Influence caps/gains and the wine analogy

Psalm 23:5

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.

The Wine analogy is perfect and symbolic. The Wine bottle never empties but always fills. My cup runneth over with the Blessings of the Creator, for the BGS is my friend and each transaction maketh my cup runneth over in fine Wine.
 
Lemme see if I have this straight.

There are 100 Inf+s in the system for each tic.

If no CMDR traffic, nothing changes.

If one CMDR does 10 Inf+ actions (two inf+++++ missions for instance) then the faction he worked for (the controlling if he sold carto data or traded for a profit/bounty hunted) gains that many +s at the tick? And it comes from all other factions per their presence in the system.

What about multiple CMDRs working for the same faction? Is the ten + capped on a per system or per CMDR basis? (My experience would tend to indicate per system).

And then we get into how multiple CMDRS working at cross purposes interact...

And all this seems to contradict something I read fairly recently about a log formula based on system population limiting how much a faction's influence can change per tick.
 
60/30 rule was the one I applied to the influence gains/falls and have never been able to disprove it.

PS not that I have tried recently, but i did in the early days (and I used Lager)
 
Last edited:

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
Lemme see if I have this straight.

There are 100 Inf+s in the system for each tic.

If no CMDR traffic, nothing changes.

If one CMDR does 10 Inf+ actions (two inf+++++ missions for instance) then the faction he worked for (the controlling if he sold carto data or traded for a profit/bounty hunted) gains that many +s at the tick? And it comes from all other factions per their presence in the system.

What about multiple CMDRs working for the same faction? Is the ten + capped on a per system or per CMDR basis? (My experience would tend to indicate per system).

And then we get into how multiple CMDRS working at cross purposes interact...

And all this seems to contradict something I read fairly recently about a log formula based on system population limiting how much a faction's influence can change per tick.
The cap IS related to 1/log pop - its an analogy! The effort required to reach it is the same in all systems (with the no other activity proviso) the amout of influence increase it produces is less in larger systems. Its quite possible that a value for population based on the PowerPlay CC value is used by the BGS (though against that it doesn't seem quantised). The raw points available in each tick - the volume of the bottle, is a higher % of a low pop system than a high pop one
 
Last edited:
I think I found the BGS Wine rack



And personally I don't mind either Red or White. Depends on the quality though. Bit more fruity is always good imho.
 
Last edited:
I just found myself explaining how influence gains are calculated in Elite to someone else, who was having trouble with the maths, using a wine-based analogy. It breaks down in a couple of places but it sort of works.
  • In each tick the factions present "compete" over a bottle of wine. That bottle of wine is formed by taking a fraction of a bottle of wine proportional to the percentage of system's wine that they own... so a system with 75% influence provides 75% of the bottle.
  • If there is no activity in the system, then the wine is returned and nothing happens.
  • If one faction does 10 or more BGS transactions net (ie the difference between +ve and -ve activities) and no one else does anything, they get the bottle of wine added to their cellar.
  • If that faction does fewer than 10 BGS transactions and no one else does anything, then they get x/10 of the bottle of wine, and the rest is returned pro-rata to how it was initially staked.
  • The bottle that is played for is the same size regardless of the total wine production of the system, consequently the % gain is smaller in large population system. This is both how caps arise and why they are related to 1/log population
  • If more than one faction has net positive BGS transactions, then their % of the total points determines how much of the bottle of wine returns to them. This is why there is a diminishing returns effect, getting closer to, but never quite as much as the unopposed gain, even with very high BGS transaction counts
  • Since the end result is expressed as a % change, this explains why the amount gained decreases as the starting influence increases. It also explains why it takes fewer BGS points to raise a low starting influence faction when more than one faction has positive points.
seems like i've given you your allotment of reps so +1


  • If there is no activity in the system, then the wine is returned and nothing happens.
^^ are you really really sure about this one?

also, can you clarify if negative influence has a cap. recent threads have suggested that negative influence is bottomless but i haven't seen this to be the case. again, mileage may vary a pilot's bgs experience.
 
Mine's a well aged Malbec....
Try a DOCG Barolo Reserva

One as old as you can find

"Wines from the Barolo DOCG must be 100% Nebbiolo and aged at least 38 months, 18 of those in wood barrels. The term “Riserva” can be used on the label when the wine has been cellared for at least five years."

https://vinepair.com/wine-101/barolo-wine-guide/

Look for one from Marengo Vinyard
 
Last edited:

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
seems like i've given you your allotment of reps so +1


  • If there is no activity in the system, then the wine is returned and nothing happens.
^^ are you really really sure about this one?

also, can you clarify if negative influence has a cap. recent threads have suggested that negative influence is bottomless but i haven't seen this to be the case. again, mileage may vary a pilot's bgs experience.
yes we are certain than no activity results in no change - we've got one system that didn't shange fo 16 weeks. The negative effect is harder to explain by the analogy - but think of it this way - instead of your wine being put directly into the "prize" bottle, its held separately. If you get negative points less than 10, that % ie x/10 of your stake is distributed to the other factions after they have taken their share back of the positive bottle, pro rata with their initial contribution. If your transaction score is more than -10, you lose it all. If/when negative caps are/were missing, instead of stopping when all your wine has been redisctributed, your stake is replaced from your wine store, x/10 times.

It sort of holds up!
 

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
Try a DOCG Barolo Reserva

One as old as you can find

"Wines from the Barolo DOCG must be 100% Nebbiolo and aged at least 38 months, 18 of those in wood barrels. The term “Riserva” can be used on the label when the wine has been cellared for at least five years."

https://vinepair.com/wine-101/barolo-wine-guide/

Look for one from Marengo Vinyard
.

Its a damn fine wine. I'm partial to an Amerone - but its an expensive habit to drink well-aged ones.
 
yes we are certain than no activity results in no change - we've got one system that didn't shange fo 16 weeks. The negative effect is harder to explain by the analogy - but think of it this way - instead of your wine being put directly into the "prize" bottle, its held separately. If you get negative points less than 10, that % ie x/10 of your stake is distributed to the other factions after they have taken their share back of the positive bottle, pro rata with their initial contribution. If your transaction score is more than -10, you lose it all. If/when negative caps are/were missing, instead of stopping when all your wine has been redisctributed, your stake is replaced from your wine store, x/10 times.

It sort of holds up!
i should rephrase. i understand if a commander is not in an instance an instance doesn't exist, therefore npc's cannot have an effect. what i was referring to is the scenario where a commander parks in quiet system and does nothing but exist in the instance. i've seen debate on this in the large bgs thread but have seen any definitive answer. only suggestions this may be the case.

as for influence the negative negative is throwing me. are you saying that negative points less than 10 is -11 or -20 and a transaction score of more than 10 is really >-10 so -9 or -1?

if that is the case then what i read is if your attempts at negating influence of a given faction doesn't amount to -10 or more then all that negative influence is lost? i think i'm missing something.
 

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
We've not tested Heisenberg, but I have flown through static systems to track them and they stay static.

The analogy is suffering from being pushed past the point of usefulness I fear -10 will lose the cap, -1 to -9 will lose a fraction of the cap and if there is no negative cap in place then it is possible to lose more than the cap.
 
Nice thread! One question on the OP:

  • In each tick the factions present "compete" over a bottle of wine. That bottle of wine is formed by taking a fraction of a bottle of wine proportional to the percentage of system's wine that they own... so a system with 75% influence provides 75% of the bottle.
Should this read:

  • In each tick the factions present "compete" over a bottle of wine. That bottle of wine is formed by taking a fraction of a bottle of wine proportional to the percentage of system's wine that they own... so a faction with 75% influence provides 75% of the bottle.
because I thought the Influences in a system always added up to 100%, but then I am no BGS expert, as I constantly find :)
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom