Traffic was just me. Faction A) none, Faction B) Famine, Empire faction in war with a lowly fed faction which behaved as expected.
A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
Traffic was just me. Faction A) none, Faction B) Famine, Empire faction in war with a lowly fed faction which behaved as expected.
i sugest a bug report.
reads like what jane turner was reporting a page back, just opposite ...
If you submit a bug report then do not hold your breath waiting for a response.
Sadly we have lost a couple of members purely because trying to maintain the level of influence is a thankless, tireless, time wasting and exhausting experience. Being a small group means the few of us that are left will have to work that much harder. How much longer will we last before we say enough is enough.
It will be sad to step aside but as others have said, if we want a full time job, we should be paid for it.
Apologies for being so negative but I have been trading since 10am and enough, is definitely enough, but will I be doing the same thing tomorrow?
Apologies if this comes across as stupid as I don't fully know the situation. Have you considered not maintaining that level of influence? The new mechanics appear designed to revert (certain) factions from extremes. What we are seeing is that a new level of equilibrium is being reached in many systems some 10-15% lower than previously but things are relatively stable there. Is it possible that your faction could happily live at a lower level of influence? We had a ruling faction subsist for 4 months at around 1%. in order to maintain it all we had to do was avoid retreat every once in a while.
not glorious, for sure, and of little help if you are a one system faction hit badly by the new mechanics.
_trent_
Volunteer Moderator
Due to the current CG in the California nebula, we've had a bit of an upturn in exploration data being handed in. It certainly seems to be very effective at raising the influence of the station owner. Approx 50 reports from 3-4 players seems to be enough to push up the station owners and almost guarantees some increase in influence, regardless of the level of traffic. Since the CG started last week, we've seen around 15-20% gains across our medium population systems and around 30% in our low population system.
With regards to bounties, we've simply asked our players not to hand in any superpower bounties in any of our systems and things seem to have returned to a manageable level. It's still harder than 2.2 to maintain high influence levels, but its definitely workable.
With regards to bounties, we've simply asked our players not to hand in any superpower bounties in any of our systems and things seem to have returned to a manageable level. It's still harder than 2.2 to maintain high influence levels, but its definitely workable.
Last edited:
If you submit a bug report then do not hold your breath waiting for a response.
Sadly we have lost a couple of members purely because trying to maintain the level of influence is a thankless, tireless, time wasting and exhausting experience. Being a small group means the few of us that are left will have to work that much harder. How much longer will we last before we say enough is enough.
It will be sad to step aside but as others have said, if we want a full time job, we should be paid for it.
Apologies for being so negative but I have been trading since 10am and enough, is definitely enough, but will I be doing the same thing tomorrow?
This is a wide ranging problem, We are finding BGS after 2.3 a joke, it's a complete mess, huge % swings in the wrong direction when doing work, work having no effect, WAR is horrific on all systems % now, it used to be bad but now omg, we lost well over 30% in all our systems, trading, missions, Bounty hinting all activities made little to no difference to the drop.
We were quite good friends with another player group near us, they have given up playing elite as it's a futile exercise now. I can see if we don't have 5 or 6 commanders working a system for a few hours each a day we cannot recover as the diminishing returns is propping up all the lower factions and taking from the controlling one always. The BGS worked quite good before 2.3, whoever made the changes needs firing!
Hi Fire Dragon, just regarding the war state, you should note that this is a faction wide state and its influence modifiers apply to your faction across all systems that it is located in. That means that for the duration only combat activities (Bonds and Bounties) are influence effective. Trade, missions, explo are all ineffective during wartime. They are effective for other factions not in a war/civil war state. What you can do when preparing for war in one system is boost the inf levels in the other systems to compensate before the war hits.
But it sounds like you are located in a high traffic/activity area and these are one of the biggest challenges in the BGS. It might be that one system is causing you all the trouble in other systems through repeated states. The unpalatable but strategically correct move would be to stop supporting your faction in that system, letting it drop to a safe level where you might be able to avoid trouble and work your faction in other systems.
Information
I have just had my faction go pending war for the system at exactly 60%.
I have just had my faction go pending war for the system at exactly 60%.
Once your faction enters a pending expansion state then it will happen regardless of changes in influence.
Last edited:
That is true, but there is an exception I have seen a couple times;
If you have a conflict start during the 3rd pending day of the expansion so it goes live the same day as the expansion there is a chance that it will cancel out and fail it.
A day later, it could cut the expansion short and give you a new system early, or too soon and you'll end up with a longer pending state before it happens...
I've got those both pending. I'm hoping the expansion will start the tick before the war, which I will find out tomorrow.
While selling Universal Cartographics Data after a long trip, it's said that one should sell it data by data, and not the whole page at once. The said reason is the faction that owns the station should get more influence by doing that. Is it true?
Thank you!
Thank you!
Last edited:
Try keeping the influence high. The ones I have observed failed, but the influence dropped lower than the 75% expansion point.
- - - Updated - - -
I have not tested that, but it is a sound train of thought.
The majority of the BGS operates as transaction-based with a boost on top of it, usually following diminishing returns.
A good example may be some runs I have done with Wars handing in smaller batches of bonds than one huge payout and having a noticeable difference in influence swings.
So it stands to reason that handing it in per system than per page would have a greater impact.
Yes, corrects. Selling one system at a time has way more effect.
Aaaargh this flaming plummet during wartime is really getting on my wick.
3 days ago... 75 percent. Now 40. 18 percent drop overnight.
This is despite us winning the war comfortably.
No worries with a drop during war but that much a day is crazy. And yes, we known it can be supported by bounty hunting but it takes massive effort to stop the drops now.
This is the current most destructive element of the bgs. One war can drop you into a cycle of endless back to back wars. We were only saved by one of them luckily being an election.
And 12 wars in a row now with no flaming wartime missions.
3 days ago... 75 percent. Now 40. 18 percent drop overnight.
This is despite us winning the war comfortably.
No worries with a drop during war but that much a day is crazy. And yes, we known it can be supported by bounty hunting but it takes massive effort to stop the drops now.
This is the current most destructive element of the bgs. One war can drop you into a cycle of endless back to back wars. We were only saved by one of them luckily being an election.
And 12 wars in a row now with no flaming wartime missions.
Last edited: