I sent you that information on Lavian mail-order brides you requested. Let me know quickly, the market moves pretty fast.
[BGS] Backgroundsimulation, New Superpower Bounties Mechanic and Bountyhunting after 2.3.
- Thread starter goemon
- Start date
I sent you that information on Lavian mail-order brides you requested. Let me know quickly, the market moves pretty fast.
short notice on test of effectivity of superpower bounties and faction specific bounties
currently running a test in a low pop zero traffic system comparing superpower bounties effect and minor faction specific bounties (the best test surprises the tester):
while generally bounties are more effective than i would have expected from previous tests,
3 superpower bounties move around the same influence, as 3 minor faction specific bounties. Indipendent controlling faction has lost 3,7% from 3 superpowerbounty redeems yesterday in a 4 superpower alligned minor faction system, and lost 3% today from 4 minor faction bounty redeems for the same superpower alligned minor factions. the difference of 0,7 is most likely routed in the CF loosing influence.
I'll now test whether diminuishing returns apply by selling commodities for the controlling faction and cashing in (superpower-)bounties.
currently running a test in a low pop zero traffic system comparing superpower bounties effect and minor faction specific bounties (the best test surprises the tester):
while generally bounties are more effective than i would have expected from previous tests,
3 superpower bounties move around the same influence, as 3 minor faction specific bounties. Indipendent controlling faction has lost 3,7% from 3 superpowerbounty redeems yesterday in a 4 superpower alligned minor faction system, and lost 3% today from 4 minor faction bounty redeems for the same superpower alligned minor factions. the difference of 0,7 is most likely routed in the CF loosing influence.
I'll now test whether diminuishing returns apply by selling commodities for the controlling faction and cashing in (superpower-)bounties.
Cannot see my reply so this might be a duplicate.
The 38 claims is simply referring to actual ships killed or bounties paid out (we do not shoot ships that are not wanted)
We saw human shipping movement for the 24hr period and the only ship that was not us, was a single asp. I am assuming they were simply passing through. They might however be in residence in that system but..
They were NOT bounty hunting as the payout correlates to the moneys we were paid.
All good if it was 'that' system
Test of Superpower Bounties Effects in System with Superpower Alligned Controlling Faction and a Total of 4 Superpower Alligned Minor Factions
TL;DR: We redeemed ~ 240 superpower bounties of 80 mio CR value over 3 ticks in an (almost) no traffic system with a superpower alligned controlling faction and a total of 4 superpower alligned factions.
Effect was very much the same as at the last bounty hunting CG:
Controlling Faction lost 8% in total, and got lucky that in the beginning 1, and in the end 2 of the other superpower alligned factions were in election. Even than it didn’t reallly gain from redeeming superpower bounties.
The moment the first faction in election, now the one with least influence, would have come out of that state, the Controlling faction would have been back to loosing 4-2%, depending on their remaining influence.
Thanks and a shout-out to CMDR kotecki and his wing who pulled of the major part of this test!
Detailed Test:
___
Dear Adam Waite,
i hope you check into the system data of OSERMO during those ticks we conducted our test.
1.
In my opinion it makes no sense that the strongest superpower alligned minor faction is hit, if superpower bounties are redeemed. It is contraintuitive and nonsenical.
2.
That gets even more prononounced with more superpower alligned minor factions. But that the controlling faction only gained 0,6% on the last tick with all but one of the other Alliance factions in election, while that faction gained 3% (at 42% and 20% influence levels) shows that the problem even exists if only a second superpower alligned minor faction is present.
3.
Additional problem for station and system controlling factions is, that both types of conflict (War/Civil War and Elections) now come with a hefty cost in systems where superpower bounties are cashed in.. During war/civil war they won’t gain from the perks of having a station (exploration data and trade having no effect) to stop the drain from superpower bounty redeems, during election this drain will get even more pronounced.
4.
Also the effect of superpowerbounties leading to superpower alligned minor factions to equalise often in the middle, where they don’t gain or loose much from redeems, leading to a lot of inner-superpower conflicts makes no sense to me.
5. last - the gain for a superpower alligned faction after an election of up to 6%, when they sit at ~7% leads to systems having a lot of movement and make those systems hard to manage.
Suggestions for solutions:
I have have obviously no idea how hard those would be to implement:
a) Give superpower bounty redeem influence gains to the superpower alligned minor faction that controls the station. If no superpower alligned minor faction controls the station, award no influence gain.
b) Alternatively: Split total influence gain from superpowerbounty redeems between all superpower minor factions. If the total is for exampel 6% gained from the non-superpower alligned minor factions, award in a system with 4 superpower alligned minor factions each 1,5%. If there is nothing to gain outside of the same superpower alligned minor factions anymore, nothing would happen. (A similar kind of lock was in place in previous patches between to factions in conflict.)
c) Alternatively: make diminuishing returns for superpowerbounties the opposite for gains from superpower bounty redeems, so the strongest factions gains most etc., in relation to their influence in system. In a system with 3 superpower alligned minor factions at 40%, 30% and 10%, redeeming superpower bounties should lead to a gain of 2%, 1,5% and 0,5.
I personally would opt for reverting the current mechanic or disabling influence gain from superpower bounties fully, till a working implementation can be patched - i can't imagine that as it is working is working as intended, and the current mechanic makes the game of those player groups, which back specific minor factions (superpower alligned or not) unfun and contra-intuitive.
TL;DR: We redeemed ~ 240 superpower bounties of 80 mio CR value over 3 ticks in an (almost) no traffic system with a superpower alligned controlling faction and a total of 4 superpower alligned factions.
Effect was very much the same as at the last bounty hunting CG:
Controlling Faction lost 8% in total, and got lucky that in the beginning 1, and in the end 2 of the other superpower alligned factions were in election. Even than it didn’t reallly gain from redeeming superpower bounties.
The moment the first faction in election, now the one with least influence, would have come out of that state, the Controlling faction would have been back to loosing 4-2%, depending on their remaining influence.
Thanks and a shout-out to CMDR kotecki and his wing who pulled of the major part of this test!
Detailed Test:
So we saw the error of our ways backing insignificant minor factions somewhere, ...
System Osermo
Date: 10.5.
Osermo Gold Dynamic Incorporated (Alliance, CF) - State: War: 51,5%
Friends of Varramool (Alliance) - State: Expansion: 21%
Defence Force of HR 4574 (Alliance) - State: Boom: 15,1%
Indians Coordinated (Alliance) - State: Election: 8,6%
Osermo Co-op: 2,4%
Osermo Purple Hand Gang: 1,4%
Traffic report: 1 unknown AspE, all other ours
138 Bounty Redeems, Total Value: 7,9 Mio
Effect:
Date: 11.5.
Osermo Gold Dynamic Incorporated (Alliance, CF) - State: War: 46,2% (-5,3%)
Friends of Varramool (Alliance) - State: Expansion: 23,4% (+2,4%)
Defence Force of HR 4574 (Alliance) - State: War: 18,9% (+3,8%)
Indians Coordinated (Alliance) - State: Election: 6,8% (-1,8%)
Osermo Co-op: 3,5% (+1,1%)
Osermo Purple Hand Gang: 1,1% (-0,3%)
Traffic report: all ours
91 Bounty Redeems, Total Value: 4,8 Mio
Effect:
Date: 12.5.
Osermo Gold Dynamic Incorporated (Alliance, CF) - State: War: 42,9% (-3,3%)
Friends of Varramool (Alliance) - State: Election: 25,7% (+2,3%)
Defence Force of HR 4574 (Alliance) - State: War: 20,6% (+1,7%)
Indians Coordinated (Alliance) - State: Election: 7% (0,2%)
Osermo Co-op: 2,5% (+1,1%)
Osermo Purple Hand Gang: 1,1% (-0,3%)
4 Bounty redeems, Total Value: 2 mio
Effect:
Osermo Gold Dynamic Incorporated (Alliance, CF) - State: War: 43,5% (+0,6%)
Friends of Varramool (Alliance) - State: Election: 23,5% (-2,2%)
Defence Force of HR 4574 (Alliance) - State: War: 23% (+2,4%)
Indians Coordinated (Alliance) - State: Election: 6,4% (-0,6%)
Osermo Co-op: 2,7% (-0,2%)
Osermo Purple Hand Gang: 1% (+/- 0)
Traffic: 1 unknown DBE
___
End of testing
... decided to git gut, and heard the call of the peacefull miners of OSERMO of the Alliance of Independent System to deal with criminal elements on the edges of inhabited space.
Die hard and impartial supporters of the Alliance now, we decided not to mix into local politics, and just to hand in bounties issued by the mighty Alliance. Vipers, Diamondbacks, Corvettes and FDLs were fielded, and we successfully … uhm, ruined the controlling factions influence and made the system ripe with conflict….
Die hard and impartial supporters of the Alliance now, we decided not to mix into local politics, and just to hand in bounties issued by the mighty Alliance. Vipers, Diamondbacks, Corvettes and FDLs were fielded, and we successfully … uhm, ruined the controlling factions influence and made the system ripe with conflict….
System Osermo
Date: 10.5.
Osermo Gold Dynamic Incorporated (Alliance, CF) - State: War: 51,5%
Friends of Varramool (Alliance) - State: Expansion: 21%
Defence Force of HR 4574 (Alliance) - State: Boom: 15,1%
Indians Coordinated (Alliance) - State: Election: 8,6%
Osermo Co-op: 2,4%
Osermo Purple Hand Gang: 1,4%
Traffic report: 1 unknown AspE, all other ours
138 Bounty Redeems, Total Value: 7,9 Mio
Effect:
Date: 11.5.
Osermo Gold Dynamic Incorporated (Alliance, CF) - State: War: 46,2% (-5,3%)
Friends of Varramool (Alliance) - State: Expansion: 23,4% (+2,4%)
Defence Force of HR 4574 (Alliance) - State: War: 18,9% (+3,8%)
Indians Coordinated (Alliance) - State: Election: 6,8% (-1,8%)
Osermo Co-op: 3,5% (+1,1%)
Osermo Purple Hand Gang: 1,1% (-0,3%)
Traffic report: all ours
91 Bounty Redeems, Total Value: 4,8 Mio
Effect:
Date: 12.5.
Osermo Gold Dynamic Incorporated (Alliance, CF) - State: War: 42,9% (-3,3%)
Friends of Varramool (Alliance) - State: Election: 25,7% (+2,3%)
Defence Force of HR 4574 (Alliance) - State: War: 20,6% (+1,7%)
Indians Coordinated (Alliance) - State: Election: 7% (0,2%)
Osermo Co-op: 2,5% (+1,1%)
Osermo Purple Hand Gang: 1,1% (-0,3%)
4 Bounty redeems, Total Value: 2 mio
Effect:
Osermo Gold Dynamic Incorporated (Alliance, CF) - State: War: 43,5% (+0,6%)
Friends of Varramool (Alliance) - State: Election: 23,5% (-2,2%)
Defence Force of HR 4574 (Alliance) - State: War: 23% (+2,4%)
Indians Coordinated (Alliance) - State: Election: 6,4% (-0,6%)
Osermo Co-op: 2,7% (-0,2%)
Osermo Purple Hand Gang: 1% (+/- 0)
Traffic: 1 unknown DBE
___
End of testing
___
Dear Adam Waite,
i hope you check into the system data of OSERMO during those ticks we conducted our test.
1.
In my opinion it makes no sense that the strongest superpower alligned minor faction is hit, if superpower bounties are redeemed. It is contraintuitive and nonsenical.
2.
That gets even more prononounced with more superpower alligned minor factions. But that the controlling faction only gained 0,6% on the last tick with all but one of the other Alliance factions in election, while that faction gained 3% (at 42% and 20% influence levels) shows that the problem even exists if only a second superpower alligned minor faction is present.
3.
Additional problem for station and system controlling factions is, that both types of conflict (War/Civil War and Elections) now come with a hefty cost in systems where superpower bounties are cashed in.. During war/civil war they won’t gain from the perks of having a station (exploration data and trade having no effect) to stop the drain from superpower bounty redeems, during election this drain will get even more pronounced.
4.
Also the effect of superpowerbounties leading to superpower alligned minor factions to equalise often in the middle, where they don’t gain or loose much from redeems, leading to a lot of inner-superpower conflicts makes no sense to me.
5. last - the gain for a superpower alligned faction after an election of up to 6%, when they sit at ~7% leads to systems having a lot of movement and make those systems hard to manage.
Suggestions for solutions:
I have have obviously no idea how hard those would be to implement:
a) Give superpower bounty redeem influence gains to the superpower alligned minor faction that controls the station. If no superpower alligned minor faction controls the station, award no influence gain.
b) Alternatively: Split total influence gain from superpowerbounty redeems between all superpower minor factions. If the total is for exampel 6% gained from the non-superpower alligned minor factions, award in a system with 4 superpower alligned minor factions each 1,5%. If there is nothing to gain outside of the same superpower alligned minor factions anymore, nothing would happen. (A similar kind of lock was in place in previous patches between to factions in conflict.)
c) Alternatively: make diminuishing returns for superpowerbounties the opposite for gains from superpower bounty redeems, so the strongest factions gains most etc., in relation to their influence in system. In a system with 3 superpower alligned minor factions at 40%, 30% and 10%, redeeming superpower bounties should lead to a gain of 2%, 1,5% and 0,5.
I personally would opt for reverting the current mechanic or disabling influence gain from superpower bounties fully, till a working implementation can be patched - i can't imagine that as it is working is working as intended, and the current mechanic makes the game of those player groups, which back specific minor factions (superpower alligned or not) unfun and contra-intuitive.
i got weird results from this.
trading profitable commodities and cashing in 3 SPECIFIC minor faction BOUNTIES (of those alligned to a superpower) resulted in a 2,7% GAIN for the independent controlling faction.
trading the same amount of commodities and cashing in 3 SUPERPOWER bounties resulted in a 1,6% LOSS for the independent controlling faction.
that's a difference of 4,3% in influence delta for the controlling faction - for the same action(s).
Effect could be a very pronounced effect of influence levels, easier gain on lower influence, or something else polluting the test system - but if those numbers are correct and reproduceabble, it shows that it is much harder to gain influence when superpower bounties are cashed in compared to faction specific bounties.
I'll try to reproduce those numbers today and tomorrow, before sharing the test here - but also will forward the system and numbers to Adam Waite to look into it.
Awesome work goemon! Thanks for the testing! If you ever need help in the future, pm me and Ill help with testing like this. I agree, disabling superpower bounties until a fix can be implemented. There are wars everywhere at the moment. Time to see if they take your work and data in to account. +1 rep
You are battling against maths.
4 factions. One with 70 percent (independent), three (federal) with 10 each for argument's sake.
Let us say 5 percent increase for top faction and none for the others.
So top has 75 everyone else has 10. Total 105. Divide down.....
Top faction rises by 1.5, other three drop by 0.5 (approx)
Try again. Do same work but hand in superpower bounties instead.
Top faction rises by 2, everyone else by 1 as a result of splitting the bounty 3 ways.
So... 72, 11, 11, 11 giving 105
Divide down to be out of 100
Gives 68.5, 10.5, 10.5, 10.5
A drop of 1.5 for leading faction, wiping out the work they did and turning it into a loss.
SO. In theory, if you did a max of 5 percent for all factions in the system you would get
75, 15, 15, 15
Which becomes 62.5, 12.5, 12.5, 12.5 or a tanking of 7.5 in influence for the leading faction.
So. Rather than a single faction benefiting from the superpower bounty with a cap of 5 you are looking at action splitting influence multiple ways and filling up multiple buckets, each which have their own cap. Leading to the ability to tank a faction really easily using superpower bounties.
- - - Updated - - -
Having studied the numbers for a few weeks it is this sharing of superpower bounties and therefore increasing the ability of a superpower to benefit from a combined capacity of multiple factions that is causing the problem and huge swings for independents.
indeed... even if they are ALL superpowers the highest percentage faction will tank if you hand in shared bounties. Just not as badly as if they were independent.
Last edited:
So. Fundamentally, unless it is by design, the shared superpower mechanism is not a great state of affairs.
So. Cap the bucket filling of superpower bounties by reducing its effect
Or
Stop sharing them
Seem to be the best options. Option b is the easiest!
What may assist is an increase in the influence value of mission running so that it has a greater swing on things in relation to bounties. That will allow factions to directly assist their chosen target to a higher degree. Even so, by the maths above, even maxing out on missions, if someone did a load of superpower bounties that matched your work, you would still drop!
Interested to hear other people's thoughts on how to balance things. In essence, the faction with the most work done for them should ideally see a gain.
So. Cap the bucket filling of superpower bounties by reducing its effect
Or
Stop sharing them
Seem to be the best options. Option b is the easiest!
What may assist is an increase in the influence value of mission running so that it has a greater swing on things in relation to bounties. That will allow factions to directly assist their chosen target to a higher degree. Even so, by the maths above, even maxing out on missions, if someone did a load of superpower bounties that matched your work, you would still drop!
Interested to hear other people's thoughts on how to balance things. In essence, the faction with the most work done for them should ideally see a gain.
generally i can follow your post, but how does it apply to my case?
maybe you can help me there ...
i have
day 1: cashed in 3 superpower bounties
day 2: cashed in 3 specific bounties , each one for one of the superpower alligned minor factions
= independent controlling faction looses ~ the same amount of influence
day 3: traded fixed amount of commodities for the controlling AND cashed in 3 specific bounties , each one for one of the superpower alligned minor factions (like day 2)
= results in 2,7% GAIN for the independent controlling faction
day 4: traded fixed amount of commodities for the controlling AND cashed in 3 superpower bounties
= results in 1,6% LOSS for the independent controlling faction
shouldn't day 3 and day 4 have the same effect following your calculations and if a split is working as Adam waite is saying?
Will depend on the population size and how big the buckets each are and how much of each activity you did to what value.
But it follows roughly my description (mine was an approximation).
The thing to remember is that the bounty thing we have long suspected (and have tested) is transaction and not value based. 3x superpower handins x3 factions is 9 hand ins effectively. 3x individual ones is just that.
The quantity rather than value based mechanism is I think the culprit here. We tested it and proved it to be true in a recent war. We are bolstering surrounding systems using high volumes of low value hand ins instead of mashing 10m a commander into the pot.
I suppose the best way would be to use values. Allocate an arbitrary 1 point for each 'benefit received' and do the sums. Then, if you feel it is a bit squiffy, adjust your balance for trade and bounties to see what effect it has in theory.
We have used that to judge approx benefits of each type of action in our systems so we can guide players as to targets to hit in each kind of activity. It isn't totally accurate but with broad strokes we can predict what the results are likely to be each day with a modicum of accuracy.
We have the disadvantage of being a. In a high traffic location and b
Often 'attacked' by local troublemakers.
Last edited:
I can only agree with the request to revert it.
Though, I understand the ambition related to there being benefits to being part of a superpower other than those given via powerplay.
I also understand the need to remove the mechanism that was exploitable to tank system owners by smashing cops.
The final answer, whatever it is, needs to reward work by players in a proportionate manner.
Though, I understand the ambition related to there being benefits to being part of a superpower other than those given via powerplay.
I also understand the need to remove the mechanism that was exploitable to tank system owners by smashing cops.
The final answer, whatever it is, needs to reward work by players in a proportionate manner.
My own theoretical spreadsheet calculations for the new Superpower Bounty effects agree with Vingtetun and Goemon's posts above. Multiplying the bounties by adding them to each superpower aligned Faction and then normalising the results back to 100% gives results like this (very similar to Goemon's test results graph above):
Where A,B & C are superpower aligned and D, E & F are not.
Splitting the benefit from the bounty across the applicable superpower Factions (in proportion to each Faction's current influence level?) should mitigate the levelling effect. However, the effect of passing Cmdrs casually handing in those bounties would still tend to depress non-superpower Factions to some degree.
I suppose the question is, should Factions linked to the might of the Empire/Federation received a benefit from that link?
Where A,B & C are superpower aligned and D, E & F are not.
Splitting the benefit from the bounty across the applicable superpower Factions (in proportion to each Faction's current influence level?) should mitigate the levelling effect. However, the effect of passing Cmdrs casually handing in those bounties would still tend to depress non-superpower Factions to some degree.
I suppose the question is, should Factions linked to the might of the Empire/Federation received a benefit from that link?
And why would you do that? Before superpower bounties worked to get influence for the owning station.
It might be unfair, but it's at least "unfair as intended".
Pushing an independent faction with superpower bounties is ... bad design, noone could possibly predict that behaviour from the existence of the feature "superpower bounty". And there is no handbook.
Better get rid of them all together instead of having some half working fixing measure.
Last edited:
You'd need to multiply with a weighting factor of
Influence Level (faction) * Influence Level (superpower total).
Plus get rid of the favoring of transactions vs value.
That'd be the cleanest solution from what people seem to expect.
That is one question, which currently is answered (by the game implementation) with "yes".
Another question is:
How should the superpowers handle bounties?
Current implementation points to a machiavellian "Divide et Impera" strategy. Treat all equally and prevent anyone getting too strong.
As opposed to a "no meddling with internal affairs" strategy which would be weighted by influence.
Interesting test goeman. Can you clarify that no ruling faction bounties were cashed - only superpower?
I would draw some different\additional conclusions from the test. The ruling factions influence was reduced but not ruined. It seems to have found a lower equilibrium point.
It also highlights the bgs complexity. Few systems operate in isolation. Elections in 2 other systems had a significant impact on outcomes. Likely some similarly complex interactions were happening in some of the examples posted on this thread.
It also takes significant bounty input to get these results. Such activity is largely confined to grinding spots or areas where groups are actively operating. Any sort of significant activity has significant bgs outcomes, obviously! One has to ask whether these effects are intended by FD or not and indeed that the intention is.
If the intention is to prevent runaway growth and add more dynamism in system through addional conflicts one would have to conclude that it is a successful change. Whether that makes for better gameplay is a very open question.
I would draw some different\additional conclusions from the test. The ruling factions influence was reduced but not ruined. It seems to have found a lower equilibrium point.
It also highlights the bgs complexity. Few systems operate in isolation. Elections in 2 other systems had a significant impact on outcomes. Likely some similarly complex interactions were happening in some of the examples posted on this thread.
It also takes significant bounty input to get these results. Such activity is largely confined to grinding spots or areas where groups are actively operating. Any sort of significant activity has significant bgs outcomes, obviously! One has to ask whether these effects are intended by FD or not and indeed that the intention is.
If the intention is to prevent runaway growth and add more dynamism in system through addional conflicts one would have to conclude that it is a successful change. Whether that makes for better gameplay is a very open question.
Last edited:
at least from our side, and if none of the newer players helping with that pressed the wrong button - yes.
this is of course up to perspective. if someone is good with controlling factions at ~40% it is a lower equillibrium point, if somebody wants to expand and grow that faction, his work on influence is ruined. it could make amazing BGS sniping --- whenever a faction backed by a player group tries to expand from a system with more than one superpower faction present (being superpower alligned or not), do not shoot system security, do not smuggle to their markets, send in the bounty hunting wing! i should ask the diamond frogs for a franchise of this concept
it actually doesn't (depending on population), as superpower bounties in a multi-superpower alligned minor faction system are cancelling each other out. in my other test i see influence distributions of ~10% through 3 bounty redeems, with the non-superpower alligned controlling minor faction loosing 3-4 % from it, and the strongest superpower alligned faction loosing 1-2% by 3 superpower bounty redeems - as that faction is at 20-25%, i assume if it would be at 50%, it would loose roughly 2-3% by 3 superpower bounty redeems - only half of what we pulled off in the testing system cashing in ~100 superpower bounties.
exactly. i somehow doubt that FDEVs intention was to make it harder for superpower alligned player groups to grow and expand their factions, and to instigate inner-superpower conflits with that mechanic. superpower bounties should give a reason to allign a minor faction with a superpower if any ... as it is now, only superpower alligned minor factions in system without other superpower alligned minor factions are winning from this change.
Regardless of the superpower mechanic, there is one simple problem (that is made worse by it).
2 factions in a system, 1 at 60% the other at 40%
If effort is done for both, but marginally higher for the leading faction, that faction will drop. It will NOT reward the one with the highest contribution as far as we can tell:
Take a 5 and 4 point "effort" for the two factions.
65 vs 44 - do the calculation back down to a % influence at the end and you have a 0.4% drop for the higher one and a comparable rise for the lower one, despite the effort for one being higher than the other.
Translate this to the spread of influence boosts being added to multiple lower superpower factions and you can see how it has a natural nuking effect on the owning faction despite their work.
2 factions in a system, 1 at 60% the other at 40%
If effort is done for both, but marginally higher for the leading faction, that faction will drop. It will NOT reward the one with the highest contribution as far as we can tell:
Take a 5 and 4 point "effort" for the two factions.
65 vs 44 - do the calculation back down to a % influence at the end and you have a 0.4% drop for the higher one and a comparable rise for the lower one, despite the effort for one being higher than the other.
Translate this to the spread of influence boosts being added to multiple lower superpower factions and you can see how it has a natural nuking effect on the owning faction despite their work.
now - i've been modelling alternative methods that reward hard work AND the size of the faction.... to try and work on a fairer model idea
If you take the total effort for a faction and find the difference between that and the mean contribution across all factions, then apply this DIFFERENCE to the final number, then reduce down to a percentage, in my models it balances quite nicely. Still testing edge cases where high influence is there for 1 faction....
Hmmmm. It's a knotty problem, sure.
so - 4 factions, 1 at 40, 3 at 20. the 3 lower ones contribute a value of "4" to the increase and the higher "1"
the higher faction drops 2%, they all rise 0.75
same model, 1 at 70, 3 at 10, same effort - owning drops 2, others rise 1
same model, owning faction at 70%, others at 10 - all effort goes to the owning faction, nothing to everyone else, owning faction rises 3%
same model, same start point, everyone does the same effort - percentages don't change.
I like this.... and seems to cause stability nicely and means that low influence factions have to work that little bit harder to gain a boost, without allowing the leading faction to accelerate away.
Spreadsheet with 3 cases in it is below: Feel free to copy and test.... I really LIKE this method
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f76u00i093brqsv/influence change ideas.xlsx?dl=0
The main thing is that superpower bounties, as they are spread amongst multiple factions, affect the average and have a far more muted effect.
If you take the total effort for a faction and find the difference between that and the mean contribution across all factions, then apply this DIFFERENCE to the final number, then reduce down to a percentage, in my models it balances quite nicely. Still testing edge cases where high influence is there for 1 faction....
Hmmmm. It's a knotty problem, sure.
so - 4 factions, 1 at 40, 3 at 20. the 3 lower ones contribute a value of "4" to the increase and the higher "1"
the higher faction drops 2%, they all rise 0.75
same model, 1 at 70, 3 at 10, same effort - owning drops 2, others rise 1
same model, owning faction at 70%, others at 10 - all effort goes to the owning faction, nothing to everyone else, owning faction rises 3%
same model, same start point, everyone does the same effort - percentages don't change.
I like this.... and seems to cause stability nicely and means that low influence factions have to work that little bit harder to gain a boost, without allowing the leading faction to accelerate away.
Spreadsheet with 3 cases in it is below: Feel free to copy and test.... I really LIKE this method
https://www.dropbox.com/s/f76u00i093brqsv/influence change ideas.xlsx?dl=0
The main thing is that superpower bounties, as they are spread amongst multiple factions, affect the average and have a far more muted effect.
Last edited: