War State & other Faction Influence movement

[Zombi3]

I have a faction with very high influence as im working it up to expansion. However, twice now our influence has tanked when two of the other factions in the system have gone to war.

There is also a faction in the system that we want to push out, and it all goes well keeping them low (using the passenger trick and killing their ships), but again as soon as there is a war in the system with the other factions they miraculously start to rise.

Despite our best efforts by doing lots of trade, missions and bounties, our faction influence continues to drop. And the faction that we're trying to force out simply rises again.

Has anyone else experienced this? Our system is about 500k population.

thanks!

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Ignoring the war, does this happen at the point the fourth faction goes into Retreat state? Retreat states attract a lot of inbound missions from passing traffic, so they're very hard to get to stick in systems with a lot of traffic relative to the population (500k is fairly low, so it wouldn't take much passing traffic to accidentally block a retreat if you're not hitting them very hard)

The war would mean that the fourth faction can't take influence from the locked two factions, and therefore takes more from you, if anyone does anything positive for it, but if you're near expansion level that won't make a big difference. That timing may just be a coincidence because pushing yourself upwards makes the war almost inevitable for the lower factions.

Is there any possibility that your expansion destination is somewhere someone else doesn't want you to be? If so then pushing that low/retreating faction would be an efficient way to stop you.

 

[goemon]

so, first:
you have factions a, b, c, d and random traffic for d.
d is really low inf at 3,5% and get random +inf actions of 10 points.
usually those 10 points are distributed as losses to a, b, c in relation to their influence in system.
but if b and c get locked during war, all of those 10 points get distributed as losses to a.

second:
you gain much less influence for the same action at 60% compared to 3,5%.

third: you most likely already outlast the caps with your faction. so more won't gain you more.

in your situation i'd either focus on expansion or retreat, and choose the tactic accordingly.

 

[Zombi3]

Ian, some responses:

Ignoring the war, does this happen at the point the fourth faction goes into Retreat state? Retreat states attract a lot of inbound missions from passing traffic, so they're very hard to get to stick in systems with a lot of traffic relative to the population (500k is fairly low, so it wouldn't take much passing traffic to accidentally block a retreat if you're not hitting them very hard)

The retreat state was there 2-3 days before the war began, so I don't think they're connected. You're right about the missions, a lot of what im seeing now is doing trade delivering to the faction I'm trying to retreat, and despite trying to undermine them in the ways I mention above they still increase.

The war would mean that the fourth faction can't take influence from the locked two factions, and therefore takes more from you, if anyone does anything positive for it, but if you're near expansion level that won't make a big difference.

We were at 71% only 2 days ago, and now we're in the early 50s. The retreating faction didn't take all that extra %, but they certainly have taken some.

Is there any possibility that your expansion destination is somewhere someone else doesn't want you to be? If so then pushing that low/retreating faction would be an efficient way to stop you.

I would say highly unlikely as it's another backwater with no player factions in it.

Goemon, thanks for the input, and yes I know those things about the distribution as I've done a lot of research. Your last line interests me though - maybe a better strategy to retreat the target faction in our system is to forget about expansion for now and let our Inf lower. Then the movements will be less volatile?

Appreciate the input so far, guys - thanks!

 

[Zombi3]

I should also add that we have 8 factions in the system. I imagine that also adds to the volatility and is why we're trying to boot one of the non-native factions out.

 

[goemon]

8 factions? is there an invasion conflict in system? i don#t see how you can have 8 factions otherwise?
because in that case you'll be 7 factions some days from now.

Goemon, thanks for the input, and yes I know those things about the distribution as I've done a lot of research. Your last line interests me though - maybe a better strategy to retreat the target faction in our system is to forget about expansion for now and let our Inf lower. Then the movements will be less volatile?

basically expansion and forced retreat need both a bit different tactic, if they don't happen naturally.

for expansion you want as much influence in system not locked in conflict. which basically means in a system with a lot of factions, you want to have all other below 7,5% so they can't go into conflict (if they have assets to get in conflict over). depending on assets distribution you'll want to work with a clear 1 - 2 - 3... line up in term´s of influence, and lower all factions without an asset below 7,5%, and than each faction with an asset below 7,5% after the other - before pushing through to 75%. because in a 7 factions system, you'll have to get the other factions to 4% on average...

for forced retreat you want to have all other factions to work with, as it is easier to work for all factions besides the one you want to retreat. alternatively you can bind as much influence as possible in conflicts at high influence levels. anyway both speaks itself against making an expansion and forcing a retreat at the same time.

i personally don't do forced retreats anymore since years (since we have stopped doing targeted expansions), as it is just to frustrating to see your work be undone by random traffic on the very tick. even if it should be more easy now with the influence penalty during retreat.so, yeah, i personally would focus on the expansion.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

We were at 71% only 2 days ago, and now we're in the early 50s. The retreating faction didn't take all that extra %, but they certainly have taken some.

Are you really sure that there's no-one deliberately working to stop your expansion? Passive traffic to a Retreat is rarely anywhere near that big an effect, and losing 10% a day while you're working hard to boost influence is unusual, though not impossible in that small a system if every other faction is getting pushed hard.

With PMFs present in 2/3 of the bubble and controlling almost half of it, and many non-PMF factions having their own supporters, your backwater may not be as quiet as you think - your 20 LY expansion cube almost certainly pokes into someone's space, and if there's lots of 7/8 faction systems like yours about that suggests a fair bit of local activity.


In practice I would advise not bothering with the Retreat even if you could get it to work - having eight factions in the system will make it slightly harder for you to expand, though with only 500k population that's not too big a deal, but it also means that you can't have someone else expand into your system at all, which is valuable security if you get a hostile neighbour later.

8 factions? is there an invasion conflict in system? i don#t see how you can have 8 factions otherwise?

Presumably a relic of an earlier bug / expansion ruleset which allowed the 8th faction to stay. Rare nowadays.

That, or the PMF was inserted into a system which already had seven, which doesn't automatically kick one of the others out.

 

[Zombi3]

That, or the PMF was inserted into a system which already had seven, which doesn't automatically kick one of the others out.

Yeah it's this - we were put into a system with 7 existing factions already, so now we have 8.

because in that case you'll be 7 factions some days from now.

Why is that? I really wish that was the case

 

[Zombi3]

Are you really sure that there's no-one deliberately working to stop your expansion?

I couldn't be 100% sure of course, and it has crossed my mind it just seems unlikely.

I'm at work at the moment so will take the time to ready your replies in more detail later - looks like some useful info in there!

 

[goemon]

Yeah it's this - we were put into a system with 7 existing factions already, so now we have 8.



Why is that? I really wish that was the case

ah, i see - if you have been put there, that's not the case.
in all other cases you'd have 8 faction only during an invasion conflict - the looser of it leaves the system.

 

[Zombi3]

It does provide that extra security against another faction ever entering, but I imagine it adds extra volatility to our system.

for forced retreat you want to have all other factions to work with, as it is easier to work for all factions besides the one you want to retreat. alternatively you can bind as much influence as possible in conflicts at high influence levels. anyway both speaks itself against making an expansion and forcing a retreat at the same time.

That last sentence makes sense actually. I'm going to focus on removing them to see if it works. So a tactic of doing high inf missions for all factions whilst undermining the retreat target is sound in your experience then? I imagine whilst doing that, conflict states could be created if the conditions are right - is that detrimental to the goal? I guess not, as then those % will be locked in place and I'd no longer need to do missions for them, right?

 

[goemon]

Passive traffic to a Retreat is rarely anywhere near that big an effect, and losing 10% a day while you're working hard to boost influence is unusual, though not impossible in that small a system if every other faction is getting pushed hard.

what are the traffic numbers at the station report, and how much do you assume being your groups traffic? what are the bounty redeem numbers? one of the hardest nuts to crack for us was a station with a res close by, and a wing of BGS-uninterested bounty hunters in system... in a backwater system, with station a bit from entry.

also - are you out of any powerplay bubble? is you faction type good for the power controlling that space?

and - did you double check with your group that nobody does something which destroys your factions influence? (like: bounty redeems of other factions ... via FC in system ... trading to the other ports ... farming endless npc pirates of your own faction ... stuff like that) do you have any states active coming with an influence loss (infrastructure failure...)?

are you controlling all orbital stations? do you have assets being a target for missions from outside (a surface installation ... a megaship), which might cost you influence?

very interesting case!

 

[Kryxix]

INARA

The community site for Elite: Dangerous, Starfield, Kingdom Come: Deliverance with the game databases, information, gaming news and other handy content...

inara.cz

 

[Zombi3]

Kryxix you beat me to it - I was going to post this so that all the info can be gained. It's obvious who we are as I've posted recruitment messages so no need for secrecy

Goemon, answers:

• There are only two of us working for the faction at the moment, so I know he's not doing anything to our detriment.
• We do have a haz res in the system which has been useful to get our security ramped up
• We're in a PP bubble -we're Federation and the SP is Grom
• We control the only 2 orbital stations in the system, but not the dockable ground facility

 

[goemon]

I imagine whilst doing that, conflict states could be created if the conditions are right - is that detrimental to the goal?

unfortunately conflict states at low influence levels make retreating another faction harder, while conflicts at higher influence levels make it easier.

think of it as a cake. you want the one side having as less as possible of it. if 60% of the cake is already given to others, he can't get much. but if only 20% have been already given away, he will demand a bigger part of what is left. so first you'd have to raise influence levels to respectable levels and see that factions with assets go to conflict woth those having none.

ideally you 8 faction system would look like this to force retreat
25 % your faction
18% b+c (locked in conflict)
13% d+e (Locked in conflict)
8% f+g (locked in conflict)
= 5% faction to be forced into retreat.

than you just start raising your influence and hammer through the forced retreat... but getting there is a problem. and all work can be undone at any point by random traffic...

 

[Zombi3]

Good grief. So the picture you paint suggests just giving up, which is what has gone through my mind today TBH. I just want to boot out the LHS faction, but despite the best strategies RNG can throw it all down the pan.

 

[goemon]

take away from a quick view

• i think you are at least neutral for yuri grom people, but it might be that they don't want you to expand as that might raise they control or explot thresholds somewhere (i'd suggest contactin the yuri grom powerplayers)
• you are trying to retreat a federal faction ~60ly from sol .... it could well be that rank-grinders or fed enthusiasts are the random counter
• you are VERY close to the Diamond Frogs (closest presence 9 ly!), which used to be one of the most experienced and skilled groups (and probably still are... i have no idea, not following closely), which do a lot of BGS manipulation... hired or for themself. over 600 members on inara ... i could imagine they don't like you to expand. open up a diplomatic channel. at least you'd know than.

 

[goemon]

Good grief. So the picture you paint suggests just giving up, which is what has gone through my mind today TBH. I just want to boot out the LHS faction, but despite the best strategies RNG can throw it all down the pan.

i don't think you gain much by retreating them.
so i would focus on expanding.
but that means nailing down why you loose that much influence.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

At only 63 LY from Sol then you'll probably be getting a lot of passing traffic and be treading on toes all over the place if you expand.

You have the Diamond Frogs' home system just 12.2 LY from you - a very substantial player faction - in 63 G Capricorni, and lots of their other systems nearby. You've also got the edge of Knights of Karma territory in Ngobedu 14 LY away with their home system just over 20 LY away, and the substantial EG Union group as close as Cerktondhs 15 LY away.

Checking Inara, your likely expansion target would currently be Cerktondhs, which EG Union have an interest in you not going to ... and equally a good fraction of your expansion cube is Diamond Frog controlled and an invasion could end up there. I would recommend opening diplomatic channels to both - they have the means, firepower and motivation to stop you expanding ... and I would really recommend not trying to retreat anyone out of your system, since that "unexpandable to" is excellent defence if the negotiations go badly for you!

Being Corporate does mean that both your regional Powers - Grom and Hudson - are neutral to you, which is probably sufficient so long as you don't threaten anyone favourable to them (Feudal, Dictatorship, Communist, Cooperative for Grom ; Feudal, Patronage for Hudson) - so that's one fewer thing to worry about.


EDIT: oh, also, look up "invasion targeting" strategy - in that sort of environment you want to make sure that if you do get an expansion it goes somewhere your bigger neighbours aren't interested in, so you'll need to do a lot of targeting work to ensure that.

 

[goemon]

since that "unexpandable to" is excellent defence if the negotiations go badly for you!

might as well somebody working against the retreat as to not expand into the system, or to blog an own expansion going there to get somewhere else ...