Checked back over our records, seeing conflicts that meet the criteria but no drop. If there were such an effect, it is so small as to be meaningless operationally.
Wars reduced to 14 days?
- Thread starter MottiKhan
- Start date
Checked back over our records, seeing conflicts that meet the criteria but no drop. If there were such an effect, it is so small as to be meaningless operationally.
Traffic reports on PC update hourly on the hour, so I suspect the same would be true on the consoles. I'd be very surprised if they were platform-specific since as far as we know none of the rest of the BGS is...
I'll see if I can find someone on console to check.
Checking done last night with some of our console cmdrs confirmed identical traffic reports on X Box and PC (PS4 TBC - or was it the other way around?).
While not completely definitive it is strong evidence that traffic on all platforms is counted in the reports.
Yesterday I took a single donation mission in Chak (only donation missions were available and I was the only recorded visitor) and the leading faction put on 3.3% overnight, eleven times the recently observed daily changes.
It's (finally) occured to me that there is a way to raise the leading faction's influence by a fraction of a percent, and that's buy selling a small quantity of an unwanted commodity. But who would do that every day for a fortnight? and to what end?
It's (finally) occured to me that there is a way to raise the leading faction's influence by a fraction of a percent, and that's buy selling a small quantity of an unwanted commodity. But who would do that every day for a fortnight? and to what end?
It could also be a variety of activities that largely cancel each other out. The consistency does appear unusual, but in the light of other evidence showing no such declines where there is no activity I would have to rule out a "war tax" type automatic reduction.
Out of interest what was the effect on the 2 factions in war? Did they both reduce by the same amount relative to the increase of the leading faction?
As I have said above, even if there is such an effect (and it is not apparent in many other instances of wars) it is so minimal as to be inconsequential.
An interesting thought, but the protagonists in the Chak War started on 17.8% and lose 0.2%/day - it would take 50 days to drop them far enough, although they could go through several cycles. And I've only seen this type of pattern in Wars - Civil Wars and Elections don't change if they're left alone.
Frankly, I think this is a bug that turns up in my results due to lack of activity. The only changes I noted yesterday in 380 records - apart from those in Wars - were in the two systems I was working in; anything our of the ordinary tends to stand out a bit.
Exactly as expected:
| Unified Chak | 51.7 | Boom | |
| Gang of Chak | 1.1 | Boom | |
| Jet Transport Partners | 13.8 | War | |
| Mironen Imperial Society | 13.8 | War | |
| Progressive Party of Hernkopa | 19.6 | Boom |
'Inconsequential' is relative; I've used this to quietly boost the fortunes of my supported faction while I got on with other things somewhere else.
Apologies, FalconFly, I've had second thoughts overnight and I think you might be on to something.
I had inferred from QA-Mitch's reference to players on other platforms in his answer to the bug report that he had missed the point. What if:
is exactly the right answer. There has to be a reason for this apparently aberrant behaviour.
1 This pattern of or regular influence losses/gains is only seen in Wars. By definition, at least one of the combatants must be an immigrant faction.
2 I don't have enough long-term records to say that regular gains/losses occur in every War. The pattern can more easily be seen in the backwater systems where influence hasn't changed for a time, but it's possible that it's always there, hidden by other activities that certainly do leech from the conflict.
If it isn't always present, let's theorise a hidden bucket that only empties and triggers the pattern after certain criteria are met.
3 FalconFly: 'The BGS drops them in Influence until they eventually reside below the minimum Trigger threshold, effectively ending their Conflict potential.' If this doesn't happen after the required number of days (see the MottiKhan's original question on this thread) and there's no external influence to interrupt the unchanging flow, the War starts up again after cooldown. Eventually, neither faction has enough influence to start the War again and may even have reached the point where one or both are forced into Retreat.
Clearly, shorter Wars speed up this process.
4 Conclusion: This is a mechanism designed to ensure that previously-loved factions - once the numbers are aligned - don't maintain a dominant position and eventually retreat to their homelands to be forgotten - until the next time - leaving room for more vibrant factions to grow.
TL;DR: Galactic society churns, even without help.
Yes, it does, but:
1 it implies that traffic reports are isolated by platform;
2 it implies that, in more than one system, player actions can cancel each other out with the result that there are regular influence changes over time.
I find 1 open to question and 2 highly unlikely.
3 It's also possible that QA-Mitch didn't appreciate the point of the report.
I'm just setting up the hypothesis that there might be a kernel of truth in the response.
1 it implies that traffic reports are isolated by platform;
2 it implies that, in more than one system, player actions can cancel each other out with the result that there are regular influence changes over time.
I find 1 open to question and 2 highly unlikely.
3 It's also possible that QA-Mitch didn't appreciate the point of the report.
I'm just setting up the hypothesis that there might be a kernel of truth in the response.
Last edited: