Bypassed Conflicts: Cases and Causes?

If you haven't joined the BGS discord, you should. This topic has come up there several times and there are a number of proposed reasons for this apparent mechanic. But the BGS community doesn't appear, so far, to be in agreement — so I thought I'd make this thread to lay out my experience in the hope that we can figure out how this works.

Bypassed conflicts are "expected" conflicts that don't trigger for reasons other than blocking states. I have encountered this twice in nearly three years.

First Case: HR 7766, 2.5b

The Praetorian Curiate Assembly expanded into this system on 8/26 with the following influence levels:

Gold Comms34.8
Purple
21
United15.3
League11.5
PCA10.7
Workers6.6

Only PCA and Gold Comms are present in other systems. At this time, there were no pending conflicts in the system. We also controlled all other systems we were present in — no blocking states for us.

Our first action in the system was to attempt to push Workers into conflict with PCA. To do this, we put 31 points work into Workers. We expected a pending conflict between Workers and PCA. Here was the result:

Gold Comms33.1
Purple19.6
United15.4
League10.9
Workers10.9
PCA10.1

As you can see, Workers skipped PCA and went straight for League. How odd. I raised this in the BGS discord and a number of other CMDRs offered examples and explanations. I encourage them to share their examples here.

Second Case: Redacted, 40k

We are still working in this system, so faction names have been edited.

Faction A36.4
Faction B26.9
Faction C14.1
Faction D9.9
Faction E7.8
Faction F3.9
Faction G1

Factions A, B, and C are in conflicts elsewhere. Our objective is to keep Faction D, the only other multi-system faction in this system, out of conflict (Factions E, F, G are native and not present elsewhere). To do this we pushed Faction F, intending to trigger a conflict with Faction E. Work done was 15 points.

Here is the result:

Faction A34.8
Faction B23.2
Faction C1222
Faction D11.1
Faction E6.7
Faction F11.1
Faction G1

Faction E has been "skipped." Some proposed explanations:

Maybe the system calculates the list (vector) of factions they would go over and pick the one with the closest inf at the new tick for equalization and conflict, not the one it passes first.

This looks the same as the previous example - faction jumped too much and passed both factions, going war with the closest one at the end - the second one.

It looks like the game saw the work done, calculated that the result should be below 7%, did that result, and caused the faction in question to be leapfrogged.

I view these two cases as different in two key ways: population (and therefore maximum influence gained) and the ending position of the bypassed faction, which in the first case remained above the conflict threshold and in the second case ended below.
 
Same thing happened here.

Population ~2.6b

Faction A 32.9
Faction B 26.6
Faction C 12.7
Faction D 10.7
Faction E 8.7
Faction F 7.5
Faction G 1

Faction F in war, nobody cares about faction G.
The rest is all boom or none, no blocking states for relevant factions.

Started pushing faction E hoping to get election pending with D which resulted in this:


Faction A 31.1
Faction B 25.6
Faction C 12.6
Faction D 10.1
Faction E 12.6
Faction F 7.1
Faction G 1

Now there is war pending with faction C.
 
Yup. This has happened to me before as well. I mentioned it once here and someone (I forget who) basically said yes, when triggering a conflict, it's possible to "skip" a faction if you do enough work to get you above a second faction who can also be entered into a conflict with.

While I'm across how influence gets recalculated between ticks, I've got no idea how it recalculates to force-equalise two factions eligible for conflict.

When questioned about the order of resolving cases where there's multiple opportunities for an expansion or conflict, FD (Dav and Adam I think) basically said "Yes, but it's not useful"... suggesting it's ordered by some back-end UUID alphabetically or something equally useless from a gameplay perspective. In that context, at the end of the day there would be some sequential order that influence calculations and state resolutions etc. need to occur in... given some of the things the BGS does I'd suggest there's a "Naive" caluclation that occurs which will play out something like this.
Assume 1 point per %
Faction A: 50% = 50 points
Faction B: 22% = 22 points
Faction C: 15% = 15 points
Faction D: 12% = 12 points

Do 20 points of work for Faction D (i.e it's on 32 points). Then, breaking it down step by step (sorry if I'm teaching you to suck eggs here)
Point pool: 120
Normalise Faction A = 50/120 =~ 41%... have I switched positions with a faction? No
Normalise Faction B = 22/120 =~ 18%... have I switched positions with a faction? No
Normalise Faction C = 15/120 = 12.5%... have I switched positions with a faction? No
Normalise Faction D = 32/120 =~ 26.6%... have I switched positions with a faction? Yes... who was it?
So D has just overtaken C, and the more powerful B, in one tick, and you're asking the question "Who did I just overtake?"

Realistically, at this point there's a *bunch* of different ways you could skin this to work out who you switched positions with... and frankly without even going near the game mechanics there's arguments for and against going to conflict with *either* B or C e.g
- D should war with C, since C are invested in keeping D below them; or
- D should war with B, since they've risen so quickly that it's drawn the ire of the more powerful faction, and faction C is like "Nope!"

But to look at the actual mechanics... well, throwing on my naive programmer hat, when asked the question "Who did I just overtake?" you could answer "Well, if I want to find out who I just overtook, look at the next faction below me, since they are the faction I just overtook... are the eligible for conflict? Yes" And so D goes to war with B

Of course, the answer you're expecting is "Well, if I want to find out who I just overtook, take the lowest influence of any faction I just overtook." which, in my opinion, is not an obvious answer given that question.

... of course then you can say "Well, what if the question was different?" and you get a whole other set of potential answers.

tl;dr It might not feel like expected behaviour, but I don't think there's actually any correct answer about how this should play out anyway... but on the surface I'd suggest the way the game works is to determine the next lowest faction who is eligible to go to war, of any faction you overtake.
 
Last edited:
All possible ways are equally "correct", checking the nearest skipped faction is just simpler. And simpler means less things that can go wrong.

Also, it works both ways - I remember escaping a conflict because someone pushed a lower faction too much and hit the next faction instead. Oops :)
 
A great response

Two follow-up questions as this thread progresses: has anyone seen a faction bypassed without a conflict triggered by the bypassing faction? I.e., F skips E but isn't pending with D? I feel that the "you pushed too hard" answer is incomplete, and I wonder as well if anyone has recorded cases of this pre-3.1.
 
Two follow-up questions as this thread progresses: has anyone seen a faction bypassed without a conflict triggered by the bypassing faction? I.e., F skips E but isn't pending with D? I feel that the "you pushed too hard" answer is incomplete, and I wonder as well if anyone has recorded cases of this pre-3.1.

If you mean skipping TWO factions without conflict, no. But one, yes.
 
Same thing happened here.

Population ~2.6b

Faction A 32.9
Faction B 26.6
Faction C 12.7
Faction D 10.7
Faction E 8.7
Faction F 7.5
Faction G 1

Faction F in war, nobody cares about faction G.
The rest is all boom or none, no blocking states for relevant factions.

Started pushing faction E hoping to get election pending with D which resulted in this:


Faction A 31.1
Faction B 25.6
Faction C 12.6
Faction D 10.1
Faction E 12.6
Faction F 7.1
Faction G 1

Now there is war pending with faction C.

That's interesting. Had Faction E by chance arrived in the system recently? It was suggested to me that our first experience was related to that.
 
Two follow-up questions as this thread progresses: has anyone seen a faction bypassed without a conflict triggered by the bypassing faction? I.e., F skips E but isn't pending with D? I feel that the "you pushed too hard" answer is incomplete, and I wonder as well if anyone has recorded cases of this pre-3.1.

I can't say I've got evidence of it... but I have a feeling it's happened in a couple situations

Lets say you have:

A = 9%
B = 8%
C = 7%

If both B and C get worked to (notionally) create:
C = 9%
B = 8%
A = 7%

i.e C overtakes A and B, B overtakes A... then A and B go pending conflict... maybe? Again, feel like this has occurred, but definitely wasn't paying attention to it... would go out and verify for sure.

Other situation I can think of is if, while overtaking another faction, the overtaken faction drops influence too low to start a conflict... but that's a bit of a tangent from this topic and only needs two factions for testing. Either way, there's a variety of considerations that could make that swing either way :S
 
Rather than the influence levels you should ask for the system status report. A faction might have its state in the system reported as none, yet if it is in war or election, or pending or cooldown elsewhere, it will not be dragged into conflict. Without the status report you cannot determine what is happening.

There are basic conceptual errors in the BGS, one product is that the report of a faction state is how it affects existing conflict in that system rather than what it is.

Despite all of the BGS analysis, much of which is impressive and painstakingly researched, the designers failed to grasp notions like sovereignty or the minimum population levels and economic conditions necessary for independence. A small mining outpost of a few thousand has four factions, two of the minor ones have the same influence level and go into 'election'- why? What is it supposed to mean?
 
Rather than the influence levels you should ask for the system status report. A faction might have its state in the system reported as none, yet if it is in war or election, or pending or cooldown elsewhere, it will not be dragged into conflict. Without the status report you cannot determine what is happening.

There are basic conceptual errors in the BGS, one product is that the report of a faction state is how it affects existing conflict in that system rather than what it is.

Despite all of the BGS analysis, much of which is impressive and painstakingly researched, the designers failed to grasp notions like sovereignty or the minimum population levels and economic conditions necessary for independence. A small mining outpost of a few thousand has four factions, two of the minor ones have the same influence level and go into 'election'- why? What is it supposed to mean?

Quoting myself:

Bypassed conflicts are "expected" conflicts that don't trigger for reasons other than blocking states.
Please read that as including cooldown periods.
 
The pending and cooldown conflict states from other systems aren't mentioned on the ship 'System Status' tab, that is why you need to use the 'Factions Status Summary' tab when docked. Otherwise you won't be collecting the right information.
 
The pending and cooldown conflict states from other systems aren't mentioned on the ship 'System Status' tab, that is why you need to use the 'Factions Status Summary' tab when docked. Otherwise you won't be collecting the right information.

The OP's aware of this, as am I, but this is not what the OP is discussing.

If you have three factions with influence, say, A = 10%, B = 12% and C = 14%... if you are trying to get A and B to go into a conflict, and all three of A, B and C are eligible for conflict, you can inadvertently get Faction A to go into conflict with Faction C, if you bump up Faction C too much and overtake both factions, even if B was eligible for a conflict (That is, they have no conflicts pending/cooldown/active as verified by the Faction Status Summary report in a station's local Galnet articles)

I can absolutely guarantee this happens, and is not a case of missing a pending/active/cooldown conflict state, as I've deliberately employed this mechanic on several occasions
 
I don't doubt that a bypass can occur, however if you want to collect data the critical aspect is to confirm the absence of a blocking state. There are also rare occasions where a faction can be equalised in another system without a blocking state, which would still block them elsewhere.

On the outskirts of the bubble most of the factions will be present in two or more factions because of the addition of the land stations. The vast majority of the systems on the outskirts also have few stations in a system. Why would you pick fights with other than the system owner, is it to take assets before you capture the system? Asset ownership data might be relevant?

However the explanation is probably as the OP has it, if two factions are close then you can get a war with the higher one with enough increase. Unless you get sufficient confirmed examples it will be difficult to get further.
 
Back
Top Bottom