Im finding with that much drop, its war after war. We cant stay out of war for three days since 2.3
A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
Im finding with that much drop, its war after war. We cant stay out of war for three days since 2.3
The war has started this tick, but the expansion system is 78.5%. I'll check the news in a couple of stations.
edit - war is active, expansion still pending.
Last edited:
O unwise man! Don't you know you must git gud and adapt?
We have and we will survive but it is massively damaging to player morale.
If missions had more of an effect relatively in influence building and the lockdown on war actions was weakened a tad (maybe just a nerf on influence effects rather than a total block in the non war systems) it would balance a tad.
As it stands.... even if you are comfortably in control of a war and winning by a large margin.... the effects on your other systems are enough in 3 days to start a snowball effect.
Luckily with a large player group we have the numbers to prop it all up but I feel really sorry for any that don't have the resources to help sort it.
There must be a middle ground somewhere.
That's exactly where I feel my Faction is unfortunately headed. In every one of our systems, and those around us, the superpower Factions all appear to be moving inexorably towards an equilibrium, sharing around 80% split roughly equally amongst them. The remaining non-superpower Factions look to be settling to a roughly equal share of the remaining 20%. At least one war in almost every system and almost every Faction in a war somewhere.
With only a small handful of players, at the moment it's pretty much just fire fighting to maintain controlling status in a couple of core systems, in between the wars.
Perhaps if we can retreat from most of the systems we're currently in (if that's possible at the moment, as a superpower aligned Faction it's proving difficult to move away from that mid-point) we can break the cycle of wars and settle for that.
Just speculating, but maybe that's the aim of the current changes. To limit the size of (Minor Faction) empire that a couple of players can create. If you want to try and control a lot of systems you'll need a lot of players to put in a lot of effort.
Or then again, maybe it's just lighting the flames of war across inhabited space as a prelude to a Thargoid invasion!!!
Yea, I heard that being said in another thread. I will git smart and stop wasting my time.
We've had little problems as of late in our region of space, except the fact that two Systems were completely frozen. One thawed up yesterday after 3 days of being stuck, the other one is rock-solid with its % for 6 days straight now.
The States changed in that time though. Make of it what you will.
The States changed in that time though. Make of it what you will.
We saw something similar in early 2.3 in one system but were unable to diagnose a cause. Perfect equality in inputs/ outcomes over time is highly unlikely! No activity = no change but I presume that activity was ongoing.
One possibility in your case is that the factions were in states that negated certain activities. What we're the states and activities?
I would bug report it if it happens again.
One possibility in your case is that the factions were in states that negated certain activities. What we're the states and activities?
I would bug report it if it happens again.
Regarding mining, have there been any tests how that compares to other action to affect influence?
Say I take my Cutter or Anaconda and do a proper mining trip in a pristine metallic ring and sell that stuff at our station... How does that influence wise compare to doing missions in my Python during the same time? Lets say for a normal system in boom.
Say I take my Cutter or Anaconda and do a proper mining trip in a pristine metallic ring and sell that stuff at our station... How does that influence wise compare to doing missions in my Python during the same time? Lets say for a normal system in boom.
Last edited:
FD had mentioned that they would nerf influence for items that had zero purchase price. I assume that would make mining or MA gathering pointless for influence purposes.
Really? Are you sure they meant mining goods by that as well? Do you know where that is written down?
Would be quite stupid if true, wouldnt it?
I need to do a focused test to be sure, but I disagree.
The nerf I think was for abandoned mission cargo - being able to take missions, dump them for stolen goods then sell that without effort.
I would certainly hope it did not include mining.
there are more things concerning mining.
a) influence is gained from any profitable commodity sold on the market. basically, as every ton mined generates a profit, you would need to compare it to strip mining (mining always the next asteroid close to you), if you look at efficiency.
b) comparing mining <-> trading. each ring gives 9 (?) commodities or something. the question is whether you can import a similar total amount of different commodities with a compareable total profit. for exampel i work a system, where i have 3 commodities during boom generating more than 1000 cr/t profit. i can pull off easily 4 runs an hour with my cutter. going mining in my corvette takes ~ 1,5 hours to 2 hours, generating ~5 mio - similar amount, but in nearby double the time. and, if going trading, i can pick up a bunch of missions, cash in bounties every time i dock etc. pp.
c) especially outside of boom this can look very different, if you can't generate as much profit doing trading.
d) comparing missions to mining. well, i personally follow the assumption that it is better to combine different types of actions than repeating the same all over. missions have different levels of influence effects (small, medium, large). it would be interesting to test the effect of for exampel 3 medium influence missions, and compare it to a single mining run. but generally, missions are the heavy hitter, and you are always better off doing missions (and bring in and redeem everytime easy to gain bounties, explo data, a profitable commodity etc.) than doing one type of sandbox activities.
well, the question is how much that has been nerfed.
Transferred to the controlling faction.
raeat
Banned
Good luck with that. I have a faction that has been Pending Expansion for 9 consecutive days (so far) with no states in either of the two systems it is in and a solid 76% in the main system. Here's hoping you fare better.
Understand, please that FDev intends to make the BGS unpalatable to the players. We are messing up their malformed narrative.
Happened to us when the EDF kicked us out of kappa-1 ceti and they put a local fed faction in control of all of our assets. We expanded right back though ano can't be bothered to get them all back as it is a rather boring system.
