If you don't do the Final kill shot, does it still effect influence and status for faction in the BGS...

[GraphiteGB]

just a quick question
So if you are killing ships but a planet surface or rock in ring does the final kill damage, does the death still lower that faction's status... If in anarchy, government system...

 

[Darth Ender]

that would be super hard to test. 1 death isn't going to make a noticeable change in the faction status and you'd have to be sure nobody else was doing anything.

I kinda doubt there's a distinction being made though. whatever the client reports as being destroyed would probably count as a negative for the faction in question regardless of who or what caused the destruction. Probably even npc vs npc.

 

[GraphiteGB]

that would be super hard to test. 1 death isn't going to make a noticeable change in the faction status and you'd have to be sure nobody else was doing anything.

I kinda doubt there's a distinction being made though. whatever the client reports as being destroyed would probably count as a negative for the faction in question regardless of who or what caused the destruction. Probably even npc vs npc.

So translation Yes every death in the instance is a negative effect so save your ammo and let gravity destroy ships on planets... OK... Ta..

 

[Darth Ender]

So translation Yes every death in the instance is a negative effect so save your ammo and let gravity destroy ships on planets... OK... Ta..

That's my edumicated guess based on what would be easiest for fdev to implement and lead to the least amount of exploits that players could complain about.

I dont think anyone has taken the extreme measures of actually trying to test this scenario out and verified if it's true or false.

 

[Maolagin]

So translation Yes every death in the instance is a negative effect so save your ammo and let gravity destroy ships on planets... OK... Ta..

I don't think so, no.

If you have previously shot up a ship and then they explode due to some other factor, unless too much time has passed you'll still get a bounty, and as far as I know it's the bounty issuance that triggers the BGS effect. I'm unclear on whether killing ships in anarchy has reduced or actually no effect, but if there is a BGS effect there I strongly suspect that it's triggered by the same test. Just parking in say a hi-rez and letting police kill pirates around you will not, on its own, do anything to the local BGS.

 

[Jmanis]

My understanding is that yes, it does, but note that "violent crime" is the trigger, and will impact the faction whose jurisdiction the crime occurs in, not the faction the ship belongs to. I had heard assaulting but not killing ships is a good way to hurt a faction without gaining notoriety.

EDIT: Ooof, somehow hit enter on this too early

 

[goemon]

i have not found any effect of kills testing bountyhunting in 2021, differently to 2016 and 2017. so my impression is: a kill itself has no influence effect anymore. the effect of killing clean ships comes by fines and crimes (which there is none in anarchy). note that frontier 3.3 livestream table does not list murder anymore, but violent crimes. while the january 2016 newsletter listed murder.

 

[goemon]

generally i'd suggest first testing of kills having any influence effect. for exampel shooting 20+ miners of 1 faction in a no-traffic-anarchy system res.

 

[Darth Ender]

destroying ships has to be a thing that the bgs responds to or you wouldn't be able to shift it in anarchy systems the same way you shift it in other systems

faction influence shouldn't really care about crime values (what you get as a fine or bounty). (edit. shouldn't only care about.)

That would seem like a bug. Since the reason why faction influence goes down when destroying a ship is the extrajudicial decrease in population (your sampled simulated population in the instance).

If fines and bounties was the deciding factor, then doing any kind of crime (smuggling etc) and getting caught, would decrease the controlling faction influence? I'm not sure how you would confer such crime negative impacts to the other factions since what is legal or not is determined by the controlling faction. And there would be signifcantly less means of decreasing faction influence in anarchy systems.

That seems quite overcomplicated and opaque. Undermining a faction shouldn't require anything more than the result to have an effect since it's the result that is given as reason for why there's an effect at all. So it shouldn't matter who or how that result came to be. Crime can be an additional factor, but I would think that would be an exclusive supplemental impact to the controlling faction.

 

[Darth Ender]

I don't think so, no.

If you have previously shot up a ship and then they explode due to some other factor, unless too much time has passed you'll still get a bounty, and as far as I know it's the bounty issuance that triggers the BGS effect. I'm unclear on whether killing ships in anarchy has reduced or actually no effect, but if there is a BGS effect there I strongly suspect that it's triggered by the same test. Just parking in say a hi-rez and letting police kill pirates around you will not, on its own, do anything to the local BGS.

Not saying this is how it actually happens (though it would make pretty good sense if it was behaving this way). But here's how you can have npc on npc activity be counted but it look like it's not.

Lets say Fdev was pretty crafty in the early days and coded the instances to reflect the current state of the system pretty accurately.

We would expect then that the average number of ships you see in an instance destroying others to mimic their influence levels (or the trajectory those influence levels are trying to balance out to given the current state). This destruction would go along with the simulated positive activities being simulated (trading, mining, bounty hunting, cops).

So that if you were to just sit as an observer, you wouldn't see any change to the faction influences any different than if you hadn't sat in observing it at all because the instance is designed to reflect the BGS. But the BGS could still be counting them all the same. Then saving a miner (something you may not get paid to do) could be tallied as a positive for the faction the miner is from because it's a miner the simulation in that instance was otherwise going to eliminate potentially. Tallying positives and negatives to factions doesn't need to be complicated at all in this scenario, it's simple and straight forward. The player could influence, or not, it doesn't matter who gets credit or not for what activity. The calculus is the same regardless of system type or crime and punishment. Turning in bounties, fines, etc would all be supplemental ways to impact faction influence that would be highly tied to the controlling faction or the faction you turn into.

 

[goemon]

That seems quite overcomplicated and opaque. ... Undermining a faction shouldn't require anything more than the result to have an effect since it's the result that is given as reason for why there's an effect at all. So it shouldn't matter who or how that result came to be. Crime can be an additional factor, but I would think that would be an exclusive supplemental impact to the controlling faction.

well. you are talking about how it should work, i'm talking about how by the looks of it it actually works.
the bgs does a very good job in make-believe, more than once i have shredded my own damn-sure assumptions about how something works by testing.

from a more technical point you have to think about the transaction a player does interacting with the game. and the fact that neither an instance nor a system exists if nobody is there/access it.

while i personally preferred the earlier model, where a kill of a ship of any faction present in system reduced that factions influence, even without crime to it, i couldn't see any such thing testing bountyhunting again 2021. probably because it got a problem for controlling factions spawning pirates more often in bountyhunting farm spots where bounties are exported next door.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Unless its changed, assaults (where you shoot but do not kill) count as roughly 1/4 of a murder and for obvious reasons count even with no kill. It was / is a crazy loophole where you can be naughty BGS wise and never get notoriety or massive bounties by going round tagging ships and logging out.

Murders affect the controlling faction the most, but if you have a faction that controls an asset that has a sphere of influence (like a base) that spawns things (ships, guns, power generators etc) the BGS effects go to them.

Interestingly Archons R5 bonus negates all fines and bounties by zeroing them (and resetting when you leave the instance) which is fun but also negates all negative BGS effects linked to that action.

 

[Jmanis]

destroying ships has to be a thing that the bgs responds to or you wouldn't be able to shift it in anarchy systems the same way you shift it in other systems

Sure, but that assumes anarchy does operate the same way as other, lawful systems.

My understanding is that you can't shift the BGS in anarchy systems the same way, for exactly these reasons; it's the commission of a crime that has the effect, within the relevant jurisdiction, not the destruction of a ship. So "murderhoboing" has no effect in anarchy jurisdictions.

If fines and bounties was the deciding factor, then doing any kind of crime (smuggling etc) and getting caught, would decrease the controlling faction influence? I'm not sure how you would confer such crime negative impacts to the other factions since what is legal or not is determined by the controlling faction. And there would be signifcantly less means of decreasing faction influence in anarchy systems.

Being caught smuggling doesn't affect because it's not a violent crime. The table FD featured in one of their BGS videos was very explicit to call out violent crime (as opposed to starport infractions, trespass or smuggling fines) only as a contributing factor for negative influence. And if it's not a crime, it's just violence, and isn't the same.

And a minor clarification... "what is legal or not is determined by the controlling faction" is a bit ambiguous. "Controlling faction" would generally refer to the system controlling faction, but that does not determine what is legal; jurisdiction determines legality.

The system controller has jurisdiction over the whole system except for pockets of a few Mm radius around facilities owned by other factions; in those situations the facility owner has jurisdiction. So you can definitely commit violent crime within those jurisdictional pockets and have it negatively affect that owner.

Of course, if a faction owns no assets, then they cannot be attacked this way; this is the double-edged sword of asset ownership for a faction... while you can reap all the influence gains of trade and bounties earned within your jurisdiction, you can also be attacked in ways that factions without assets cannot (and why undockable surface/space assets are nothing more than a liability, as there are no benefits to their ownership)

 

[angusmadmac1]

I had always thought blowing up ships affected the BGS (bounty and fines ) but also damaging them til they drop cargo also affects the BGS ? I always preferred negative trading your name doesn't go on the bounty board and with how easy it is to make credits nowadays .

 

[Rubbernuke]

I had always thought blowing up ships affected the BGS (bounty and fines ) but also damaging them til they drop cargo also affects the BGS ? I always preferred negative trading your name doesn't go on the bounty board and with how easy it is to make credits nowadays .

Shooting is an assault and selling stolen cargo counts like smuggling.

Negative trading IIRC has been rightly nerfed since its yet another loophole.

 

[goemon]

Interestingly Archons R5 bonus negates all fines and bounties by zeroing them (and resetting when you leave the instance) which is fun but also negates all negative BGS effects linked to that action.

very interesting indeed!

 

[goemon]

Interestingly Archons R5 bonus negates all fines and bounties by zeroing them (and resetting when you leave the instance) which is fun but also negates all negative BGS effects linked to that action.

question on that. does that mean you get fines and bounties in instances, but at leaving the instance it is reset to zero?

 

[angusmadmac1]

Shooting is an assault and selling stolen cargo counts like smuggling.

Negative trading IIRC has been rightly nerfed since its yet another loophole.

When did this happen , I hadn't picked up on this and admittedly it was a year or so ( maybe 2?) When a big PF tried to bully a Small PF out of a system . Thanks

 

[Jmanis]

Shooting is an assault and selling stolen cargo counts like smuggling.

Negative trading IIRC has been rightly nerfed since its yet another loophole.

Getting OT slightly, but depending on what you mean by negative trading, i may disagree.

I definitely agree that binding the influence/ econ outcome to whether or not the commander makes a profit was objectively bad, but i disagree that trading to cause negative influence/ effects is inherently bad or a loophole.

Rather, whether you have a positive or negative influence effect and it's magnitude should be bound to the demand in the station (or if you're selling to a supply commodity and essentially undercutting the market owners sales[1])... and selling to zero demand should have a roundly negative effect. Meanwhile the positive or negative econ effect should be bound to whether you make a profit or not. Situations like old-Borann should ruin a faction's economy and influence.

All as a naive first pass, of course.

[1] noting this is also my primary argument as to why selling to an anarchy factions black market should hurt rather than help that faction... now we have the loophole where you can steal from an anarchy faction then sell n it back to the same faction, and they gain influence from the transaction

 

[Rubbernuke]

Getting OT slightly, but depending on what you mean by negative trading, i may disagree.

I definitely agree that binding the influence/ econ outcome to whether or not the commander makes a profit was objectively bad, but i disagree that trading to cause negative influence/ effects is inherently bad or a loophole.

Rather, whether you have a positive or negative influence effect and it's magnitude should be bound to the demand in the station (or if you're selling to a supply commodity and essentially undercutting the market owners sales[1])... and selling to zero demand should have a roundly negative effect. Meanwhile the positive or negative econ effect should be bound to whether you make a profit or not. Situations like old-Borann should ruin a faction's economy and influence.

All as a naive first pass, of course.

[1] noting this is also my primary argument as to why selling to an anarchy factions black market should hurt rather than help that faction... now we have the loophole where you can steal from an anarchy faction then sell n it back to the same faction, and they gain influence from the transaction

To me all negative trading should be smuggling or based on the 'bad' list of commodities, and that there should be an INF link to difficulty and risk, not value.

For me ripping off a local trader should impact my standing, not more widely.