, civil war is won with a 3% difference. elections work similar, but it's everything except combat that works in an election, with a 3% difference to win.

Most appreciated cmdr, thanks!

 

[Jmanis]

Out of interest,, I know that general degradation of influence across an entire faction is typical when they're in a War-like state (or expansion?)... has anybody observed if any state lends itself to general increases of influence across the board? Over the last something like 6-8 expansion/war cycles, I've seen a drop of my faction influence from mid 60's in systems down to high 40s/low 50s during war/expansion time, then a rise during the resultant boom shortly after these states end.

 

[CMDR Endincite]

I'd say it depends on your system set, traffic level, and the type of activities that go on there.

The degradation from war/civil war is not afaik intrinsic, but the effect of those states blocking the influence effect from common ambient non-combat activities (trade and non-combat missions I would think are most prevalent).

If you control several markets which see a good bit of trade, then the doubled effect of trade in Boom would make that the choice. If perhaps you have several popular RES or ComproNavs and see a good deal of bounty hunting, then the boosted effect of that from Civil Unrest might be an option (unlikely though, the common means of pushing civil unrest are highly damaging).

 

[Matzov]

Out of interest,, I know that general degradation of influence across an entire faction is typical when they're in a War-like state (or expansion?)... has anybody observed if any state lends itself to general increases of influence across the board? Over the last something like 6-8 expansion/war cycles, I've seen a drop of my faction influence from mid 60's in systems down to high 40s/low 50s during war/expansion time, then a rise during the resultant boom shortly after these states end.

Same - I can't say the boom auto-donates 3% (we don't have a suitable no-traffic test site), but for sure trade/delivery missions seem to have a bonus gain impact. You can make extremely rapid re-gains via trade and delivery during boom (in fact it can be tricky to control if you have lots of 'unknown' traffic, and you can find yourself with an unwanted expansion).

- - - Updated - - -

I'd say it depends on your system set, traffic level, and the type of activities that go on there.

The degradation from war/civil war is not afaik intrinsic, but the effect of those states blocking the influence effect from common ambient non-combat activities (trade and non-combat missions I would think are most prevalent).

If you control several markets which see a good bit of trade, then the doubled effect of trade in Boom would make that the choice. If perhaps you have several popular RES or ComproNavs and see a good deal of bounty hunting, then the boosted effect of that from Civil Unrest might be an option (unlikely though, the common means of pushing civil unrest are highly damaging).

Also this!

 

[goemon]

Out of interest,, I know that general degradation of influence across an entire faction is typical when they're in a War-like state (or expansion?)... has anybody observed if any state lends itself to general increases of influence across the board? Over the last something like 6-8 expansion/war cycles, I've seen a drop of my faction influence from mid 60's in systems down to high 40s/low 50s during war/expansion time, then a rise during the resultant boom shortly after these states end.

Same - I can't say the boom auto-donates 3% (we don't have a suitable no-traffic test site), but for sure trade/delivery missions seem to have a bonus gain impact. You can make extremely rapid re-gains via trade and delivery during boom (in fact it can be tricky to control if you have lots of 'unknown' traffic, and you can find yourself with an unwanted expansion).

meets my experience... but i'm not sure what my experience is! some system look like "auto-gain", some system looks like nothing happens without commander activity...

i could imagine, that those are "multipliers" of shared influence gains - e.g. a faction looses influence by cmdr actions, a faction in booms gains more from it than a faction not in boom. that would explain why a faction in boom gains more influence during boom, even if nobody is working for them, when at least somebody is working the system or an expansion is happening. just a guess. needs testing!

 

[Jane Turner]

We have some seriously out of the way systems and they sit there without changes for months on end now - they used to decay to about 55% and stay there

eg.

 

[Schlack]

Out of interest,, I know that general degradation of influence across an entire faction is typical when they're in a War-like state (or expansion?)... has anybody observed if any state lends itself to general increases of influence across the board? Over the last something like 6-8 expansion/war cycles, I've seen a drop of my faction influence from mid 60's in systems down to high 40s/low 50s during war/expansion time, then a rise during the resultant boom shortly after these states end.

I believe that this is based on an incorrect premise. My understanding is the influence doesn't degrade (a war tax for similar mechanic) . What is happening is that the faction wide state negates certain activities that maintain equilibrium in a busy system, alternatively making certain activities more/less powerful for the duration. it is the faction wide nature of state effects that I believe is causing such moves. We have seen this on an extreme scale across some of our factions. Where there is no activity/traffic systems stay static. Where there is activity there is movement.

 

[Starwolfe]

Out of interest,, I know that general degradation of influence across an entire faction is typical when they're in a War-like state (or expansion?)... has anybody observed if any state lends itself to general increases of influence across the board? Over the last something like 6-8 expansion/war cycles, I've seen a drop of my faction influence from mid 60's in systems down to high 40s/low 50s during war/expansion time, then a rise during the resultant boom shortly after these states end.

It is actually a side-effect of how the conflict states of War and Civil War limit *how* you can gain influence during it.

The loss of influence is because your typical means of Missions/Trade does not gain influence - so as a result any work done on other factions has a larger impact against you.

The only way for you to gain influence during Wars and Civil Wars is through Bonds for the conflict in question and Bounties for your faction or Superpower Bounties (Federation/Alliance/Empire) turned in at ports you control.
Bonds only help the system where the conflict is at, and Bounties is the only other means to increase influence during it.


Kind of an unfortunate side effect, and why you should focus heavily on getting the conflict over with as soon as possible.

 

[NeilKD]

I believe that this is based on an incorrect premise. My understanding is the influence doesn't degrade (a war tax for similar mechanic) . What is happening is that the faction wide state negates certain activities that maintain equilibrium in a busy system, alternatively making certain activities more/less powerful for the duration. it is the faction wide nature of state effects that I believe is causing such moves. We have seen this on an extreme scale across some of our factions. Where there is no activity/traffic systems stay static. Where there is activity there is movement.

I'm afraid that turns out not to be the case. The Player Faction with which I am involved has many months of data covering numerous Star Systems, both those we occupy and the surrounding ones in which we don't have a presence. What our data show is that the BGS Engine treats NPC Factions and Player Factions differently when it comes to the "War Tax."

Quite simply, Player Factions suffer a steady Influence degradation during a War while NPC Factions do not.

It could be that you have been monitoring an NPC Faction, which is why you haven't seen the effect.

 

[_trent_]

It is actually a side-effect of how the conflict states of War and Civil War limit *how* you can gain influence during it.

The loss of influence is because your typical means of Missions/Trade does not gain influence - so as a result any work done on other factions has a larger impact against you.

The only way for you to gain influence during Wars and Civil Wars is through Bonds for the conflict in question and Bounties for your faction or Superpower Bounties (Federation/Alliance/Empire) turned in at ports you control.
Bonds only help the system where the conflict is at, and Bounties is the only other means to increase influence during it.


Kind of an unfortunate side effect, and why you should focus heavily on getting the conflict over with as soon as possible.

We tried bounty hunting in the HazRES in one of our systems during the last war and only killed ships of other factions. We still dropped by the same amount that we did every other day we were at war elsewhere.

I'm not convinced that anything boosts influence in other systems during a war now. Not bounties, not combat bonds, not combat missions. On the other hand, doing activities that hurt influence (smuggling, selling at a loss, etc) seem to work perfectly well. I suspect this is how we've seen factions plummet like a stone in their other systems during wartimes.

 

[Starwolfe]

We tried bounty hunting in the HazRES in one of our systems during the last war and only killed ships of other factions. We still dropped by the same amount that we did every other day we were at war elsewhere.

I'm not convinced that anything boosts influence in other systems during a war now. Not bounties, not combat bonds, not combat missions. On the other hand, doing activities that hurt influence (smuggling, selling at a loss, etc) seem to work perfectly well. I suspect this is how we've seen factions plummet like a stone in their other systems during wartimes.

Which bounties were turned in?

In tests for me, it has worked fine - but if you hand in all bounties gained, especially by a KWS, you are helping other factions the bounties are related to.

Its not the ships that are killed that is the catch, its the bounties turned in.

Faction-specific bounties help the specific factions, where supwerpower bounties help whoever controls the station they are turned in at.

 

[_trent_]

Which bounties were turned in?

In tests for me, it has worked fine - but if you hand in all bounties gained, especially by a KWS, you are helping other factions the bounties are related to.

Its not the ships that are killed that is the catch, its the bounties turned in.

Faction-specific bounties help the specific factions, where supwerpower bounties help whoever controls the station they are turned in at.

Just our own faction. I'll give it another try as we're in war again and I really don't want to lose 1-5% every day in every system if I can help it.

 

[Nic727]

I still think that ED Devs should revamp how minor faction and Powerplay work. I tried to explain to one of my friend how it worked, but I just say him that I don't really understand because it's very complicated lol.

I think minor factions and Powerplay factions should work together.

• Minor faction should have allegiance to a Powerplay faction (Torval Empire) instead of a general faction (Empire).
• In Systems, if a minor faction has the most influence in ALL Stations, the system is owned by this minor faction and allegiance too.
  
  • For example, if a minor faction has one out of two/three station, the state of the system will be unknown (or conflict?).
  • If the minor faction has all stations for a certain amount of cycle and has a lot of influence, it will expand to another system.

Now you are saying, but how Powerplay will works (Expansion, etc.). Simple, if a system is in X Powerplay faction, but the allegiance is to Y. X will have influence over Y minor faction in a bad way (less food, money or PP security). If Y powerplay faction is expanding to Y minor faction system, Y will have the influence over Y minor faction in a benefic way (more food, etc.).


I also think that we should get more faction type in the game, because now it's too general (Corporation, Dictator, etc.). I'm taking example of Julius Ceasar. He was a Dictator, but was like a democratic dictatorship since he was listening to population. It's very different from the Dictators who just want Power and destroy everything and murder every enemies for no reason. That's what I mean about more types. Currently it's hard to choose my missions since I'm not appealed by the minor faction type. They all look like they want the power and control everybody.

 

[Starwolfe]

Just our own faction. I'll give it another try as we're in war again and I really don't want to lose 1-5% every day in every system if I can help it.

Unfortunately there really isn't.

I have found it easier to just plan for some influence loss and focus on ending the conflict fast.

 

[Sentenza]

We tried bounty hunting in the HazRES in one of our systems during the last war and only killed ships of other factions. We still dropped by the same amount that we did every other day we were at war elsewhere.

I'm not convinced that anything boosts influence in other systems during a war now. Not bounties, not combat bonds, not combat missions. On the other hand, doing activities that hurt influence (smuggling, selling at a loss, etc) seem to work perfectly well. I suspect this is how we've seen factions plummet like a stone in their other systems during wartimes.

I can tell you that bounty hunting definitely works. My system apparently is a popular hunting ground now, and when the controlling faction went into war in a nearby system some time ago its influence actually increased.

 

[ShimEnki]

It is actually a side-effect of how the conflict states of War and Civil War limit *how* you can gain influence during it.

The loss of influence is because your typical means of Missions/Trade does not gain influence - so as a result any work done on other factions has a larger impact against you.

The only way for you to gain influence during Wars and Civil Wars is through Bonds for the conflict in question and Bounties for your faction or Superpower Bounties (Federation/Alliance/Empire) turned in at ports you control.
Bonds only help the system where the conflict is at, and Bounties is the only other means to increase influence during it.


Kind of an unfortunate side effect, and why you should focus heavily on getting the conflict over with as soon as possible.

Does this mean that if the faction I want to support that's at war is in control of a port in another system, by handing in bounties there I can help them gain influence during war at the other system?

Edit, answered by Sentenza above....thanks

 

[Schlack]

I'm afraid that turns out not to be the case. The Player Faction with which I am involved has many months of data covering numerous Star Systems, both those we occupy and the surrounding ones in which we don't have a presence. What our data show is that the BGS Engine treats NPC Factions and Player Factions differently when it comes to the "War Tax."

Quite simply, Player Factions suffer a steady Influence degradation during a War while NPC Factions do not.

It could be that you have been monitoring an NPC Faction, which is why you haven't seen the effect.

FD have specifically stated that Player factions and NPC factions are treated the exact same by the BGS in the last livestream, I know because I asked the question (as it had been raised here before).

I have seen 0 evidence of a "war tax" in any system/faction that we monitor. Our main faction is a player faction, albeit an adopted NPC one, located in more than 20 systems monitored daily. During conflicts of different types, some systems move, others don't at all.

It is dependent upon player activity. For instance, I have seen evidence of popular bounty hunting systems getting tanked during elections as the bounties don't count for our faction while they count for other factions. This can appear to be a "tax" or natural degradation, but it is player activity not a BGS mechanism.

Some have complained before that they cant raise their influence levels in any system during a conflict, putting any increases down to the balancing mechanism the BGS uses (as explained in the livestream) which is a result of other factions actions. The only known & confirmed built in loss mechanic is the -15% on expansion. We, and others, have been able to raise influence in other systems using the mechanics viable for the conflict type.

That is not to say we don't get the occasional odd or unexplained result, but then again were not playing on our own in a closed system. Traffic stats and bounty boards are less useful to determine activity than they once were due to stackability of missions. Mission destination effects also play havoc with figuring things out!

Sorry to lay it on so thick, but I get a bit triggered when theories not backed by any patch note, Dev statement, bug report or verifiable repeatable testing are pushed or repeated. We have all been led down the wrong path by assumptions and theorizing.

What data is showing differential treatment for NPC and player factions that lead you to suspect a "tax"? I would be very interested to see it. Can it be explained by the faction wide state effects + player activity (all players not just your own)?

 

[ShimEnki]

I still think that ED Devs should revamp how minor faction and Powerplay work. I tried to explain to one of my friend how it worked, but I just say him that I don't really understand because it's very complicated lol.

I think minor factions and Powerplay factions should work together.

• Minor faction should have allegiance to a Powerplay faction (Torval Empire) instead of a general faction (Empire).
• In Systems, if a minor faction has the most influence in ALL Stations, the system is owned by this minor faction and allegiance too.
  
  • For example, if a minor faction has one out of two/three station, the state of the system will be unknown (or conflict?).
  • If the minor faction has all stations for a certain amount of cycle and has a lot of influence, it will expand to another system.

Now you are saying, but how Powerplay will works (Expansion, etc.). Simple, if a system is in X Powerplay faction, but the allegiance is to Y. X will have influence over Y minor faction in a bad way (less food, money or PP security). If Y powerplay faction is expanding to Y minor faction system, Y will have the influence over Y minor faction in a benefic way (more food, etc.).


I also think that we should get more faction type in the game, because now it's too general (Corporation, Dictator, etc.). I'm taking example of Julius Ceasar. He was a Dictator, but was like a democratic dictatorship since he was listening to population. It's very different from the Dictators who just want Power and destroy everything and murder every enemies for no reason. That's what I mean about more types. Currently it's hard to choose my missions since I'm not appealed by the minor faction type. They all look like they want the power and control everybody.

Or maybe toss power play to the wolves in a snowy corner of the universe like CQC and it be in its own sphere and let the bgs begin to make some sense and maybe a manual that covers all angles of activity so we aren't in bgs research mode finding basic important answers 50 yrs from now.

Additionally, no one knows when they dock at a station if the controlling faction is 3 biowaste units away from an outbreak, or if an agric faction is going to go bust because they are soon to run out of crop harvesters...right? why....cuz the devs aren't gamers and would never come to see this is an important motivator to perform basic trade that engages the bgs and faction needs strongly. The commodities screen ought to show these very important thresholds!

 

[Starwolfe]

You and me both Shlack. It took me forever, but I just begin to ignore those things... its just not worth trying to explain it to them sometimes.