_trent_
Volunteer Moderator
Or just take a couple of screenshots of the system map showing the levels after each tick. Works for me in Teaka. [yesnod]
A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
Or just take a couple of screenshots of the system map showing the levels after each tick. Works for me in Teaka. [yesnod]
I wouldn't normally trust EDDB for BGS data, but I suppose a CG system will get enough traffic to be accurate.
I haven't been to Cartoq, so I can't see the system map.
I haven't been to Cartoq, so I can't see the system map.
I actually tested this using EDMC last night after it came back online, and the 'last updated' for faction % is working well.
_trent_
Volunteer Moderator
Last edited:
5 Fed factions. This will be interesting. I hope they've set the tiers high enough that the CG lasts longer than the weekend.
_trent_
Volunteer Moderator
It will certainly show if handing in Superpower bounties always hurts the controlling faction, even if they are aligned to that superpower.
I have to wonder why we even have to guess at "what is good or bad" for a faction at this point.
Shouldn't it be frighteningly obvious what helps and what hurts a faction? Even in a game?
Or is this another example of "Blaze your own trail" and "interesting gameplay."
I try to be a good little ED fanboi but sometimes it is difficult.
It can be a little obtuse. The black box of the BGS has been there since the beginning. Hell it took over a year for FD to give us any significant clarity on how it works, and they will never give away all of its secrets. For us at least that it part of its appeal: that there are secrets to unlock, that thought and testing are rewarded, that tactical and strategic innovation can bring great benefit to your pet faction.
It has also evolved more complexity over time as we, the players, abuse existing mechanisms for advantage which leads to changes in the BGS- its something of an arms race between the developers and players.
But you are correct the game does not always communicate well what is helping and what isn't. Some info in-game is downright misleading. The FD documentation is scattered through patch notes, livestreams, random comments on the forum. This thread is probably be best repository of BGS information and knowledge (and speculation and hypothesizing). Do not expect a BGS manual.
From last patch 2.3.02
Factions
• Reverted 2.3's increase in faction influence from redeeming bounty vouchers
Is the influence now still split up between the Superpowerpledged Factions?
Coz Reverted means to me, in my translation, it has been turned back to PRE-2.3. So it works like before 2.3....
Thx in advance.
Factions
• Reverted 2.3's increase in faction influence from redeeming bounty vouchers
Is the influence now still split up between the Superpowerpledged Factions?
Coz Reverted means to me, in my translation, it has been turned back to PRE-2.3. So it works like before 2.3....
Thx in advance.
I understand and agree with what you are saying but there are times...
Like your example:
My faction of choice is in Election. Okay. I go to the Passenger Mission board and look at a mission - says Medium Rep and Influence...but is it really? With a faction state of Election? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Why do I have to guess if I am helping, hurting, or wasting my time?
I like the fact that certain faction states demand certain things. No problem but...
If my faction is at War and I go to the Mission Board and there is a mission to haul 100t of Biowaste shouldn't the darn board say "No Rep or Influence gain" instead of stating it is beneficial for my faction when it is not. Why the mystery? Or the lie?
I like complicated, involved, and detailed, but having to, almost randomly, do stuff to try and figure something out in a system with multiple factions, faction states, alignments, a population of 5 billion, with other Cmdr's in the mix, is most annoying IMHO.
Like your example:
My faction of choice is in Election. Okay. I go to the Passenger Mission board and look at a mission - says Medium Rep and Influence...but is it really? With a faction state of Election? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Why do I have to guess if I am helping, hurting, or wasting my time?
I like the fact that certain faction states demand certain things. No problem but...
If my faction is at War and I go to the Mission Board and there is a mission to haul 100t of Biowaste shouldn't the darn board say "No Rep or Influence gain" instead of stating it is beneficial for my faction when it is not. Why the mystery? Or the lie?
I like complicated, involved, and detailed, but having to, almost randomly, do stuff to try and figure something out in a system with multiple factions, faction states, alignments, a population of 5 billion, with other Cmdr's in the mix, is most annoying IMHO.
Last edited:
This, so much this!
Why they don't give us those ESSENTIAL informations is beyond me.
No, only the buff to BH effect has been reverted. The distribution to SP factions remains. FD will observe how that tweak operates in the wild.
- - - Updated - - -
Oh I agree on that allright. Better info in game would be helpful.
From a BGS perspective it would be even better only to have actions available that were influence effective, but then there are very many players who DGAF about the BGS and everybody has to be accommodated.
Since so many are reading the patch notes, I thought I'd repost Adam's original response to the issue (in a thread on the subject):
Emphasis added to highlight that influence change was reverted, but the redistribution of superpower bounties stands.
I don't think there's much of a secret as to why these bounties lower the controlling faction. From observation any gain for one faction is taken out of the remaining factions not equally but according to their influence - the highest will lose more. The opposite is apparently true of gains. Higher starting influence = lower % gain from any given action. So essentially the accentuated loss from the former is outweighing the diminished gain from the latter for whatever faction is highest & aligned to the relevant superpower. I have a running test going, and so far it looks like the ultimate outcome would be same-superpower-aligned faction growing closer together in influence at a constantly slowing rate - presumably it would slow to a crawl as they approach the same influence level, since both gain for the lower of the two and losses for the higher of the two will constantly be reducing.
Edit: For those not terribly math-inclined (including myself) it may be easier to visualize by separating the elements and then recombining (in the absence of other factions).
Faction 1 start: 75%
Faction 2 start: 25%
Claim turned in equalling 10% total influence change, distributed unequally according to starting influence (higher = less).
Faction 1 gain: 3.3%
Faction 2 gain: 6.7% (Made up numbers, I don't know the exact effect influence level has on diminishing action effect)
Total system change that must be accounted for: 10%
Loss, again, distributed unequally according to starting influence (higher = more)
Faction 1 loss: -6.7%
Faction 2 loss: -3.3%
Final tally:
Faction 1 [3.3 - 6.7] = -3.4% change
Faction 2: [6.7 - 3.3] = +3.4% change
Adding to this is the way "accounting" is actually done: a 10% system change actually makes it 110% total, which is then recalculated down to 100% (explained by Dav in a livestream not too long ago). I don't know quite how to fit that aspect into this little thought experiment. Mathematicians, have at 'er.
Emphasis added to highlight that influence change was reverted, but the redistribution of superpower bounties stands.
I don't think there's much of a secret as to why these bounties lower the controlling faction. From observation any gain for one faction is taken out of the remaining factions not equally but according to their influence - the highest will lose more. The opposite is apparently true of gains. Higher starting influence = lower % gain from any given action. So essentially the accentuated loss from the former is outweighing the diminished gain from the latter for whatever faction is highest & aligned to the relevant superpower. I have a running test going, and so far it looks like the ultimate outcome would be same-superpower-aligned faction growing closer together in influence at a constantly slowing rate - presumably it would slow to a crawl as they approach the same influence level, since both gain for the lower of the two and losses for the higher of the two will constantly be reducing.
Edit: For those not terribly math-inclined (including myself) it may be easier to visualize by separating the elements and then recombining (in the absence of other factions).
Faction 1 start: 75%
Faction 2 start: 25%
Claim turned in equalling 10% total influence change, distributed unequally according to starting influence (higher = less).
Faction 1 gain: 3.3%
Faction 2 gain: 6.7% (Made up numbers, I don't know the exact effect influence level has on diminishing action effect)
Total system change that must be accounted for: 10%
Loss, again, distributed unequally according to starting influence (higher = more)
Faction 1 loss: -6.7%
Faction 2 loss: -3.3%
Final tally:
Faction 1 [3.3 - 6.7] = -3.4% change
Faction 2: [6.7 - 3.3] = +3.4% change
Adding to this is the way "accounting" is actually done: a 10% system change actually makes it 110% total, which is then recalculated down to 100% (explained by Dav in a livestream not too long ago). I don't know quite how to fit that aspect into this little thought experiment. Mathematicians, have at 'er.
Last edited:
Do you also foresee in your trend that the superpower factions, having migrated together, will also end up being the dominant factions in the system?
And it should be pointed out, that this only applies when there are multiple superpower factions, when there is one, the trend is different.
We have seen evidence (prior to latest patch) that all SP related factions (including controlling faction) increased, with the lower factions getting a greater increase. This may not be a typical situation though and may be a function of the relative influence levels as you described above.
Your description above appears to be supportive of the theory that the intention of these changes is to lower excessively high influence factions through the SP distribution.
Last edited:
Indeed. In the absence of other factors, there's nothing but loss in the process above for any faction not affected by the superpower bounty (and not already at a minimum influence level?).
Intention is tough to discern. It may well be that FDev feels independent factions should have an uphill slog in any superpower-dominated system. While I know this sucks for many, realistically speaking an independent faction posited e.g. 20ly from Achenar should have serious issues gaining sway.
Or it may be an attempt to provoke inter-faction squabbles in superpower-dominant systems since the closer they are, the more likely a small set of actions will produce a conflict. Again a move toward realistic faction politics (abstract as may be).
That either of these intentions would produce a good deal of PG ire may be entirely secondary to their line of thinking. Realistic simulation vs. PG ire... /shrug
No way to know the intention behind things unless they tell us.
Last edited:
In so many ways its totally disconnected to the play by play actions we engage as mentioned above.
Many times all these unnecessary information gaps --nevermind gaps---apathetic sinkholes to FD aka mystery, lacking information that otherwise would spring forth enthusiasm to engage the mission and passenger board to engage the BGS with intention and emersion continues to exist and probably forever will.
Additionally, a MF may have control over an agri port and therefore should never have to be concerned about famine OR outbreak states. Yet missions still spurt out implying they must be dealt with or else.
And yet they gather together in the FD war room and hover over the BGS table glowing with introspection as to just how beautifully complex this all is....
Yet, it seems to be the opposite. Hail...maybe it is, its just that they have yet to bother to plug that table into the guyme ..yet.
Last edited:
That is true, as I said supportive of the theory, rather than conclusive proof! It is clear that the new mechanics hit both superpower and indy factions (the first iteration hit indies disproportionately). And this hit occurs in specific circumstances only. (BH heavy systems, and systems with more than 1 SP faction). Dynamism is one of the BGS objectives, at least from the original design documentation. We may not like the dynamic as it can erode hard work!
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1qeC7JtO9rG0wqHckktGD169rJjPMSb3qD9nXdFTlOhk/edit?usp=sharing
Cartoq day 1 effect;
Controlling faction Cartoq Purple Major Organisation rose 2.7%, however the superpower effect is only shared between itself and one other faction.
Gaohikel for Equality rose a significant 5.6% while surprisingly enough Esumindii for Equality dropped 2%. It is reported in EDDB that Esumindi for Equality is tied up in an Election in Pilngalu, so it does not gain Bounty boosts as well as Values party of Cartoq and Independents of Yuqui who both dropped 3.5% and 3.4% respectively.
Of direct note, the independents of Cartoq Gold Drug Empire dropped 1% and Freedom Party of Cartoq rose 0.7% - I suspect from KWS boost, but not enough to make a difference in comparison. This will continue tomorrow as of right now the influence struggle from Bounties is only split in a 3-way in the system. The Anarchy will continue to loose despite being in boom.
Once the elections for the 3 other Federation factions clears, we'll see a far more pronounced climb and drop in the system, but for now with only a 2-way split for the supwerpower bounties the controlling faction will be able to maintain a gain for the time being.
Cartoq day 1 effect;
Controlling faction Cartoq Purple Major Organisation rose 2.7%, however the superpower effect is only shared between itself and one other faction.
Gaohikel for Equality rose a significant 5.6% while surprisingly enough Esumindii for Equality dropped 2%. It is reported in EDDB that Esumindi for Equality is tied up in an Election in Pilngalu, so it does not gain Bounty boosts as well as Values party of Cartoq and Independents of Yuqui who both dropped 3.5% and 3.4% respectively.
Of direct note, the independents of Cartoq Gold Drug Empire dropped 1% and Freedom Party of Cartoq rose 0.7% - I suspect from KWS boost, but not enough to make a difference in comparison. This will continue tomorrow as of right now the influence struggle from Bounties is only split in a 3-way in the system. The Anarchy will continue to loose despite being in boom.
Once the elections for the 3 other Federation factions clears, we'll see a far more pronounced climb and drop in the system, but for now with only a 2-way split for the supwerpower bounties the controlling faction will be able to maintain a gain for the time being.
Last edited: