Yes - and it will require a little less effort than normal to get the same influence movements, assuming there's no passing traffic pulling them up (if there is, it might end up requiring slightly more effort - it will depend)
Some BGS questions
- Thread starter Yuri Gagarin Mendez
- Start date
that counts as failing missions, which is also negative inf. I usually find taking a stack of vip missions with the "no hull damage" requirement and just turning my shields off and rattling my ship about in the mailslot on the way out does the trick, then I can just request docking clearance and land again.
Failing that I use a cheap passenger ship and just boost into the back of the hangar.
This is why i wish (most) missions had alternate resolution options out-the-box.
I've been picking (because they are so abundant) all these secretive types that don't like being scanned, and then I just sit and wait to get scanned, LOL. They rage-quit my ride ASAP. The only problem I have is that my Dolphin is so cold, it's not easy to scan even with everything turned on. I might have to bring my Type 7 bus over for this particular purpose.
the basic structure is like this:
- inhabited systems:
a) pirates of factions out of system carry bounties by systemcontroller and the system they come from. as there are very many faction that is no reliable way to gather bounties beside very special circumstances.
b) pirates if factions in system carry bounties of system controller and a second in system faction. that used to be fix per instance, but changed to per spawn. as those secondary bounties are minor, they are only helpful to buff bgs activities - e.g. missions -, but not by themself if not collected/stored longtime.
-:uninhabited systems:
know of some people using uninhabited systems rings to spawn pirates carrying bounties of the closest system controller - it can be helpfull to gather reputation with permit system controlling factions without presence out of system (not that you can gain the permit this way, but you can allign a squadron with them ...)
next question - if two lower factions are at civil war and there are two higher factions, and one of those higher factions raises in INF to match the other higher faction, what happens? I'm assuming there will be TWO civil wars in the system, mainly because I remember a CG where it was possible to pick the wrong combat zone, which implies multiple civil wars can take place at once.
Oh, and when is it an election instead of a civil war?
Oh, and when is it an election instead of a civil war?
Correct. You can have as many simultaneous conflicts as there are pairs of factions, if the assets are well distributed enough.
When the factions have the same non-Criminal ethos
Ethos is a hidden variable with four possible values - Social, Corporate, Authoritarian, Criminal - which generally corresponds to the faction's government type, but a few hand-placed factions don't have the usual ethos.
Usual ethos for each government type is:
Social: Confederacy, Communist, Cooperative, Democracy, some Theocracies
Corporate: Corporations
Authoritarian: Dictatorship, Feudal, Patronage, Prison Colony, some Theocracies
Criminal: Anarchy
While hidden, it's generally possible to figure out most of it:
- Criminal factions have a lot of illegal missions
- Criminal and Social factions open black markets; Corporate and Authoritarian close them
- Corporate and Authoritarian are slightly harder to tell apart instantly (guess based on the government, correct it later if they turn out not to be)
Don't forget PMF Anarchy. Those aren't the same as the NPC Anarchy. PMF Anarchy can have Elections with each other and other governments. For example:
A few other government types have different ethos when a PMF.
That's not a general rule of PMF Anarchy factions, though - most of them are Criminal ethos too, which is why they end up as the targets for all the "kill pirates" massacre missions (see "Anarchies are doomed" volumes 1 to 6).
I don't think it's a "when a PMF" rule as such.
The PMF Theocracies tend to have a different ethos to the NPC Theocracies (I can't remember which one is more likely to be Social) - but that seems to be more about when the faction was added: at some point after initial generation Frontier changed its mind about the default.
All PMFs are somewhat hand-placed, which means that they're more likely to have atypical ethos than an NPC faction - but most of them don't. In the very early days of PMFs you could successfully ask Frontier to change your PMF's government type and I believe a few of the atypical PMFs are those which have retained their former ethos.
Colonia is an actual exception: the PMFs there were allowed to independently pick ethos and government type, and then later NPC faction additions have replicated the existing combinations out there (so e.g. all Colonia Prison Colonies are Corporate rather than the bubble's Authoritarian, because the PMF picked that and the later NPC faction copied it) - that's where a lot of the knowledge about which things are ethos-based and which are government-based comes from. But that can also be true of hand-placed NPC factions: 2 of the 5 democracies at Explorers' Anchorage are Corporate rather than Social. (There was a very brief time during Beyond when ethos was a subtly visible variable, which is the only reason I know that)
Next question - In the ship status page, a faction I'm watching shows "Close Defeat", but in the station's status page, it says "The faction has dominated the conflict for n days."
Which is it? The last war I fought, these two things were in alignment rather than at odds with each other...
#Legacy
Which is it? The last war I fought, these two things were in alignment rather than at odds with each other...
#Legacy
Both are correct but show different things.
The station page shows how many days that faction has won.
Close Defeat shows what the war status is in relative terms: the other side has won one day more.
Check the station page for the other faction as well - you'll see e.g. a 2-3 loss for the first faction.
Rather than granting INF points directly it'll grant more points towards winning that day of the conflict (assuming that it's a mission type which counts towards that conflict type at all)
Read it as "greater benefit to the faction" rather than strictly "greater influence gain".
In the nav panel there is a "system status" button, I find that clearer because it shows the total number of days for the conflict and how many have been won by each side (and you don't need to dock anywhere).
you are sure about that? i thought choosing inf rewards had no effect on conflict points -- only number of missions count?
You could be right - I imagine like most conflict things it would be extremely difficult to test precisely, especially since the INF shown is rounded anyway - though in this case it's probably safer to assume it does work.
I had thought that you just didn't get the INF reward offered at all during conflicts in the first place, but apparently it can be.
Just to clarify, an election also shows as a "conflict" in the text of "We've dominated the conflict for n days." I'm guessing these INF rewards are election-only?
And Ian was right, I verified that the game uses the word "dominate" when it really means "we're losing 2 to 1", which seems to be very poor English. Maybe Frontier's marketing team doubled as the script writers for this station dialog, LOL.
War/Civil war missions usually don't have influence rewards associated with them because influence has no affect during those conflict types. Elections missions do have influence rewards because mission influence is one of the ways to win an Elections day.
No it's worded right. The News Board only shows the amount of days that faction has won. So if it won one day it Dominated for one day even if it lost 3 prior. Yes it's not a good way to display a conflict cause it can be confusing. I only use it to see conflict progress when the right panel/left panel displays are LAGGING hours behind the physical tick.
So riddle me this, BGS experts. There are two factions battling for control via democratic elections - Friend an Enemy. I am helping Friend out by delivering polling data. Here are my two questions:
- What is the reasoning / logic of bringing this data to other systems and giving it to other factions totally unrelated to the faction in the system I'm interested in? It's like campaigning for a US Presidential election by bringing campaign brochures to Spain!
- Even crazier, why does my relationship with Enemy faction IMPROVE if I bring them polling data (in another system) that benefits the Friendly faction that they are running against???
It's just a flavoured variant of standard courier missions... what matters is you run missions successfully for the issuing faction. I find it best not to look too closely because things don't make sense sometimes.
For example... it's generally known that "combat actions" don't help a faction in an election. What that means is the effects of
- killing ships; and
- Bounties/Combat Bonds
... have no effect. However, running assassination/massacre missions, because they're missions, will help.
Welcome to Elite: Best Friends. Where you get allied to your enemies even when you work against them. But see the point above; don't look too closely... what matters is you run missions for your faction.
I do get what you mean, but there's so many gotchas in the way missions have to generate. The whole old 100-mission limit (unsure if it's still an issue, does still seem to be for <things I won't get into[1]>. It might not seem hard to randomly generate the missions, but squint your eyes and look into what's really going on and you'll find there's actually a lot of complexity to generating the missions and they're not random at all... and things like the "clumpiness" start to make more sense when you start considering optimisations... I imagine that sort of thing gets ignored for that sort of reason.