Is there an influence cap for missions? If so please explain if the cap applies to the total number of missions done for a Faction by all Cmdrs or if the cap is per Cmdr.
Missions influence cap
- Thread starter Cmdr Aos_Si
- Start date
there is no single commander cap for any of the ways to gain influence. all soft- and hard caps apply to total actions by all commanders, whether those are done by one or many. 1 commander doing 20+ of missions will be as effective as 10 commanders doing 2+ of missions each. 1 commander handing in 8 mio in bounties will be as effective as 8 commanders handing in 1 mio each etc.
for missions at least the max inf change cap applies, which you can find here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/influence-caps-gains-and-the-wine-analogy.423837
that thread also argues that after 10+ there isn't much point of doing more missions if unopposed with very good reasoning and a lot of day-to-day gameplay data.
yes, unopposed the BGS is a lot less grindy than people assume.
would be neat to read somebody running a test on that in a no traffic system nevertheless
for missions at least the max inf change cap applies, which you can find here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/influence-caps-gains-and-the-wine-analogy.423837
that thread also argues that after 10+ there isn't much point of doing more missions if unopposed with very good reasoning and a lot of day-to-day gameplay data.
yes, unopposed the BGS is a lot less grindy than people assume.
would be neat to read somebody running a test on that in a no traffic system nevertheless
Last edited:
Thanks for the excellent reply. If opposed, does that mean more missions are useful?
@goemon sorry mate, got to disagree. There are personal caps. We tested unopposed in numerous low population and low to medium population systems. When a personal soft cap is hit (very quickly) so that diminishing returns would be needed, a group of players each doing the same amount will be more effective than the single player. However there is a hard cap on the system and that is an unsurmountable thing.
well, that would be the direct opposite of dev quotes, but i wouldn't rule that out.
could you share your test? how was it made? which actions against which actions?
I'll DM you with some info, hopefully tomorrow. I'll be able to describe the actions, most notably on the undermining perspective by specific populations. This will include opposed and unopposed. There is a vast difference in calculations between the two, however, extrapolation of opposed activity v unopposed in the same system will enable a calculation for both undermining and supporting a single minor faction.
I will further add that during the undermining of a specific system, it was harassment undermining to stop them from expanding. This was a
3 month operation on a single system whereby, no matter how hard they conducted influence missions (and they did very hard) they were prevented from expanding for 3 months. Then we did this to another PMF for the same reason. Both are now actually friends. One of them even wrote the whole action into their game lore.
3 month operation on a single system whereby, no matter how hard they conducted influence missions (and they did very hard) they were prevented from expanding for 3 months. Then we did this to another PMF for the same reason. Both are now actually friends. One of them even wrote the whole action into their game lore.
and here is for reference the 2016 loivestream, where dav stott ruled out a single commander cap:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5DGyG6Qwvk
and Jmanis write up: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ns-and-the-background-sim.193064/post-3771084
and Jmanis write up: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...ns-and-the-background-sim.193064/post-3771084
i was more looking for something simple, like
"1 cmdr handing in 5 missions a 2+"
"next tick 3 commanders hand in, 2 of them 2 missions a 2+, 1 commander 1 mission a 2+"
or
"1 cmdr hands in 10 mio in bounties"
"next tick 5 commander hand in 2 mio in bounties each".
it's quite obvious why a group of commanders will gather more inf per tick for many reasons outside a single cmdr cap.
Understood, although when 1 sometimes 2 and once 3 commanders can undo and reverse the actions of 30 commanders in six systems and 1-4 commanders in 8 systems against 154 commanders can do the same and how, may have been of interest.
In answer to the OP, you will have read the disagreement between two afficionados of the BGS. One states no personal cap, the other states there is. In my defence, I am able to cite systems, population, mission types done and to what end. The majority of activity was "clean" BGS, although "dirty" BGS was enacted for a four day period when necessary. I am also able to advise what was done by the opponents to counter (they were hampered supporting a single minor faction, we had everyone else to play with). We are both passionate about the BGS but coming at it from different perspectives.
i can fully agree with that
there are certain aspects of the BGS, where, as they are unknwon for us, or fdev only said something about it years ago, people come to different conclusions.
i draw from working a lot of systems with a usually small group of commanders (if no bgs conflict), "gardeneing" type - on that scale i have not experienced 3 or 4 commanders being able to move the system more, than a single commander. and experienced the actions of 3 or 4 commanders adding up to the values of a single commander doing the same input.
but i wouldn't rule out the possibility, that this might not be true with a whole more lot of commanders, or in opposed-scenarios where actions are unlikely to hit a max influence change cap.
Thanks to both of you for weighing in. I do a fair bit of BGS and I'm inclined to the view that more Cmdrs doing a set number of missions gives greater influence gains than a single Cmdr doing the same number. Although, that isn't to imply that a single Cmdr cannot be very effective. My opinion is based on non-test experience so there are always going to be unknown variables that can produce unexpected outcomes. Is there some way to estimate the number of missions that might be needed? If multiple factions exceed the influence cap do they just cancel each other out? Assuming any remaining factions have insufficient influence lose or they are influence locked.
The first rule of thumb is to go back to basics. 100% with an ever decreasing influence movement based on how much starting influence and how high you may move from that level based on the population size plus how much each other minor faction will lose contingent on that movement and their existing level of influence, plus how much each minor faction may increase influence to the detriment of others to "fine tune" influence movements based on their influence levels then as you ask, how to find the correct correlation between activities for optimum outcome but always mindful that any transient activity in a system will change those calculations. The basic is the higher you are the less movement you may have, the lower you are the greater that 24 hour movement. Missions etc are easy to determine. A + is a + and the more you have, the more adjustment there will be in a system. Then based on a calculation per minor faction, where starting influence, population, the starting influence of others and actions in + for them, will depending on the calculation method used (and there are many) help guide your movement. The harder and controversial part is determining a given + for an action which does not offer a + reward and to factor those activities into the calculation. This is where a lot of disagreement lies. Not just with how much an individual may cause in influence movement or how much a system may move, but how to allocate a + to an action. So all I will say is contingent on the method of calculation, stick to it and if it is out, correct it with a known + from a mission to recalculate the difference. For example, I consider goods trading to equate to 1/2+ and that may be slightly out. I consider the fact that Frontier use a Transactional Based system with the BGS with an ever decreasing movement, contingent on Transactions conducted in a system (the System Cap) and Transactions conducted by a Commander (the Personal Cap). An example of how they use a Personal Cap for example is determining how many Arx are earned in a week by your actions. Our group uses two specific individual minor faction calculators. One is a calculator that is fairly accurate is a document spreadsheet which works to a formula, another is a table that is partially accurate. We calculate for each minor faction down to the last + (based on our calculations) and fine tune visible + to make up any difference. We've used this methodology for five years (including the time before we were inserted in the game) and where we are out, counteract with visible + to get the movement right the next tick. Different types of Transaction award different awards of + and players will debate this constantly with different answers. What we do and I am sure many do, is to counter with the VISIBLE + available when their calculations are slightly out. War calculations are the most interesting. We are "told by Frontier" that a specific influence movement based on days of Battles Won will take place at the end of a war, yet that movement is corrupted by activities for other minor factions that are not "Influence Locked". During a war that influence that is locked is not part of the daily BGS movement but at the end of the war it is updated and may include revenue from combat bonds and massacre missions etc countered by activities for those not involved in conflict and that movement again follows the starting influence and population of a system.
Last edited:
we are mostly unopposed. so what we mainly do:
i have a spreadsheet running calculating relative influence movements, by doing the well established calculation for each faction over several ticks:
New_Influence= (Old_Influence + g / (100 +g) - with g being the raw influence gain, gross, whatever you call it, which allows comparing influence gains between factions of different influence (or the same faction at several influence). That formula is of coatsilver in 2016, and underlies the thread linked above on max influence change.
now, how much "g" a set of actions is, is what we usually argue about here (how much g are 10+ missions?) - but the good thing is, if you work a system and know what you have done, you can use that formula to calculate how much "g" was applied at the last tick (and predict the next ticks outcome, if identical g would be applied).
- we use the info available and linked above how much influence change could be reached.
- we combine as many different actions as posssible (mainly missions, bounty hunting and trade).
- for missions we work with the assumption there is not much effect after 10+, for bountyhunting we aim for 3-5 mio (90% influence effect of 9 mio redeem), trade at outposts is mainly done while stacking missions, and gets more focus if working L-pad orbital systems.
- to trigger conflicts we work with relative influence for missions beyond 10+ (for exampel: we need 20% more missions forfaction A, than fanction B; so we do 10+ and 12+)
- we monitor the effect of that. if we don't get what we want because other players traffic, we mply increase the amounts (for missions the general rule of thumb is ~10+, 20-30+, 30+, panic mode: do as much as you can). similar goes for for conflicts.
i have a spreadsheet running calculating relative influence movements, by doing the well established calculation for each faction over several ticks:
New_Influence= (Old_Influence + g / (100 +g) - with g being the raw influence gain, gross, whatever you call it, which allows comparing influence gains between factions of different influence (or the same faction at several influence). That formula is of coatsilver in 2016, and underlies the thread linked above on max influence change.
now, how much "g" a set of actions is, is what we usually argue about here (how much g are 10+ missions?) - but the good thing is, if you work a system and know what you have done, you can use that formula to calculate how much "g" was applied at the last tick (and predict the next ticks outcome, if identical g would be applied).