BGS Questions

[MathRapter]

I have numerous BGS questions that I cannot seem to find an answer on. Previously, my forte was PVP but as I've aged with a family now...PVE and BGS is all I have time for. So, I should preface this with I have read the majority of old and new BGS guides out there, including all of the nearly 90 pages of the 2024 complete BGS guide. I understand the revisions from a transactional based system to a bucket based system. So, here comes my plethora of questions:

• Trades for negative or positive influence - does distance still play a factor?
  • For example, if I wanted to support one minor faction that only has a surface medium pad, and a second favorable minifaction has platform station in orbit with net positive trade between the two, will this adversely (hopefully) affect the primary minor faction that has the primary station?
• Which is quicker to tank reputation of a undesired minor faction - intentionally trading at a loss or intentionally failing passenger missions?
• Murder used to be the most viable method to send a faction into retreat - is this still the case?
• Bulk crimes used to be a viable way to cause issues, e.g. dumping a T9's full load of biowaste outside a station - is this still the case?
• Recommendations obtaining bulk black market items that are profitable? Does black market trading for a non-controlling minor faction even have an affect on influence?

Also accepting any other recommendations where efficiency of time is the name of the game - or any recommended mercenary type BGS crews to wing under?

 

[Jmanis]

• Trades for negative or positive influence - does distance still play a factor?
  • For example, if I wanted to support one minor faction that only has a surface medium pad, and a second favorable minifaction has platform station in orbit with net positive trade between the two, will this adversely (hopefully) affect the primary minor faction that has the primary station?

I don't really get your example, but in-short

• If you earn a profit from a trade, the faction that owns that station you traded at will gain influence
• If you earn a loss from a trade, the faction that owns the station you traded at will lose influence

• Which is quicker to tank reputation of a undesired minor faction - intentionally trading at a loss or intentionally failing passenger missions?

Neither? Both? It depends on a bunch of things. Failing missions will tank your rep, which means you can take less missions. Trading for a loss, the difficulty is finding a substantial enough loss to trade.

It's easier to just work for other factions that aren't that faction; it's kinda the same effect (kinda... dont want to do the maths now...)

• Murder used to be the most viable method to send a faction into retreat - is this still the case?

My understanding is it's better not to murder, just assault and run. Just note though, that's not something that causes retreat, only reduces influence (which causes retreat), so it's no different to trading for a loss or failing missions.

• Bulk crimes used to be a viable way to cause issues, e.g. dumping a T9's full load of biowaste outside a station - is this still the case?

Only crimes which attract a bounty cause influence loss, afaik.

• Recommendations obtaining bulk black market items that are profitable? Does black market trading for a non-controlling minor faction even have an affect on influence?

Black market trading has a negative influence on the faction that owns the station it occurs at, unless it's an anarchy, in which case it has a positive effect.

On other recommendations... unfortunately this is Elite: Best Friends. Negative influence or effects are largely designed as "fail states " or punitive measures. They work in some niche situations, but it's clunky as.

Your best bet is, support the faction you want to see succeed... or support everyone except the faction you want to see fail.

 

[MathRapter]

• Trades for negative or positive influence - does distance still play a factor?
  • For example, if I wanted to support one minor faction that only has a surface medium pad, and a second favorable minifaction has platform station in orbit with net positive trade between the two, will this adversely (hopefully) affect the primary minor faction that has the primary station?

I don't really get your example, but in-short

• If you earn a profit from a trade, the faction that owns that station you traded at will gain influence
• If you earn a loss from a trade, the faction that owns the station you traded at will lose influence

Here's a mockup of the situation:

Say for example you were doing BGS in Sol (arbitrary system picked) and Abraham Liconln with a favorable party orbited the body of a planet with the main port for the faction you support. So if I picked up Bauxite/Slaves etc from the planetside port, delivered them to the orbital, and then returned a commodity that is in demand on the planet side. Would this loop create positive influence for those two faction.

Or scenario 2: If you were in Sol and the planet side port and the orbital were controlled by the same faction could you induce negative influence by trading negatively between them?

Why this is an important question to know:
Time. It boils down to time. If I can do the trade loop intersystem, it would be far more efficient. Hence the question of asking if distance is a factor - do I need to jump 20LY to make the influence count?

My understanding is it's better not to murder, just assault and run. Just note though, that's not something that causes retreat, only reduces influence (which causes retreat), so it's no different to trading for a loss or failing missions.

Interested in knowing more about this - is it because you can assault far more people without attracting the attention of ATS?

Neither? Both? It depends on a bunch of things. Failing missions will tank your rep, which means you can take less missions. Trading for a loss, the difficulty is finding a substantial enough loss to trade.

It's easier to just work for other factions that aren't that faction; it's kinda the same effect (kinda... dont want to do the maths now...)

Would like to know what qualifies as a substantial enough loss to trade?

I appreciate you response, still learning as much as I can.

 

[Jmanis]

Here's a mockup of the situation:

Say for example you were doing BGS in Sol (arbitrary system picked) and Abraham Liconln with a favorable party orbited the body of a planet with the main port for the faction you support. So if I picked up Bauxite/Slaves etc from the planetside port, delivered them to the orbital, and then returned a commodity that is in demand on the planet side. Would this loop create positive influence for those two faction.

Or scenario 2: If you were in Sol and the planet side port and the orbital were controlled by the same faction could you induce negative influence by trading negatively between them?

Why this is an important question to know:
Time. It boils down to time. If I can do the trade loop intersystem, it would be far more efficient. Hence the question of asking if distance is a factor - do I need to jump 20LY to make the influence count?

So, I think I understand what you're saying, but you're overcomplicating it somewhat.

All that matters is "Did you turn a profit selling something at this market?"
If the answer is yes, the faction who owns the station gains influence.
If the answer is no, the faction who owns the station loses influence.

The source and destination markets have no bearing on this... but explicitly, yes, you could do the loop like you said and help/hinder as-necessary.

Interested in knowing more about this - is it because you can assault far more people without attracting the attention of ATS?

I'll page @Rubbernuke here as he knows more, but basically -ve influence is caused by violent crimes. This occurs at the time a bounty is incurred for the crime committed. That means, a negative effect is incurred for assault, and another for murder, but to contrast the two.

• Assault is far quicker (one shot, as opposed to killing the target... you could tag a dozen ships and jump out faster than you destroy just one)
• You don't gain notoriety for assault

It's worth calling out... the faction who owns the ship is almost irrelevant. The negative effect occurs for the jurisdiction the crime is committed in.
That is, you're in Jurisdiction owned by Faction A, and attack/destroy a clean ship owned by Faction B. You will get a bounty issued by Faction A, and so Faction A suffers negative influence. Faction B is unaffected.

Would like to know what qualifies as a substantial enough loss to trade?

I'm not aware of more contemporary info, but @goemon (who may no longer be around?) put this together which I think is still current. @Ian Doncaster may have more info?

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'll page @Rubbernuke here as he knows more, but basically -ve influence is caused by violent crimes.

Pretty much this- from tests done lone ago assaults were found to be 1/4 of a full murder INF wise and do not (bar a few rare edge cases IIRC) trigger ATR.

Its a cheese tactic but is a lot cheaper (and safer) than eliminating sec.

As an interesting aside, this 'loophole' does not work in Powerplay where (IIRC) merits are only awarded on destruction.

 

[MathRapter]

Thank you - I appreciate all the advice.

 

[Walter2]

• If you earn a profit from a trade, the faction that owns that station you traded at will gain influence
• If you earn a loss from a trade, the faction that owns the station you traded at will lose influence

Under normal circumstances, but is there anything else broken in addition to Expansions?

 

[MathRapter]

Are combat bonds from thargoid hunting beneficial for BGS influence?

 

[the100thmonkey]

Are combat bonds from thargoid hunting beneficial for BGS influence?

No, because A) the bonds are issued by the Pilot's Federation, not one of the local factions and B) they're not bounties.

Bounties only have an effect if cashed in a system where the issuing faction is present. Bonds have no influence outcome outside of the conflict they were issued as part of.

AX bonds are different again, as they are issued as part of a superpower war.