Inara updates, bug reports, requests
When you try to link your accounts, you may receive the http error 400 about expired tokens. It's an issue on Frontier's end that I cannot solve on Inara. Fortunately, the solution is simple - please give it a few days and it will start to work later (probably when the access token on their cAPI server expires). If the error 400 appeared later and it worked before, try to reauthenticate as said in the error message (may be just a regular reauth forced by Frontier). Alternatively, you can try to use the workaround below. If even that won't work, it's the problem described above.
Please vote for the issue on the official bug tracker: https://issues.frontierstore.net/issue-detail/21258
Possible workaround: Try to connect the account while you are in the game. It may work.
Game data and imports not available for console commanders and PC players with Legacy game version
Inara supports only the Live game version (so PC Horizons 4.0 and Odyssey) since game update 14, thus all the game data on the site and the commander data imports work only for those game versions.
24 Apr 2021, 7:02pm
IamNickMan
Could we make this a more accurate descriptor at very least? Based on the tool tip calculation, the faction's 'residence' would be better described on inara as 'population supporters.' The underlying problem with classifying them as residence is problematic. The problem here we have is that the political jurisdiction in elite dangerous is by system/station controllers. So I pose the question, How is classifying based on the Influence over population accurate when the political faction controls the system, its stations, and the system's jurisdiction? It's silly for a faction to have a total populous in its system jurisdiction of 50 Billion, but because an arbitrary influence based decision, it only shows 27 billion residents.... Like I mentioned above, if the current implementation is to stay, **PLEASE** change it to population supporters, or something to that effect.
This is how it will look like...
24 Apr 2021, 7:07pm
ArtieIamNickMan
Could we make this a more accurate descriptor at very least? Based on the tool tip calculation, the faction's 'residence' would be better described on inara as 'population supporters.' The underlying problem with classifying them as residence is problematic. The problem here we have is that the political jurisdiction in elite dangerous is by system/station controllers. So I pose the question, How is classifying based on the Influence over population accurate when the political faction controls the system, its stations, and the system's jurisdiction? It's silly for a faction to have a total populous in its system jurisdiction of 50 Billion, but because an arbitrary influence based decision, it only shows 27 billion residents.... Like I mentioned above, if the current implementation is to stay, **PLEASE** change it to population supporters, or something to that effect.
This is how it will look like...
[img=543x193]https://inara.cz/misc/poptooltip.jpg[/img]
well ill be damned, thats a bit like what I had hoped for!
24 Apr 2021, 7:12pm
Artie Yes, it is. But assumption that the controlling faction is controlling the entire population is made up, too. The in-game population numbers doesn't connect to the minor factions directly any way, just to the star system itself.
As I said it, it's jurisdiction - not control that is the source of definition.
While it is true that stations can be different legislation than the system owner, most of the population is on agriculture worlds and are always aligned to the system owner - at least legally.
Last edit: 24 Apr 2021, 8:07pm
24 Apr 2021, 7:36pm
24 Apr 2021, 8:09pm
This is how it will look like...
[img=543x193]https://inara.cz/misc/poptooltip.jpg[/img]
Either put both numbers on the page, pick the second one over the first, or use neither.
Don't hide actual residents in the tool tip window.
If a faction controls an agricultural world with let's say 5 billion inhabitants, typically only 3 or less will be counted.
I remind you there are no ports, so the jurisdiction belongs completely to the controlling faction.
This by the way is also how FDev has always counted population in the past. It was always about legislation. Influence never played a part.
Last edit: 24 Apr 2021, 8:20pm
24 Apr 2021, 8:53pm
- faction A with 0 population
- faction B with 100,000 population
At a first glance, everybody will logically assume that faction B is not exactly large, but relatively successful faction and the faction A just some losers not worth any attention. All good by the numbers.
But then the viewer digs deeper and discovers that although faction A is not controlling any star system, it is actually spread in a dozen of highly populated star systems, having 20-40% influence in each, controlling numerous star ports and thus theoretically affecting millions of people. On the other hand, faction B is just present and controlling one fringe star system with a lousy single station and that 100k is everything they've got. Who is the loser now?
That's why I want to show the numbers other way than just "full" controlled star systems population. If you don't like it and such number has no importance to you, don't hesitate to simply ignore it - it's perfectly fine that somebody may be interested in such representation and somebody is not, nothing wrong with that. Naturally, there will be better to have the mechanics based on the government type, economies, etc., some kind of a political simulation and all that, but that simply doesn't worth an effort.
Last edit: 24 Apr 2021, 9:00pm
24 Apr 2021, 9:52pm
Extending it to all minor-factions instead of just the largest ones seems a perfectly logical step. I like it.
I appreciate the phrasing could be misunderstood if read in isolation, but as it's on the minor-faction's page it's situational usage seems perfectly appropriate.
At the end of the day, the value is far more important than what it's called. BGS players like these sort of figures. It's this sort data crunching that allows Inara to expand on what Elite gives us.
25 Apr 2021, 12:25am
The problem with assets you are pointing out is biased in favor of fringe cases (compared the the mass of factions benefitting). There are some high pop systems where controllers have every single asset - yet only forty percent of the population is actually counted. This will be effecting every high population minor faction and favor wide-spread abandoned factions over well-maintained ones.
You pointed out that there can be some value in your calculated numbers. I actually agree, but I feel that is no argument to hide the other number in the tooltip over showing both.
How is it worse to have more information displayed?
Last edit: 25 Apr 2021, 4:14am
25 Apr 2021, 1:22am
You have to remember a couple of things a) the word "supporters" is already used to reference players who like a faction b) the word "residents" is already used to mean total population supporting a faction. As I said previously, I acknowledge that only works in context of reference to factions and not systems.
I'm not sure I understand your point regarding asset ownership. Do you have an equation you'd like added relating to systems/influence/asset ownership? If so, can you provide details? The residence value is just population x influence added together for each system a faction is in, stations don't come into it one way or the other. It's not trying to define the level of asset control.
Some factions like to be small players in lots of systems, some like to be big players in a smaller number of systems, many end up somewhere in the middle. I wouldn't call any faction's play style fringe even if I do have a preference (which is well-maintained by the way).
25 Apr 2021, 4:06am
Aunty Sledge
a) the word "supporters" is already used to reference players
In the very faction report you linked earlier they are called "Resident Supporters"
https://inara.cz/reports-factions/
Aunty Sledge
I'm not sure I understand your point regarding asset ownership. Do you have an equation you'd like added relating to systems/influence/asset ownership? If so, can you provide details? The residence value is just population x influence added together for each system a faction is in, stations don't come into it one way or the other. It's not trying to define the level of asset control.
Nowhere in the world are residents calculated with poll data. Let me explain what I meant by bias...
One of the arguments Artie was making against my point of "system jurisdiction" was that assets can be a different jurisdiction than the system owner.
While that is true, well over 90% of population in the game does not come from assets. He was bringing up the example of factions owing assets in high-pop systems they don't control. Most factions that benefit from the calculations though don't have any jurisdiction/assets in systems in question whatsoever. The cases where they do I called fringe cases.
25 Apr 2021, 7:52am
Aunty SledgeI like numbers, personally I'd have no beef with both being shown. But it's Artie's bat and ball, so we play his way.
You have to remember a couple of things a) the word "supporters" is already used to reference players who like a faction b) the word "residents" is already used to mean total population supporting a faction. As I said previously, I acknowledge that only works in context of reference to factions and not systems.
I'm not sure I understand your point regarding asset ownership. Do you have an equation you'd like added relating to systems/influence/asset ownership? If so, can you provide details? The residence value is just population x influence added together for each system a faction is in, stations don't come into it one way or the other. It's not trying to define the level of asset control.
Some factions like to be small players in lots of systems, some like to be big players in a smaller number of systems, many end up somewhere in the middle. I wouldn't call any faction's play style fringe even if I do have a preference (which is well-maintained by the way).
I agree and, as you said, this is Artie's house.
I also don't mind the way it is now (and appreciate the fact it's been added at all).
But, thinking of a formula... I think a formula of sorts could go, (this is just a rough idea, the values are obviously up for debate)
Every small asset = 1 unit
Every Planetary Port = 2 units
Every Coriolis/ Ocellus/ Orbis = 3 Units
Controlling the system = 3 units
Add all the units together then divide the population by that number
(I.e. 1+1+2+3+3 = 10
10,000,000 divided by 10 = 1m per unit)
Then just 1m x that faction's controlled units...
But what a ball ache to implement though... the system now is straightforward enough and still gives you something for systems you don't control.
Last edit: 25 Apr 2021, 9:23pm
25 Apr 2021, 9:43am
Infuence is popularity based, much like your faction being a political party and obtaining a person's vote. The number of supporters ebbs and flows based on public opinion. This is an internal power dynamic.
Station ownership tends to be through hostile acts (lets ignore the election aspect as it screws my analogy). It's like one country invading another but still letting the population vote for their mayor. This is more of an external power dynamic.
Currently Inara calculates the internal dynamic, do you want to measure things on an external one as well? Personally I would, and it sounds like others would as well. But we have to balance the number of people who want it against the number that don't and the overhead to the site to generate those values, and of course Artie's time to develop it. We would also have to come up with a usable method. Keep in mind that this is just us spit-balling idea, Artie often takes things I ask for and comes up with something way better.
I like JB's idea, but would put more weight on system control (maybe 6 points), as that to me respresents the top achievement. Those units would need a name that would work within a system and when calculated across all the systems they were in, perhaps "Standing". A faction could then have a "System Standing" value and a "Galactic Standing" value.
25 Apr 2021, 10:04am
Aunty SledgeSome interesting ideas. I don't know if everyone sees it this way, but this is my take.
Infuence is popularity based, much like your faction being a political party and obtaining a person's vote. The number of supporters ebbs and flows based on public opinion. This is an internal power dynamic.
Station ownership tends to be through hostile acts (lets ignore the election aspect as it screws my analogy). It's like one country invading another but still letting the population vote for their mayor. This is more of an external power dynamic.
Currently Inara calculates the internal dynamic, do you want to measure things on an external one as well? Personally I would, and it sounds like others would as well. But we have to balance the number of people who want it against the number that don't and the overhead to the site to generate those values, and of course Artie's time to develop it. We would also have to come up with a usable method. Keep in mind that this is just us spit-balling idea, Artie often takes things I ask for and comes up with something way better.
I like JB's idea, but would put more weight on system control (maybe 6 points), as that to me respresents the top achievement. Those units would need a name that would work within a system and when calculated across all the systems they were in, perhaps "Standing". A faction could then have a "System Standing" value and a "Galactic Standing" value.
I mostly agree with what's said here, and I love JB's idea (though I'd also give system control much higher weighting as the system controller basically controls all the planets and space that isn't explicitly controlled by other factions in the system).
What I think many have a problem with, or rather what I'd see as problematic here, is that the figure shown is just named "residents". And I don't believe the internal dynamic is a good representation of "residents" as a whole. Citizens wouldn't keep changing their faction affiliation every other day, so imo influence numbers can't really represent that, and the external dynamic you described would be a more accurate value.
TL;DR "residents" should be renamed to "supporting residents" in the overview as well, not only in the tooltip. And if Artie is willing, I'd love a number for the "external dynamic" as well.
25 Apr 2021, 10:11am
Maybe things like inhabited planets would get a unit value for the controlling faction... I don't know. But, as I said, it was just a quick thought so the unit values assigned to things wasn't given much thought. I guess that would be something new that we can all fall out over
25 Apr 2021, 4:16pm
Hello,
You could fill a gigantic hole in Elite Dangerous by including a notes column in the Hangar/Stored Modules page.
I have a bunch of engineered modules that I swap around but after a while I have no clue what ship they belong to.
A column to add a little note to each module would really help keep track of things. This has been requested on
ED forums many times for years. but they don't care.
Thx
o7
Link to Inara Discord: https://discord.gg/qfkFWTr