BGS discussion : Exioce aftermath (some posts moved from [ENDED- War in Exioce] )

Discussion about the Order of Mobius faction in Elite: Dangerous
User avatar
Judson
Master
Master
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:39 pm
CMDR: Judson
CMDR_Platform: PC-MAC
Contact:

Re: BGS discussion : Exioce aftermath (some posts moved from [ENDED- War in Exioce] )

Postby Judson » Sun Mar 13, 2016 12:20 pm

Xebeth wrote:Now given that only players can change influence (with the exception of some natural decay), this would seem to indicate that players were potential acting for Crimson, potentially by completing missions?


Only combat missions would count though hardly enough of these to counter OoM war action.
Image
Image

User avatar
Xebeth
Deadly
Deadly
Posts: 4081
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:22 am
CMDR: Xebeth
CMDR_Platform: PC-MAC
Contact:

Re: BGS discussion : Exioce aftermath (some posts moved from [ENDED- War in Exioce] )

Postby Xebeth » Sun Mar 13, 2016 12:26 pm

Judson wrote:
Xebeth wrote:Now given that only players can change influence (with the exception of some natural decay), this would seem to indicate that players were potential acting for Crimson, potentially by completing missions?


Only combat missions would count though hardly enough of these to counter OoM war action.


True, what about handing in bounties?
Image
Please make sure you have read the Mobius GroupPolicy

User avatar
Judson
Master
Master
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:39 pm
CMDR: Judson
CMDR_Platform: PC-MAC
Contact:

Re: BGS discussion : Exioce aftermath (some posts moved from [ENDED- War in Exioce] )

Postby Judson » Sun Mar 13, 2016 12:46 pm

Xebeth wrote:
Judson wrote:
Xebeth wrote:Now given that only players can change influence (with the exception of some natural decay), this would seem to indicate that players were potential acting for Crimson, potentially by completing missions?


Only combat missions would count though hardly enough of these to counter OoM war action.


True, what about handing in bounties?


I think it much more pertinent to have enough impact on war % that direct opposition in the war in private groups would have had to be undertaken on a large scale (no sign of such in open). I find this incredible if true!
Image
Image

User avatar
Xebeth
Deadly
Deadly
Posts: 4081
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2014 10:22 am
CMDR: Xebeth
CMDR_Platform: PC-MAC
Contact:

Re: BGS discussion : Exioce aftermath (some posts moved from [ENDED- War in Exioce] )

Postby Xebeth » Sun Mar 13, 2016 1:00 pm

If we take

Capture.JPG
Capture.JPG (12.75 KiB) Viewed 2365 times

OoM increased by 0.3%, Crimson increased 0.9%, the other two warring factions went down, but only by a total of 0.5%.

Assuming that only combat bonds were involved, both OoM and Crimson increased because more bonds were handed in for each than either of the other two warring factions, but overall more bonds were handed in for Crimson, meaning a number of players were fighting for Crimson?
Image
Please make sure you have read the Mobius GroupPolicy

User avatar
Judson
Master
Master
Posts: 729
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 4:39 pm
CMDR: Judson
CMDR_Platform: PC-MAC
Contact:

Re: BGS discussion : Exioce aftermath (some posts moved from [ENDED- War in Exioce] )

Postby Judson » Sun Mar 13, 2016 1:10 pm

Xebeth wrote:If we take

Capture.JPG

OoM increased by 0.3%, Crimson increased 0.9%, the other two warring factions went down, but only by a total of 0.5%.

Assuming that only combat bonds were involved, both OoM and Crimson increased because more bonds were handed in for each than either of the other two warring factions, but overall more bonds were handed in for Crimson, meaning a number of players were fighting for Crimson?


Xebeth I don't know if you have followed all my posts but if you have you will know that I don't believe those figures and do believe they were manually 'adjusted'. Maybe I should step back from this convo, I don't want to discourage others who still believe! :roll:
Image
Image

User avatar
Tifu
Master
Master
Posts: 578
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 10:23 am
CMDR: Tifu
CMDR_Platform: PC-MAC
Contact:

Re: BGS discussion : Exioce aftermath (some posts moved from [ENDED- War in Exioce] )

Postby Tifu » Sun Mar 13, 2016 2:04 pm

Updated stats with @Judson's figures for OoM & Crimsom for the missing days :

Image

Image

Image

User avatar
Tifu
Master
Master
Posts: 578
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 10:23 am
CMDR: Tifu
CMDR_Platform: PC-MAC
Contact:

Re: BGS discussion : Exioce aftermath (some posts moved from [ENDED- War in Exioce] )

Postby Tifu » Sun Mar 13, 2016 2:26 pm

Xebeth wrote:If we take

Capture.JPG

OoM increased by 0.3%, Crimson increased 0.9%, the other two warring factions went down, but only by a total of 0.5%.

Assuming that only combat bonds were involved, both OoM and Crimson increased because more bonds were handed in for each than either of the other two warring factions, but overall more bonds were handed in for Crimson, meaning a number of players were fighting for Crimson?


It looks like it. The graph shows that we were widening the lead over Crimsom up till Feb 27. Then a sudden spike in Crimsom's influence took place on the 28th & the 29th then plateued on March 1st.

*Edit :

@Deadmeat posted this link which was dated ~ March 1 : https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteLavigny/c ... 6/ald_czs/

This looks like a bunch of ALD supporters who were looking for credits & a hike in their combat level. Bad timing for us.

User avatar
Walter
Master
Master
Posts: 778
Joined: Sat Nov 08, 2014 5:54 pm
CMDR: Walter Wall
CMDR_Platform: PC-MAC
Contact:

Re: BGS discussion : Exioce aftermath (some posts moved from [ENDED- War in Exioce] )

Postby Walter » Sun Mar 13, 2016 5:31 pm

I've taken the liberty of revamping your figures slightly to highlight the relationships between events:

Image

On 27th Feb gained influence from outside the conflict and again on the 29th - apparently mainly from Allied PLC. On the 1st March both OoM and Crimson Electronics acquired points from Allied and we have to assume that others were supporting CE on that day - this supports Fdevs statement in the bug report.

During the overlap of the two conflicts (I'm assuming that your sheet covers the OoM/CE war) it's clear that the OoM/CE war took influence points (on the 3rd, 4th and 5th) from the IS/Dems conflict.

This suggests that we need to know a lot more about what happens during conflicts and gather as much ammunition (if you'll pardon the phrase) as possible to take the the Discussion forum to fight the case for more clarity in influence changes during conflicts.
Image

User avatar
Tifu
Master
Master
Posts: 578
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 10:23 am
CMDR: Tifu
CMDR_Platform: PC-MAC
Contact:

Re: BGS discussion : Exioce aftermath (some posts moved from [ENDED- War in Exioce] )

Postby Tifu » Sun Mar 13, 2016 11:12 pm

@Walter, many many thanks :) That clarifies things quite a bit. It looks like we have to keep close track of all the figures and plot them in the next war.

We hit the 10% lead on the 28th. Some have said in the FD BGS thread that that's the point where the war's duration starts shortening.


Return to “General Assembly”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 28 guests

i