Just how broken is the Retreat mechanic?

[Starwolfe]

Today I finally completed a year-long project to takeover a system via Retreat.

The reason for the complication? It was 13 ports, transferred to a foreign faction that was retreated out.
That and it often landed on the back burner as this was a mainly solo undertaking in a 2 bil population till recently.

So while I was claiming a port in another system, I manged to claim system control, 13 ports plus a few planetary bases overnight.
The only downside being a glitch where my Corporation is not closing the Black Markets correctly. Need to get that fixed.
The odd part is my faction owned nothing prior to it. Just majority influence (~56%) in the system.


But it begs the question for me; how broken is it that a faction can be forced out while it still controls property in the system and it just magically transfers to the highest influence faction when its over?


An overhaul idea of Conflicts and Retreats came to mind from all this, and thanks to a friend a neat solution. So the thought is this; an Eviction Conflict.

First, a wishful QoL change where conflicts should only be between factions that own property. Nothing to fight over, there should be no fighting - so one side needs to own something to be dragged into a fight.

Second, a non-native faction shouldn't be able to retreat if it still controls a property in the system.

So, instead if the controlling faction is high enough in influence (60%) for example, and if the non-native faction that owns a property is weak enough (say 5% or less) the controlling faction demands to takeover the property and kick the non-native faction out. A reversed Invasion, what I see as a kind of Eviction Conflict occurs.
Basic conflict rules apply for property control however if the non-native faction looses its last property with less than 2.5% influence, it is forced out of the system in an instant Retreat. This could hopefully make some evictions easier to do.


If a non-native faction owns nothing it should follow normal Retreat mechanics.


So, what do you all think? Is this a serious enough of a problem that needs fixing? Would this work? Or is it fine as it stands right now?
While I don't mind being able to claim the system in such a way, it kind of nags at me that I was able to do it.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

On the one hand it seems odd that you can Retreat the controlling faction. To an extent even that you can Retreat factions controlling assets. Surprised me the first time I saw it.

On the other hand, if you couldn't, there'd be some cases where hanging around on 1% permanently was beneficial - you couldn't be drawn into a conflict, you couldn't be forced to retreat - and if a faction has been beaten down that much taking its assets and then forcing a retreat is basically just a formality in most cases. I'm not sure there's a lot of point in actually playing out the conflict between the 60% faction and the 5% faction (other than to potentially weaken the 60% faction by sticking a War on it)

And with most systems in the bubble having 5 native factions, being able to get relatively easy retreats for the last couple of places can be quite useful.

 

[Mrjupp]

If the controlling minor faction is non-native then retreating them will make them lose their assets to the largest influence minor faction.
Now it was the thought that a non-native minor faction cannot be ejected until it has lost all assets. That is incorrect.

 

[Schlack]

Im reasonably sure that fd would say working as intended. If a non native faction wasnt supported it should leave. Retreating a supported faction is a challenge. Its tough to do with a corresponding big reward. It is op for unsupported factions though.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

Retreating a non-native MF that holds no assets can be quite the challenge.

4 days ago we were finally able to retreat an Anarchy MF from a 12.76 billion population System.

We got them in a Civil War in their home, letting it simmer down (22 days total). First the MF lost 0.2% per day, then from the 9th day onward only 0.1%.

It was so worth it though [big grin]

 

[Patau82]

That sounds like a pretty impressive move you pulled there!

 

[Starwolfe]

On the one hand it seems odd that you can Retreat the controlling faction. To an extent even that you can Retreat factions controlling assets. Surprised me the first time I saw it.

On the other hand, if you couldn't, there'd be some cases where hanging around on 1% permanently was beneficial - you couldn't be drawn into a conflict, you couldn't be forced to retreat - and if a faction has been beaten down that much taking its assets and then forcing a retreat is basically just a formality in most cases. I'm not sure there's a lot of point in actually playing out the conflict between the 60% faction and the 5% faction (other than to potentially weaken the 60% faction by sticking a War on it)

And with most systems in the bubble having 5 native factions, being able to get relatively easy retreats for the last couple of places can be quite useful.

That's kind of the idea for me actually. It may be at 1% but I don't see the logic in having it retreat while it still holds a property of which to exert some influence in the system.

The point of the 60% vs 5% is much the same of a typical takeover conflict when a non-controlling faction is at 60% it'll demand a fight with the controlling faction. This is just the reverse when the controlling faction has enough influence it'll push its weight around to get rid of the competition. You wouldn't have to fight in it to get this eviction done in most cases.

To me, it would make it easier for factions trying to kick out opposition too - while also allowing a sliver of how to keep some factions around as 'blockers' in a way against invading factions they don't want around.

Im reasonably sure that fd would say working as intended. If a non native faction wasnt supported it should leave. Retreating a supported faction is a challenge. Its tough to do with a corresponding big reward. It is op for unsupported factions though.

You are probably right. As much as I'd like to see it change - it likely won't anytime soon.

That sounds like a pretty impressive move you pulled there!

Thank you! It was also alot of luck - 2 billion population was daunting, but relatively easy thanks to it being a low traffic area.

 

[Sentenza]

Retreating a non-native MF that holds no assets can be quite the challenge.

4 days ago we were finally able to retreat an Anarchy MF from a 12.76 billion population System.

We got them in a Civil War in their home, letting it simmer down (22 days total). First the MF lost 0.2% per day, then from the 9th day onward only 0.1%.

It was so worth it though [big grin]

In fact, the quickest way is to get the faction in war in that system. Once it is in war, you can kick it down to 1% in just 4 days instead of 22.

 

[Johnny Cyclops]

On the other hand, if you couldn't, there'd be some cases where hanging around on 1% permanently was beneficial - you couldn't be drawn into a conflict, you couldn't be forced to retreat - and if a faction has been beaten down that much taking its assets and then forcing a retreat is basically just a formality in most cases.

Just checking, I think what you were driving at here was seeing a 1% non-native MF owning no assets, and being unable to Retreat it. The OP was focused on desiring not being able to Retreat an asset-owning MF, but I could see the case of retaining the Retreat mechanism for low-Inf non-native MFs owning no assets, e.g. <2.5% on a persistent basis. Else I'd agree with Ian, that removing the Retreat function would leave straggler low-Inf non-native MFs.

 

[Starwolfe]

Just checking, I think what you were driving at here was seeing a 1% non-native MF owning no assets, and being unable to Retreat it. The OP was focused on desiring not being able to Retreat an asset-owning MF, but I could see the case of retaining the Retreat mechanism for low-Inf non-native MFs owning no assets, e.g. <2.5% on a persistent basis. Else I'd agree with Ian, that removing the Retreat function would leave straggler low-Inf non-native MFs.

I wasn't recommending removing it - but allowing an alternative way that could be used both ways.

If the controlling faction was not influential enough and was kept under 60% a non-native faction could stay by owning a property.

Or you could push the controlling faction to 60% and it could be used to force the non-native out if that one was pushed under 2.5% by the end of the conflict with its last property.

Otherwise, keep the current retreat mechanic for factions without property.