Influence caps/gains and the wine analogy

[Jane Turner]

This illustrates the effect of relative starting influence on the amount of effort you have to put in to break even v a 10point BGS effort for another faction in a two-faction system

I'll add it to the 1st post

 

[Abil Midena]

On that last chart Jane, how much you'd have to do depends on each factions starting inf, so...

Example 1: A faction at 11 % inf has a commander put in 10 pts of inf (~90 effective). For that to be countered by a commander whose faction is at 21% (about 60 effective), you'd have to do ~ 90-60 = 30 pts, about 50% more work, so 1.5*10= 15 pts of inf.

Example 2: Likewise, A faction at 41 % inf has a commander put in 10 pts of inf (~20 effective). For that to be countered by a commander whose faction is at 11% (about 90 effective), you'd only have to do ~ 20-90 = 70 --> 20/70=~30 %, so 0.3*10 = 3 pts of inf.

The actual effect in both cases would be seen as both factions gaining the same amount of inf, as all other factions fall by some relative amount, based on their starting inf.

Is that using the chart right?

I could see how this would help if you are alone in a system trying to manage multiple factions' movement.

 

[Jane Turner]

The above is in a two faction system. But yes the relative influence of the two factions in a multi-faction system comes into play.

 

[User Deleted]

Every once and a while you stumble upon a post about the inner workings of the BGS that improves your efficiency by an order of magnitude, this is definitely one of those posts!

I've got one question that might be better suited for @goemon as he's the author of the excellent [BGS] Trading for Influence post from last year that dove pretty deep into the BGS effects of trading, but maybe someone here will be able to help.

So assuming that you face no opposition in a particular system all you need to do to reach the maximum positive influence movement for a given faction is support them with 10 transactions worth of activities and for most of the activities the transactional value of those actions are well understood: 1 system worth of exploration data = 1 transaction, 1 drop of bounty or combat bond = 1 transaction, missions from the mission board: INF+ = 1 transaction; INF++ = 2 transactions and so on. However with trade, things are not so clear cut (or are they?).

Reading through the Trading for Influence post goemon talks about raw influence gains of each trade run, and if I'm understanding the graphs correctly that seems to max out just shy of 4 (raw influence gain) with a cargo hold of 250T split between 4 different commodities with an average profit of 330cr/t.

Does anyone have any idea of how to translate those raw influence gains goemon talks about into individual transactions that would count towards those 10 transactions I'm aiming for in a no-opposition system?

 

[Jane Turner]

Goemon's investigation topped out well before the maximium gains, suggesting that its not a binary on/off but that is possible to to get a fraction of a transaction. 15% raw gain should have been possible.


It been demonstrated multiple times that you can get a full swing with 10 trade transactions (or I assume 5 in boom). It is possible to do that with 10 tons of a high profit commodity as long as they come from 10 different systems.

 

[Jane Turner]

Has anyone seen the very large swings from just prior to 3.3 going live, continue into the new release?

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Has anyone seen the very large swings from just prior to 3.3 going live, continue into the new release?

Not here. If anything swings have been considerably smaller than would normally be expected, though this may due to traffic being suppressed by the server issues on Tuesday and Wednesday.

 

[Jmanis]

Only strange thing I saw was systems I heavily worked actually lose influence rather than gain in the last tick. We are in expansion.... so maybe mechanics around that change; if expansion is more global, maybe the 3% influence loss is across all systems, and other activities don't count like they used to?

 

[Sgopher81]

I'm not going to pretend I understand the numbers, but some very good analytics here.

Are we now saying that influence gain is going to be an incredibly drawn out process? I'm working in a 1m population system, supporting an anarchy faction, no sign of any other player activity. Before 3.3 I was doing lots of missions and getting 5-7% influence gains per day, now I'm seeing .3% gains for maybe just a little less activity in terms of doing missions, but always going for Inf+++ rewards.

I'm getting the feeling that the BGS is now going to be so glacial that solo players will lose interest. Or am I getting this all wrong?

 

[Deareim]

Only strange thing I saw was systems I heavily worked actually lose influence rather than gain in the last tick. We are in expansion.... so maybe mechanics around that change; if expansion is more global, maybe the 3% influence loss is across all systems, and other activities don't count like they used to?

Yes i have noticed some loss especially for our 3rd faction, which is anarchy.
And based on today’s tick, the diminish return by cmdr is killing it. Almost no gain despite heavy work from a single cmdr.

 

[Sentenza]

"Diminishing return" should not mean "nothing beyond the first action" in my book...

 

[Schlack]

"Diminishing return" should not mean "nothing beyond the first action" in my book...

You are quite correct. The issue however is there have been so many changes that it is not yet possible to identify what change is having what effect. Heh this reminds me of the early days and why i play the BGS in the first place. the puzzle and challenge of figuring it all out only to find it was all bugged to hell and not working in the first place!

 

[GralAntilles]

I am seeing little change in influence putting 30 points of influence from missions before AD rank 5 bonus.

However I am seeing the security and economic sliders change.

Hypothesis:
Could it be that the influence change by any action could be bumped/dimished by the security/economic values?

 

[Sgopher81]

I'm not going to pretend I understand the numbers, but some very good analytics here.

Are we now saying that influence gain is going to be an incredibly drawn out process? I'm working in a 1m population system, supporting an anarchy faction, no sign of any other player activity. Before 3.3 I was doing lots of missions and getting 5-7% influence gains per day, now I'm seeing .3% gains for maybe just a little less activity in terms of doing missions, but always going for Inf+++ rewards.

I'm getting the feeling that the BGS is now going to be so glacial that solo players will lose interest. Or am I getting this all wrong?

So I've logged on for some game time, run some missions for my anarchy minor faction.

Now in the latest tick we have lost circa 10% influence, despite all my INF+++ missions of the last couple of days that yielded minimal gains.

Starting to lose the will with the BGS just now! I've not seen any traffic in the system, Inara not reporting anything so I'm really at a loss to understand these numbers. Don't see much point in keeping going if my missions aren't impacting at all.

 

[Jane Turner]

there is a known issues with some anarchies

 

[Sgopher81]

there is a known issues with some anarchies

Thanks Jane, just wondering if you have any more detail on this?

 

[Jane Turner]

Sorry no... the whole BGS is a bit of a mess just now

 

[Kalifornia Belem]

Please, tell us you have good news now... Please !

 

[Jane Turner]

Headline: the caps are the same, it takes more effort to get there.


The BGS appears less transactional because the threshold for value-based transactions to be maxed out is higher - so its a lot more common for an action to be less than a full transaction. The effect of missions and exploration is approximately 1/4 of 3.2 values, trade appears to be the same murder and bounties are halved. However, there are regular
server-side adjustments to both the weight of different activities and possibly the value of the leveling off point.

 

[SanSin]

So, I have read and reread this and other threads. As i understand it, the 10 limit is out. Somewhere you said that it raised by a factor of 4 so does that mean that it will take 40 + to get the same work as once was done by 10?