A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim

[Schlack]

It is based on population. It is a 'hidden' stat but every asset has a population figure. This determines mva.

with the caveat that the controlling station is always space side not planetside.

some weird systems exist where the controlling station is an outpost rather than one of the larger station types - but you don't know until after the conflict. We have had to repeat the conflicts to secure additional assets.

And yes, keeping your faction alive in a system is almost as good a story as taking a system or expanding. Just as death is part of life, the BGS is not always a smooth run of success. In our case the battle was long but finite due to the skimmer mission limitations introduced. That said we had also put in place BGS measures to mitigate the skimmer effects through limiting the availability/effects of the skimmer missions. It was an initially extremely frustrating experience that we turned into an interesting challenge and it added a new chapter to the story of AEDC.

I am still somewhat on the fence about whether such adaptation is entirely possible in 2.3 in high BH areas - that is probably not going to go away without a mechanic chance. And my sympathies go out to anyone who has had the misfortune of being located there (as I do with anyone close to a rare good or engineer or anywhere that attracts prolonged traffic and activity).

 

[goemon]

I am still somewhat on the fence about whether such adaptation is entirely possible in 2.3 in high BH areas - that is probably not going to go away without a mechanic chance. And my sympathies go out to anyone who has had the misfortune of being located there (as I do with anyone close to a rare good or engineer or anywhere that attracts prolonged traffic and activity).

just as a personal remark, i don't think "changing the mechanics" makes that much of a good story as "Player(s) took interest in an area, and now we are battling a lost war against XYZ" - I'd call it the calvinball effect, with the difference that clavin isn't playing with hobbes in this case, but changing rules from the outside.

so, what has happened to you with skimmer missions, and is happening to many groups right now with superpower bounties, is pretty much the same what happened to the imperial group month back, whitch used the BGS to stop a CG happening, and FDEV changing the rules for that in the middle of the CG.

it is hard to make up a good story from that, as the gamemaster isn't "part of the story". basically tabletop RPG gamemaster methods should apply to such changes.

when i saw the changes in the patch notes, i assumed it would get harder to battle superpower minor factions as well as getting and maintaining system control would be harder, which i actually liked as an idea, and thought it would make up for some good stories battling for independancy.

looking at the mechanics closer and the weird effects which you are getting in multi-superpower alligned minor factions for superpower alligned controlling factions, testing them (last day of my second test finally!) it feels like an mechanical change, which i can't make a good story out of. the current situation resembles me on the situation of pirate-facions hurting themself by selling their loot at their black markets.

 

[Schlack]

just as a personal remark, i don't think "changing the mechanics" makes that much of a good story as "Player(s) took interest in an area, and now we are battling a lost war against XYZ" - I'd call it the calvinball effect, with the difference that clavin isn't playing with hobbes in this case, but changing rules from the outside.

so, what has happened to you with skimmer missions, and is happening to many groups right now with superpower bounties, is pretty much the same what happened to the imperial group month back, whitch used the BGS to stop a CG happening, and FDEV changing the rules for that in the middle of the CG.

it is hard to make up a good story from that, as the gamemaster isn't "part of the story". basically tabletop RPG gamemaster methods should apply to such changes.

true in one sense, but such changes are part of the BGS game and part of the story to date. It is a very different beast to the launch version - it barely existed back then and didn't work for months. The BGS will be changed again and again and that's something that all BGS players have to reconcile themselves with. This isn't a defense of the current changes, just a statement of fact about the development of the game.

Our story was that we were able through our own actions to (largely) manage the situation created by a BGS change - the reintroduction of mission destination effects in 2.2. Like with the BH heavy areas the activity was ongoing prior to 2.2 but only seriously impacted us following the BGS change. This is directly analogous to what has happened to some groups in 2.3. The existing BH that supported factions through station ownership has been twisted so that it can work against them.

Even if the skimmer missions change hadn't been introduced in 2.3 we would have been able to continue developing one of our factions (subsisting at 1% in some systems while still being ruler!) because of the actions we took. It did take us some time to reach that point, ironically close to 2.3 launch!

 

[DNA-Decay]

Even if the skimmer missions change hadn't been introduced in 2.3 we would have been able to continue [...] It did take us some time to reach that point, ironically close to 2.3 launch!

Can confirm.

We were getting smashed by Skimmer Skummers.
YouTube, FaceBook, Here, There, - Everyoe wanted a piece of that pie, and it just wrecked us.

I won't go into details - but we did take it to Frontier.
The first question that Dav answered in the last BGS livestream was Schlack's and Dav's response basically said: "If you want to put your name on things, you deal with the consequenses. You want to be big - you deal with the logistics."
So I get that raising the issue is important. A bit of noise about the scale of what you are facing is not a bad thing.

Dav's response kinda burst our bubble for a bit - we really thought "This can't be intended".



And then there was this crazy four stage plan. And we had just completed stage three and were getting traction and tangible results when 2.3 dropped and made it a moot point.
But we got caned between 2.2 and 2.3. There were a bunch of missed opportunities and wasted work through that patch. Some good achievements too in spite of how how our main faction was doing. But yeah - victoria Wolf was hurting.

Did I say too much?

Point is, uh it's not about "Git Gud" - the problems are real.
Point is - uh if you're hitting a dead end, you might have to back track to find another way around.

 

[FrogsFriend]

Dev update!!!

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ng-after-2-3?p=5523242&viewfull=1#post5523242

 

[Schlack]

Looks like a reasonable change. Will be interesting to see the results.

 

[goemon]

2.3.02 BGS related Patch Notes

• Stop factions from getting positive effects when selling black market commodities for really low prices
• Split faction effects from redeeming superpower bounties based upon current influence percentages.
  • A percentage of the influence change will be left over if there are factions in the system that are not part of the superpower. This remaining amount will be discarded.

a fix and a patch for the BGS in one minor update? i want the neglection back!

 

[Harley Quinn]

I am trying to understand the BGS and I am beginning to think that the larger the human player group the less likely they will ever lose. How does a small group of players stop a larger group from taking over their system? The mechanics of the BGS seem to show that regardless of how active the small group is the large group will be able to just over power them with sheer numbers. I just saw a controlling faction in a system with 2.5M people lose 13 point in tic despite the controlling faction being actively supported.

Is the BGS set up that it rewards factions that murder the populace and earn bounties but don't lose influence while the faction being murdered is penalized for its people and security murdered? That seems counter intuitive.

At the moment I am 1 person taking on a small group. I'm doing well and the reason why is because it's very easy to cause them problems in other systems they are in. It doesn't take too much to swing some places so pick your targets and divert their resources and attention.

Must admit, I also enjoy stalking them in CZs waiting to pounce, seems to put them off what they are doing pretty effectively as they are stuck waiting for me to pick a side and pounce or become wanted by their own faction.

Without brute force ways just to beat them at the grind, disruption is your best tool even if that means supporting other factions or even the enemies to trigger states that helps you.

 

[Sixteen-String Jack]

I suppose that whether there is an advantage, or should be an advantage, to the control of a system depends on why you want to manipulate the BGS?

The existing advantage is not as great as it has been in previous versions. However, when you are trading in the system having every attack on you gain extra revenue is not a small bonus?

Also, last year the leading player groups were rated on how many systems they controlled, that was the endgame of the BGS. The ratings were not the decisive factor in the elevation of EG to PowerPlay. We have no information on what is planned in terms of the BGS and PowerPlay, or whether there will be one or more new Powers this year. However I expect that the factions will be rated on control of systems rather than another measure?

The suggestion that the existing BGS mechanics are an abstraction that only has to be consistent to itself rather than some imaginary 'realism' is a standard objection, though one that would imply that the mechanics cannot be improved and at the extreme that one game is no better than another.

My opinion is that the influence levels in the BGS are like the control spheres in PowerPlay, the root of all that is wrong with the design. It's not that having a system governed by a single faction is more convincing, it is a superior mechanic which could also adapt to PowerPlay's weekly cycles rather than the current daily BGS cycles. Influence levels could be retained to decide which would be the opposition in a civil war if the government lost control. This notion of governments being challenged by invasion or domestic unrest isn't some insight of my own, its the usual mechanic?

Having a controlling faction at 1% for several cycles to frustrate a dominant group might be clever, but it lacks epic? Should PowerPlay be a sort of stealth bureaucratic game where the objective is to infiltrate and lure the enemy into bad investments? The story potential seems minimal, compared to that of space battles.

 

[kostyarico]

At us there has taken place expansion to system unnecessary us. Were prepared for retreat, but something has gone not so.
At retreat from system influence of our fraction has to be lower than 2,5%(we have 2,4%). If this condition is satisfied, then we have to disappear from system. The condition is satisfied, and we remained.
In this system there are fractions which are lower than ours, but they not in retreat. At them 1,5 and 1,0% of influence.
And in a news line at the station it is written that the retreat has passed successfully.
Why?

 

[CMDR Endincite]

At us there has taken place expansion to system unnecessary us. Were prepared for retreat, but something has gone not so.
At retreat from system influence of our fraction has to be lower than 2,5%. If this condition is satisfied, then we have to disappear from system. The condition is satisfied, and we remained.
In this system there are fractions which are lower than ours, but they not in retreat. At them 0,3 and 1,8% of influence.
And in a news line at the station it is written that the otsupleniye has passed successfully.
Why?

Are those other factions native to the system? They cannot retreat if so.

 

[kostyarico]

Are those other factions native to the system? They cannot retreat if so.

We are interested this situation only retreat of our faction. It hasn't happened.

 

[CMDR Endincite]

In how long? Sorry more info is needed. Retreat should pend for 1 day, be active for 5 days and then complete.
If the news report says the retreat completed, it should also list the system from which you retreated.
If you're still present in the system it says you retreated from, then its bug report time.

Edit: I'm assuming otsupleniye means retreat.

 

[kostyarico]

In how long? Sorry more info is needed. Retreat should pend for 1 day, be active for 5 days and then complete.
If the news report says the retreat completed, it should also list the system from which you retreated.
If you're still present in the system you retreated from, then its bug report time.

Edit: I'm assuming otsupleniye means retreat.

Everything is right. There have passed 5 days. In a news line it is written that retreat from system is completed. However we in system remained. Now status of fraction: None.

 

[CMDR Endincite]

Everything is right. There have passed 5 days. In a news line it is written that retreat from system is completed. However we in system remained. Now status of fraction: None.

Indeed I doubt you'll find your answer here then. Faction below 2.5% on the last day + news report says you retreated from that system + still in system = bug.

 

[Lord of the Isles]

If a news report says 'faction has retreated from system x' then that does seem a bug if they remain. However, might it be that kostyarico is reporting (in English, as best he can) the Faction Status Summary in a station? I can't remember for sure but it may be that in Faction Status it is reporting that the Retreat has been completed (meaning: the state is at an end) rather than that it ended with the faction leaving the system.

 

[goemon]

If a news report says 'faction has retreated from system x' then that does seem a bug if they remain. However, might it be that kostyarico is reporting (in English, as best he can) the Faction Status Summary in a station? I can't remember for sure but it may be that in Faction Status it is reporting that the Retreat has been completed (meaning: the state is at an end) rather than that it ended with the faction leaving the system.

it all comes down whether the faction news says "retreat from XXX has ended" or "retreat from XXX is completed and yyy has left system zzz" ... i'll see whether i can grab a screenshot from a successfull retreat.

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

Station new bulletins sometimes mix up the factions or systems involved in the stories. Mostly with conflicts, but it could also apply to retreats. So maybe the retreat did happen, just not in the system reported. If his faction just retreated from a system that he didn't know it was present in, it would be hard to figure out after the fact.

 

[kostyarico]

it all comes down whether the faction news says "retreat from XXX has ended" or "retreat from XXX is completed and yyy has left system zzz" ... i'll see whether i can grab a screenshot from a successfull retreat.

It would be desirable to look.
I have written Bug report. We will look that will answer.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/352831-BGS-Player-Minor-Factions-The-retreat-hasn-t-come-from-system

 

[Adam Bourke-Waite]

Retreat went active on Sunday, war went pending today. We've had the situation before where we've used a war to shorten a retreat, however we've not had the situation where the retreat and the pending war were in the same system. and where the war was due to start at the end of the final day of the retreat.

It was more of a theoretical question tbh as we want to keep that faction in the system so if it gets anywhere near 2.5% we'll give it a boost. It's just one of those situations that got me thinking.

This is a really interesting edge case, can you keep me informed on what happens please.