A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim

[Abil Midena]

So, I've been away for 7 weeks, and peeked back in to see inf levels in some systems.

Just to clarify...

If you are in a war in a system, and both you and opponent are at 1%, you're stuck there for the max duration of the war 28 days. No stations held by either party. You may get a little left over 'balancing' inf from daily tick, but nothing you do can raise your inf, right? Even fighting in war/turning in bounties won't help because you can't gain inf from a faction at 1, and you certainly can't gain 5% to win war. Maybe try to do 'illegal' stuff to lower controlling faction inf and hope enough gets distributed to your faction??

Also, during this time, you can only gain inf in other systems you're in by turning in bounty vouchers there, yes?

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

What I have noticed in a war, is that if you have your opponent at 1%, and you keep turning in bonds. That your faction gains and you get influence from the other factions not in the war. So it would be worth you fighting still.

 

[Jane Turner]

Bonds and Combat missions for your faction will raise you

 

[Abil Midena]

What I have noticed in a war, is that if you have your opponent at 1%, and you keep turning in bonds. That your faction gains and you get influence from the other factions not in the war. So it would be worth you fighting still.

Bonds and Combat missions for your faction will raise you

Hmm...I guess my understanding is outdated. I thought you could only take inf from faction you're in conflict with, other than aforementioned inf bleed. I guess I can try a bit and see what happens.

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

Until your opposition hits 1%, that is the case. But after that you gain from everyone else.

 

[Starwolfe]

So, I've been away for 7 weeks, and peeked back in to see inf levels in some systems.

Just to clarify...

If you are in a war in a system, and both you and opponent are at 1%, you're stuck there for the max duration of the war 28 days. No stations held by either party. You may get a little left over 'balancing' inf from daily tick, but nothing you do can raise your inf, right? Even fighting in war/turning in bounties won't help because you can't gain inf from a faction at 1, and you certainly can't gain 5% to win war. Maybe try to do 'illegal' stuff to lower controlling faction inf and hope enough gets distributed to your faction??

Also, during this time, you can only gain inf in other systems you're in by turning in bounty vouchers there, yes?

Its a bit ambiguous because it is a tad random on the duration. It may last 28 days, but it may not... however if you do get the needed 5% for War or 3% for Civil War you will end the conflict.

What I have noticed in a war, is that if you have your opponent at 1%, and you keep turning in bonds. That your faction gains and you get influence from the other factions not in the war. So it would be worth you fighting still.

This I have noticed is true. Its more of how the average system works; you "take" the 1% that is there, but at the end of the day's cycle it will force the average back up to 1%. So you could repeat that and gradually gain the gap you want.

Bonds and Combat missions for your faction will raise you

Sadly, some time ago they patched out Missions giving influence during conflicts of War and Civil War.

Only Bounties and Combat Bonds turned in at the system where the conflict is at will count.

Bounties can help influence elsewhere while you are in such a conflict tho, but missions will not.

 

[goemon]

A quick question if some one can answer. Is it possible to increase the security level for example from "Low Security" to say "High Security" or is that something that's hard coded in for each system.

the basic value is hardcoded, but can be moddified by goverment type as well as temporarily by states.

 

[BlackSpaceCowboy]

Bonds and Combat missions for your faction will raise you

Why are all those time consuming missions so worthless? I spent over 5 hours doing missions for a faction and my reputation barely budged.


The missions pay very little and they do almost nothing for your reputation. Moreover, they're very repetetive. I sometimes get the same mission to different locations on the same trip.

 

[goemon]

Why are all those time consuming missions so worthless? I spent over 5 hours doing missions for a faction and my reputation barely budged.


The missions pay very little and they do almost nothing for your reputation. Moreover, they're very repetetive. I sometimes get the same mission to different locations on the same trip.

in context of this thread, the gain is influence (for the minor faction you work for), not reputation or CR (for you). which is huge compared to the gain in influence by other activities.

for gaining reputation my personal experience is that sandbox activities (bounty hunting, trading with profit, exploration data) is more effective. but as reputation hasn't any effect on the background-simulation, that is a bit offtopic in this thread

 

[Schlack]

Credits and rep are minor side effects of bgs work!

Its really the end game of elite, what to do with your ships and money.

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

Credits and rep are minor side effects of bgs work!

Yet I get plenty of both by doing the BGS stuff. Maybe not as much as other means, but enjoying the game is more important to me than my credit balance.

But if money is important, while you work the BGS. Push your faction into boom. They tend to offer the more profitable missions when in boom. Outbreak is another profitable state, especially for trading medicines.

 

[Fry]

Hello i have a question about Powerplay, BGS and switching from Goverment type.

Lets use this as an example:

The Control-System is from Denton Patreus, its controlling faction is an Player Minor Faction, wich has govermenttype Dictatorship.

If this Dictatorship will be changed to, lets say Patronage of Feudel, i know the Controll System will get a more favorable fortification trigger. This will have no effect on the undermine trigger? So it wont go downwards right?

Beside that, does it have influence on the internal security level? Is the system weaker for murder? Is a dictatorship, always high security? Does Patronage give a system medium-security? Or feudal?
Or are there other negative effects for the controlling players minor faction?
Does this make this Control System more favorable for attacks against the players minor faction, who is in controll of this constrol system?
Will this controll system be more favorable for underminers then?
Does changing goverment type have influence on the Control systems CCs, for powerplay?


For all those who want to help me getting this answered, i know a part from experience, but is there also some documentation. For example patchnotes from FDev. where this is written down?

All help is welcome.

THx in advance

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

Question.

If you have 4 factions, A 49% (controlling faction), B 41%, C 9%, D 1%.
If you knock 10% off faction A, the other factions will gain approx: B+8%, C+1.8%, D+0.2%.
A conflict will start between factions A and B.

When the conflict has started, what happens if you murder ships from faction C?
Is faction D going to get all the influence that C loses? or are factions A & B going to get the major share?

 

[Starwolfe]

Question.

If you have 4 factions, A 49% (controlling faction), B 41%, C 9%, D 1%.
If you knock 10% off faction A, the other factions will gain approx: B+8%, C+1.8%, D+0.2%.
A conflict will start between factions A and B.

When the conflict has started, what happens if you murder ships from faction C?
Is faction D going to get all the influence that C loses? or are factions A & B going to get the major share?

Its a percentage split.

Much like how you calculated the influence split to get the war, a similar effect will happen on the reverse.

If C gets murdered, A, B and D gain in a similar fashion so the percentage will equal 100% in the end. Say that C looses 10%, A and B will gail something like +4%, while D gains +2% - barring my horrible math, but you get the idea.

- - - Updated - - -

Hello i have a question about Powerplay, BGS and switching from Goverment type.

Lets use this as an example:

The Control-System is from Denton Patreus, its controlling faction is an Player Minor Faction, wich has govermenttype Dictatorship.

If this Dictatorship will be changed to, lets say Patronage of Feudel, i know the Controll System will get a more favorable fortification trigger. This will have no effect on the undermine trigger? So it wont go downwards right?

Beside that, does it have influence on the internal security level? Is the system weaker for murder? Is a dictatorship, always high security? Does Patronage give a system medium-security? Or feudal?
Or are there other negative effects for the controlling players minor faction?
Does this make this Control System more favorable for attacks against the players minor faction, who is in controll of this constrol system?
Will this controll system be more favorable for underminers then?
Does changing goverment type have influence on the Control systems CCs, for powerplay?


For all those who want to help me getting this answered, i know a part from experience, but is there also some documentation. For example patchnotes from FDev. where this is written down?

All help is welcome.

THx in advance

Half trigger for Forts is a bit more than just one system... but as for the downside, it depends on the power's effects on certain things.
Like Hudson's effect on reducing security in non-Federation factions, and boosting security in Federation factions.
I am not exactly versed on that DP's stuff, so I can't say for certain.
However...

I do know Player Minor Factions function the same as the normal Minor Factions in the game in this regard. The variables will be in what the power's effects on certain allegiances and government types if it is applicable.

Undermine trigger in Powerplay is calculated by the distance to the HQ for the faction as I recall. You cannot change that.

Likewise, CC is calculated by the population of the systems in the control sphere, depending on what is exploited, contested or already under control of another sphere area - and that cannot be affected like that through the BGS.

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

Its a percentage split.

Much like how you calculated the influence split to get the war, a similar effect will happen on the reverse.

If C gets murdered, A, B and D gain in a similar fashion so the percentage will equal 100% in the end. Say that C looses 10%, A and B will gail something like +4%, while D gains +2% - barring my horrible math, but you get the idea.

I suspect that you are right, but I was hoping that the conflict between factions A & B would make the losses from faction C go direct to D. I know that missions do work this way during a conflict, but I'm not so sure about murder.

I was trying to answer a question from someone on building rep with non controlling anarchy factions, about how to become allied with an anarchy faction on 1% that wasn't offering missions. Getting the faction above 7% and starting a war is the best way I can think of.

edit - the annoying thing, is that I could have answered my own question from my efforts in Crom over the weekend, had I been keeping the type of records I used to do when working the BGS.

 

[Starwolfe]

I suspect that you are right, but I was hoping that the conflict between factions A & B would make the losses from faction C go direct to D. I know that missions do work this way during a conflict, but I'm not so sure about murder.

I was trying to answer a question from someone on building rep with non controlling anarchy factions, about how to become allied with an anarchy faction on 1% that wasn't offering missions. Getting the faction above 7% and starting a war is the best way I can think of.

edit - the annoying thing, is that I could have answered my own question from my efforts in Crom over the weekend, had I been keeping the type of records I used to do when working the BGS.

Sadly... you are right. Alas, I can only agree that a conflict is the most direct path to work with them.

The fact Anarchy doesn't give bounties is a massive determent to their function unless they do control a port of some kind.

 

[dynamicbob]

theres some changes in 2.3, but generally we are still fighting a tug of war over existing systems rather than minor faction events leading to new construction outside of CG mechanics

megaships should tie in with investment states ........ but we shall see, small baby steps unless significant dev time is invested in 2.4

 

[CMDR Endincite]

Hello i have a question about Powerplay, BGS and switching from Goverment type...

Powerplay & the BGS, in Brief (@Fry).
This being what my group does, all day every day - yes, still.

Each Control System has an exploited sphere of 15ly. If 50% or more of the exploited sphere is controlled by favoured faction types (e.g. patronage & feudal for ALD, Patreus, and Hudson), the default fortification trigger is lowered to 50%. If 50% or more are controlled by a "penalty" faction type (e.g. dictatorship in the above examples), the trigger is raised to 150% of default.

CC is pure population. It's changed only when Control Spheres overlap (systems exploited by two Control Systems of the same Power give their CC to only one; by two different Powers [contested], none at all to either).

Undermining trigger is pure distance (exponential, hence a few LY difference in the very low range can mean thousands of merits difference) and isn't affected by BGS changes.

Individual Powers have particular effects on factions aligned to certain superpowers (e.g. security, legality of Imperial Slaves, etc). All listed ingame in the Powers menu.

There's a few outstanding inconsistencies. We've seen examples of all of the following:
-The Control System itself counting as one of the exploited number (for <> 50% purposes), and sometimes not.
-Contested systems counting toward the <>50% count for a given Control Sphere, and most usually not.
-Incorrect or outdated Galmap government data leading to an incorrect trigger bonus or penalty.

So that's fun.

There's some unclear info in the original Powerplay manual, which was corrected much later in livestreams, but mostly we've learned to take no documentation at face value and monitor/test everything. Even statements about the mechanics by FDev, taken verbatim, have not always held up under testing.

Edit: Excuse my cynical tone. I've been at the Powerplay game from day one, and the remaining issues grate.

 

[goemon]

can't talk about powerplay, but on the other aspects:

Beside that, does it have influence on the internal security level? Is the system weaker for murder? Is a dictatorship, always high security? Does Patronage give a system medium-security? Or feudal?

the base value of system security is fixed per system, but can be affected by goverment type, as well temporarily by state effects. dictatorship add to security level, but if the system has a very low base value, or is temporarily reduced further, you'll get a low security dictatorship (ithaka is a well-known exampel, and also proof, that dictatorships don't alays close black markets).

 

[Walter2]

Question.

If you have 4 factions, A 49% (controlling faction), B 41%, C 9%, D 1%.
If you knock 10% off faction A, the other factions will gain approx: B+8%, C+1.8%, D+0.2%.
A conflict will start between factions A and B.

To raise an incidental point from your example, knocking 10% off the leader would result in A on 39%, B on 49%, C on 10.8% and D on 1.2%. Couldn't this mean that B has leapfrogged the required threshold to trigger a conflict with A?

Does anyone know the maximum differentials needed to start a conflict, knowing that there seems to be a "snap" feature applied to numbers that are close?