.
Last edited:
Short version.
The game doesn't track where multiple origins of the same cargo comes from... if it did they wouldn't stack. This is how mission related cargo works, and why for a delivery mission, you can't just dump the cargo, buy it somewhere else and hand that cargo in.
If did track it, you would have to do it per transaction as station ownership and state is dynamic. Since the BGS is usually transactional in effect... that would likely reintroduce 1t trading[1], unless the baseline mechanics of the BGS were overhauled.
If you didn't make it transactional, you can fakethe origin of the goods to make it appear to have come from elsewhere, or nowhere and circumvent such mechanics if you didn't want to provide a benefit elsewhere.
Note... such an exploit already exists... except using it doesn't actually do anything, and that's solely because there's no effect of buying on influence or economic state.
The only effects of buying stuff is to reduce the amount of that commodity on the market. If low enough, it will push prices up to a particular peak.
You can see this in the Witch Head atm... the only market in the region has some cargo needed for station repairs. Initially, that cargo could be bought and sold at the target stations for profit, but now several commodities sell for a loss at the repairing stations because the cost of goods at that station has gone up due to commanders buying out all the stocks.
[1] you'll have to take my word on that one for now, unless you really want to know more.. on phone and I'd have to explain 1t trading and transactional effects.
.
Last edited:
Retreat isn't global - a faction can be in multiple overlapping retreats in different systems.
Expansion affects market prices and caps, which will affect all systems where the faction controls a station, not just the expansion centre. Otherwise no, not really.
You can have quite a few states active at once on a faction:
One economic state: Famine, Bust, Boom, Investment
One security state: Lockdown, Civil Unrest, Civil Liberty
One disaster state: Pirate Attack, Outbreak [1]
One conflict state: Civil War, War, Election
Both movement states: Retreat and Expansion
[1] Thargoid states - Incursion and the hidden Infestation state - may count as disaster states or may be able to occur alongside them
That's news to me... last I heard you could only be in either Expansion or Retreat, not both, and only one at a time. Happy to take your word on it though, I don't retreat factions (I find rando factions to be good defence buffers)
I can tell by the discussions above that I still have a ton to learn! Baby steps, as they say. I'm real close to triggering an election / war / whatever happens when one faction takes over for another. When this happens, it lasts for one week? Is this a Thursday to Thursday thing, or just an arbitrary seven day span?
If it does end up being a war, will "we need guns" missions be enough to help my faction win, or will I actually have go to on the battlefield (CZ) and fight?
If it does end up being a war, will "we need guns" missions be enough to help my faction win, or will I actually have go to on the battlefield (CZ) and fight?
Conflicts are best of 7 days, so it'll be four days minimum - if the same side wins all four - and seven days maximum if it goes to a 4-3 finish. Not bound to Thursdays - very little in the BGS is.
It'll be an election if the "the faction thanks its loyal members" text in the local news is the same for both, and a (civil) war if they're different or if they're both anarchies.
If you're completely unopposed, then wartime missions (and a bit of bounty hunting) will probably be enough to win a war. If there's any opposition, CZs are probably the only practical way to win.
I'm hoping I go unopposed. I picked this system so I could "achieve something" all by myself (best way to learn). The one thing that worries me is that the controlling faction has a presence in multiple systems. It's not a PMF, but if they are broadly announcing that they are about to lose in my system, then players passing through more popular systems may take notice and get involved.
I can win battles in a CZ, but I don't think I can win a war (as in win the CZ progress bar). I'm assuming combat bonds have some positive effect, yes?
.
Last edited:
.
Last edited:
.
Last edited:
This is my one worry, that a war will bring players to my system that would otherwise ignore it. Well I guess we will just have to wait and see. What happens if my faction loses the war? Is it a huge setback?
Doesn't matter where you hand it in within that system.
If you hand it in in a different system, it won't count to the war. Pre-3.3, it actually helped influence in the system you handed it in at... currently, don't know, never tested.
If your faction owns assets, the most valuable asset goes to the winning side. Additionally, since influence is locked for a conflict, the winner gains 4% influence, loser loses 4% influence (so... if you went to war with both sides at 22%, winner would come out with 26%, loser with 18%).
If your side owns no assets, and the only asset at risk is owned by the opposition, you only risk losing 4% inf.
tl;dr it's not a big deal unless assets are involved.
.
Last edited:
Nope. You always lose 4% influence, winner gains 4%. If you lose more, that's something else at play.
.
Last edited:
That's something else at play, and not a result of losing the conflict.
News - Background Simulation - Update (01/03)
Hello Commanders, We wanted to give you an update on the current state of the Background Simulation and detail some changes we are going to be implementing in an attempt to combat some of the issues that have been flagged up. Before that, we would like to thank all of your who shared your...