A "Let me get this straight" question.

If I'm trying to boost the INF of a faction in order to start a war with another faction or to trigger an expansion can I just keep boosting my chosen (or tactical) faction to achieve my current goal or do I have to reduce the INF of other factions?

Example : MY FACTION 35% INF

Others : 20%, 20%. 10%, 5%, 5%, 5%

I want to start a war between MY faction and the 10% faction so MY faction can take their installation.
Can I just boost the 10% faction and the others (including MY faction) will all lose a little till the war (equal INF with MY faction) begins or do I have to hammer the others somehow?
Same with regards to expansion, will everyone drop as MY faction gains or will I have to get more...creative?

o7
 
Can I just boost the 10% faction and the others (including MY faction) will all lose a little till the war?
You can. But, that 10% faction, since it owns an asset, will go to war with one of those 20% factions first. That, or as your faction drops, your (35%) faction will go to war with one of those 20% factions.

This is presuming the 20% factions aren't in a conflict
Same with regards to expansion, will everyone drop as MY faction gains or will I have to get more...creative?
With no other actions, correct.

Regurgitating the maths I've done before, let's pretend there's 100 points in the bucket (for simplicity's sake). That is, 1% inf = 1 point. We start with :

35, 20, 20, 10, 5, 5, 5 (= 100)

Assume you do 5 points of work for your faction. This makes it:
40, 20, 20, 10, 5, 5, 5 (=105)
Normalising, we get:
38.10%, 19.05%, 19.05%, 9.52%, 4.76%, 4.76% (=~ 100) [1]

Your action result in your faction gaining influence, by stripping some off the other factions. Let's call this Result 1.

But watch what happens if we do the same 5 points of work for your faction, and 5 points of "negative" work for, say, one of the 20s (e.g selling for a loss, murderhoboing, failing missions). We get:

40, 20, 15, 10, 5, 5, 5 (=100)

This is already normalised, and thus is the new result. That's not some fancy mechanic, it's just the way the maths works. Basically, you strip 5 points worth of influence off the other factions, and the other faction "distributes" 5 points of influence to the other factions. But because it happens in a single calculation, rather than one after the other, it's virtually a direct exchange.

The three strategies which arise from this are:
1. If you want to increase a faction, but don't care where it comes from, just work that faction.
2. If you want to decrease a faction, and have that influence go to a specific faction, hurt the faction you want to decrease and help the faction you want to increase
3. If you want to decrease a faction and don't care where it goes, just target that faction with negative effects.

2 might seem like a convenient mathematical outcome, but if you're suffering from diminishing returns from having a high influence, it's actually a great way to overcome that problem. Of course, it can only go so far if your target faction only has a percent or two of influence.

[1] This is how factions can "creep" a little between ticks without any action; they don't exactly equal 100 and have to re-normalise.

EDIT: It's worth noting, I've ignored two things here:
  • Diminishing returns; there's an effect beyond the natural effect of this system which, if you look at some of the graphs from Reshaping the Simulation and other research by Commanders, is quite a stark effect
  • What happens in the zero-case... if a faction has 5 points and you hurt them for 10. My working assumption is each result has a "Result or 1 if Result < 1" condition, but i've never validated that.
 
Last edited:
Many thanks for the swift reply CMDR.

So if MY faction owns say....90% of the installations in a system and a faction languishing around 7.5% or so owns the last installation will I have to go through several 'cycles' of boosting and war to get them up to the dizzy heights of around 35% beating other factions in the system even if MY faction owns the rest of the installations or can I just get the last installation owning faction up to MY factions INF to trigger the war and kick them off the ownership list?
 
Factions only have a conflict (war/election) if at least one of them owns an asset*. So if the faction down at 7.5% owns something then they'll have to have a conflict with any faction they meet on the way up to eventually equalise influence with you. However, if you can get the factions in-between to have conflicts with each other, then you can pass them by on the way up; a faction can only be in one conflict at a time in a system. This will only work if some/all of those factions in-between own at least one asset.

* assets include dockable stations & outposts, space installations and all types of ground bases.
 
Factions only have a conflict (war/election) if at least one of them owns an asset*. So if the faction down at 7.5% owns something then they'll have to have a conflict with any faction they meet on the way up to eventually equalise influence with you. However, if you can get the factions in-between to have conflicts with each other, then you can pass them by on the way up; a faction can only be in one conflict at a time in a system. This will only work if some/all of those factions in-between own at least one asset.

* assets include dockable stations & outposts, space installations and all types of ground bases.
Yup, this.

This is why I don't bother trying to take everything, just ownership, unless an asset will offer a distinct advantage or unique capability.
 
Thanks for clearing this up. The installation in question is a non-landable research facility or something, so in light of this information I'll not bother to go for it.

Fly safe o7
 
Your only alternative is if the 10% faction is non-native. If you can push them down below the war threshold (5%?) without actually triggering a war, then keep pushing them down, you can eventually cause them to Retreat out of the system. Assets owned by a retreating faction get handed over to the controlling faction once they are expelled.

Anyhow, I believe the general consensus is that those non-landable planetary installations are more pain than gain, since the only things you can do at them are things that hurt the faction that owns them.
 
Thanks for clearing this up. The installation in question is a non-landable research facility or something, so in light of this information I'll not bother to go for it.

Fly safe o7
The only thing those facilites do is make you a target for surface scan missions (if planetary) or people pulling heists (if orbital) so there's really no advantage to having them. Landable ports at least let you benefit from passing trade.

One advantage of letting the lower-down factions own assets is that it makes them get snagged up in wars when they fight over them, which can be good for keeping their influence down as it means days at a time of them being locked together and unable to move.
 
The only thing those facilites do is make you a target for surface scan missions (if planetary) or people pulling heists (if orbital) so there's really no advantage to having them. Landable ports at least let you benefit from passing trade.

One advantage of letting the lower-down factions own assets is that it makes them get snagged up in wars when they fight over them, which can be good for keeping their influence down as it means days at a time of them being locked together and unable to move.


I hasn't thought of that. Excellent point CMDR.
 
Back
Top Bottom