Has anybody else noticed how crowded it's getting around here?

[Jmanis]

I'd be happy if Frontier had locked more important systems. But I'm part of the minority who values lore over PvP content.

The BGS is not PvP content though.

That players use it as a de-facto group vs group content is completely aside from it's purpose of providing a living, breathing universe. While I'd happily agree that it might be too easy to flip core-lore systems, it's a shame the BGS is just frozen for all these systems now... I would've assumed there was something that could be done with it.

So if I may ask, what's the current purpose of Investment if not expansion?

It's basically a super-version of boom.

On one side, Boom causes rare mineral prices to go up, changes available missions, and (apparently) makes trade more beneficial as an influence earner. I also believe it affects

Investment basically does that, but even more. It's the combination of Investment, Civil Liberty and Pirate attack that make Void Opals 1.6m a pop. With just Boom, you're looking more at 1.2m (I think?). Without any of these effects, they drop right down to just 120k.

So yeah, Investment just an extreme-boom state.

 

[Misaniovent]

I think this has more to do with a.) the absence of the expansion tax and b.) the removal of repercussions for over expansion than the addition of factions. A number of major groups I am aware of simple do not bother checking their expansions any longer.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

On one side, Boom causes rare mineral prices to go up, changes available missions, and (apparently) makes trade more beneficial as an influence earner. I also believe it affects

Investment basically does that, but even more. It's the combination of Investment, Civil Liberty and Pirate attack that make Void Opals 1.6m a pop. With just Boom, you're looking more at 1.2m (I think?). Without any of these effects, they drop right down to just 120k.

So yeah, Investment just an extreme-boom state.

Investment is also better for local outfitting provision than Boom, though both are somewhat positive.

One thing Investment isn't just "Boom but more so" is in the commodity markets
- Boom tends to give 80% more production, and slightly more demand, but doesn't affect most prices much
- Investment tends to give 10-25% less production, much more demand, significantly raised purchase prices and slightly raised sale prices
Generally Boom is good for buying from and Investment is good for selling to. There are quite a lot of goods which may be very difficult to turn a profit on if bought from Investment.

 

[Johnny Cyclops]

Just witnessed my first expansion making 8 MFs in a system. Totally unexpected. I thought eights only happened when FD placed a PMF request into a 'full' system with seven.

From what I read above, there perhaps should have been a forced retreat for another non-native MF to keep the number at seven. Is that worth me raising a ticket with FD or has it been tried/failed?

 

[FrogsFriend]

Just witnessed my first expansion making 8 MFs in a system. Totally unexpected. I thought eights only happened when FD placed a PMF request into a 'full' system with seven.

From what I read above, there perhaps should have been a forced retreat for another non-native MF to keep the number at seven. Is that worth me raising a ticket with FD or has it been tried/failed?

I think there's already an open ticket for this... and a thread linking to it here in the BGS section.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

webapp

issues.frontierstore.net

(You could always get eights persisting if the invasion conflict ended in an exact draw, but that was rare even before the switch to "best of seven")

 

[AnvadicA]

I have also noticed that almost all nearby systems have 7 factions. And this fact makes easier to plan the expansion. Previosly I had to push my faction in the closest system to the system I planned to expand. Today I can choose the exact system I want to expand to, throw out one non-native faction from there (usually it takes 1 week for 1 man playing doing 40+INF/day + 1 week retreat including pending time = 2 weeks total) - and expand from any system that I own. So I have 1 "mother" system with low pop and easy for pushing to 75% (I have all time pending expantion there) - and I expand to everywhere around 20 l.y. to those systems, that I choose by throwing out a faction from there. It is easier, than pushing your faction in the neibouring system through wars with NPC factions to reach 75% and then wait for 10 days pending and expansion...

 

[teje3]

I have also noticed that almost all nearby systems have 7 factions. And this fact makes easier to plan the expansion. Previosly I had to push my faction in the closest system to the system I planned to expand. Today I can choose the exact system I want to expand to, throw out one non-native faction from there (usually it takes 1 week for 1 man playing doing 40+INF/day + 1 week retreat including pending time = 2 weeks total) - and expand from any system that I own. So I have 1 "mother" system with low pop and easy for pushing to 75% (I have all time pending expantion there) - and I expand to everywhere around 20 l.y. to those systems, that I choose by throwing out a faction from there. It is easier, than pushing your faction in the neibouring system through wars with NPC factions to reach 75% and then wait for 10 days pending and expansion...

It is ok if ypu can retreat factions.
In the system where we are, it is quite hard to retreat and there is no place available for further expansion. It becomes a real problem

 

[AnvadicA]

In a high activity systems you can use the strategy of fixing the retreating faction by pusing other factions to sensless wars in that system.
Example in a 7 faction system like that:
1. Faction A = 25% (conflict with Faction B)
2. Faction B = 25% (conflict with Faction A)
3. Faction C = 15% (conflict with Faction D)
4. Faction D = 15% (conflict with Faction C)
5. Faction E = 9% (conflict with Faction F)
6. Faction F = 9% (conflict with Faction E)
7. Faction G (non-native) = 2% (retreat)

Factions A-F are fixed. Nobody will be able to push Faction G higner than 2%.
The only thing you have to do is:
1. Any Faction in a pair needs an asset to be able to start a conflict.
2. You have to push conflicts to a draw. Because all you need is - time.

It seems to be difficult to achieve. But beleive me - it is not!

 

[teje3]

In a high activity systems you can use the strategy of fixing the retreating faction by pusing other factions to sensless wars in that system.
Example in a 7 faction system like that:
1. Faction A = 25% (conflict with Faction B)
2. Faction B = 25% (conflict with Faction A)
3. Faction C = 15% (conflict with Faction D)
4. Faction D = 15% (conflict with Faction C)
5. Faction E = 9% (conflict with Faction F)
6. Faction F = 9% (conflict with Faction E)
7. Faction G (non-native) = 2% (retreat)

Factions A-F are fixed. Nobody will be able to push Faction G higner than 2%.
The only thing you have to do is:
1. Any Faction in a pair needs an asset to be able to start a conflict.
2. You have to push conflicts to a draw. Because all you need is - time.

It seems to be difficult to achieve. But beleive me - it is not!

I could try, but the normal case is that in the system there are a MF with 60% and the rest with around 10%, but without assets. The factions in such a case never go to war state.

Another retreat we are trying is in our system, where we are at 55%. It is really complicated to descend to 25% to make this strategy.

The purposed strategy is very interesting, but unfortunately is not applicable to our last trials.

Currently, we have failed 6 retreats of 8.

 

[Rob At Work]

Adjust the retreat threshold to happen more frequently ...say 5-7.5% -??

afterall, none can disappear completely; they will at a minimum only be present in their home system

 

[Riverside]

Adjust the retreat threshold to happen more frequently ...say 5-7.5% -??

afterall, none can disappear completely; they will at a minimum only be present in their home system

tbh I think cutting out the extra missions directed towards the faction/system would be enough so that random traffic is no longer enough to effectively prevent a retreat. I quite like the idea that if a faction was historically supported but is no longer actively maintained it's presence would naturally retreat.

I remember when the 3.0 changes were announced there was some comment that it would require more effort to maintain a presence in multiple systems. That doesn't currently appear to be the case as far as I can see.

 

[teje3]

tbh I think cutting out the extra missions directed towards the faction/system would be enough so that random traffic is no longer enough to effectively prevent a retreat. I quite like the idea that if a faction was historically supported but is no longer actively maintained it's presence would naturally retreat.

I remember when the 3.0 changes were announced there was some comment that it would require more effort to maintain a presence in multiple systems. That doesn't currently appear to be the case as far as I can see.

A few days ago, i saw one faction in our system was offering many message missions to the neighbor system.
Checking the reason, the same faction was in retreat in this second system.
This day was the first retreat day and it was at 2%.

The next day, this faction was at 7,9%, failing the current retreat.
My group was doing nothing. We were just observers and we didn't see people in the system making missions.

But clearly, there are these easy missions to support the MF in retreat and additionally, it seems that it counts more than normal (my opinion).

This additional support has to be reduced or limited.
I hope there are some changes by the next update this month.

 

[Riverside]

A few days ago, i saw one faction in our system was offering many message missions to the neighbor system.
Checking the reason, the same faction was in retreat in this second system.
This day was the first retreat day and it was at 2%.

The next day, this faction was at 7,9%, failing the current retreat.
My group was doing nothing. We were just observers and we didn't see people in the system making missions.

But clearly, there are these easy missions to support the MF in retreat and additionally, it seems that it counts more than normal (my opinion).

This additional support has to be reduced or limited.
I hope there are some changes by the next update this month.

It doesn't take much to get a low inf faction up a few percent, in a low population system one 5+ inf mission may be enough to get it above 2.5%. If it's the same as for an incumbent faction; I regularly support pirate factions that are at 1.0% from bounty hunting. It's an area of the BGS where a single player can make a significant and noticeable difference, for example to prevent the expansion of another faction from the system.

 

[AnvadicA]

I just want to remind that the faction must be lower than 2.5% on the 5th day of retreat. They can be above 2.5% on day 3 or 4 - it doesn't cancel the retreat. So if you see on day 4, that a faction is above 2.5% you may a) work hard for another faction (the lower inf - the better) or b) work hard by killing factions ships in the system that day (even if you receive bad reputation).
Also, even if you didn't fix three pairs for senseless war, it is better to work for retreat even if you have 1 pair. In this case all influence that you gain for 1 faction will be devided for a loss between 4 factions (instead of 6). In this case the faction you want to retreat will lose more INF.

 

[AnvadicA]

And again, if you have an anarchy faction in a system at 1.0% - it is better to leave it as it is. There is huge number of missions for killing pirates in neibouring systems. If you rise the anarchy faction and someone will get killing mission somewhere - a lot of influence will go for a faction, that you want to retreat.