Hi commanda2212,
Yes, you're absolutely correct, I certainly intended to say on the stream last night that a conflict state anywhere in a Faction's queue can block new conflicts and expansions from triggering, including pending states.
Dav
Your Questions Needed - Join the Elite Tutorial Livestream - Everything You Need to Know About the Background Sim
- Thread starter Edward Lewis
- Start date
- Status
Hi commanda2212,
Yes, you're absolutely correct, I certainly intended to say on the stream last night that a conflict state anywhere in a Faction's queue can block new conflicts and expansions from triggering, including pending states.
Dav
Very informative stream, thanks. I can agree that things of "visualizing" background sim have improved. What I think I lack NPC chatter around stations. However I believe you will improve things gradually and 2.1 sounds like awesome update regarding this.
As for BSG complexity - there's no use of additional things if they can't create interesting and fun meta encounters. No need for huge additions...just add something you feel what's required for commanders to feel more involved.
As for BSG complexity - there's no use of additional things if they can't create interesting and fun meta encounters. No need for huge additions...just add something you feel what's required for commanders to feel more involved.
I often can't watch these live streams live...is there some central point I can watch them at my leisure?
EDIT: Never mind, found them...I don't know how long the YouTube page takes to update...
EDIT: Never mind, found them...I don't know how long the YouTube page takes to update...
Last edited:
Well, I was watching the video on the channel at 8AM UK time, if that helps you quantify it.
Question for the devs: you mentioned that tech level "waxes and wanes;" are there specific drivers for it outside of boom? (I've been arguing for a long time that boom is more than just an annoyance, or at least wasn't intended to be
)
Last edited:
Deleted member 38366
D
Well this is interesting...
Pondering about those "Shipyard upgrades", I just docked at Kiernan Co-Operative/Shalatucas.
For as long as I've known that place, it only ever offered a Sidewinder (extremely poor Station for Ships or Outfitting).
I've just checked out of pure curiosity :
And lo and behold - the Shipyard now offers Sidewinder, Cobra Mk.III, Viper Mk.III, Cobra Mk.IV and the Viper Mk.IV. 5 Ships now 0.o
Weapons Outfitting remained unchanged, though. A mighty C1 Shock Mine Launcher is still the only Weapon the entire Station has to offer
So when it comes to Shipyards - well, these things are now indeed moving.
*scratches head*
Something tells me there's been quite a number of "silent background changes" in the last few weeks.
Pondering about those "Shipyard upgrades", I just docked at Kiernan Co-Operative/Shalatucas.
For as long as I've known that place, it only ever offered a Sidewinder (extremely poor Station for Ships or Outfitting).
I've just checked out of pure curiosity :
And lo and behold - the Shipyard now offers Sidewinder, Cobra Mk.III, Viper Mk.III, Cobra Mk.IV and the Viper Mk.IV. 5 Ships now 0.o
Weapons Outfitting remained unchanged, though. A mighty C1 Shock Mine Launcher is still the only Weapon the entire Station has to offer
So when it comes to Shipyards - well, these things are now indeed moving.
*scratches head*
Something tells me there's been quite a number of "silent background changes" in the last few weeks.
Last edited by a moderator:
Have you been working the system?Well this is interesting...
Pondering about those "Shipyard upgrades", I just docked at Kiernan Co-Operative/Shalatucas.
For as long as I've known that place, it only ever offered a Sidewinder (extremely poor Station for Ships or Outfitting).
I've just checked out of pure curiosity :
And lo and behold - the Shipyard now offers Sidewinder, Cobra Mk.III, Viper Mk.III, Cobra Mk.IV and the Viper Mk.IV. 5 Ships now 0.o
Outfitting remained apparently unchanged, though. A mighty C1 Shock Mine Launcher is still the only Weapon the entire Station has to offer
So when it comes to Shipyards - well, these things are now indeed moving.
*scratches head*
Something tells me there's been quite a number of "silent background changes" in the last few weeks.
What were the active and pending states?
Do you have any history in working the system?
Developers probably meant 15% of develoopment level or wealth, not influence.
Deleted member 38366
D
Here's the Influence and States of that System and the Station (States shared amongst several Systems; for complete overview see my Sig), beginning from the days before we won the Elections over it (and System Control) :
Code:
15/04 | Shalatucas 78.8%
14/04 | Shalatucas 78.7%
13/04 | Shalatucas 78.6%
12/04 | Shalatucas 77.0%
11/04 | Shalatucas 77.3% EXP
10/04 | Shalatucas 77.2% EXP
09/04 | Shalatucas 77.1% EXP
08/04 | Shalatucas 75.4% EXP
07/04 | Shalatucas 75.3%
06/04 | Shalatucas 72.6%
05/04 | Shalatucas 79.0%
04/04 | Shalatucas 77.8%
03/04 | Shalatucas 79.5%
02/04 | Shalatucas 79.4% Boom
01/04 | Shalatucas 77.1% Boom
31/03 | Shalatucas 75.6% Boom
30/03 | Shalatucas 75.1% Boom
29/03 | Shalatucas 73.4% Boom
28/03 | Shalatucas 86.6% Boom
27/03 | Shalatucas 85.8% Boom
26/03 | Shalatucas 84.9% Boom
25/03 | Shalatucas 83.4% Boom
24/03 | Shalatucas 83.7%
23/03 | Shalatucas 83.3%
22/03 | Shalatucas 82.2%
21/03 | Shalatucas 82.2%
20/03 | Shalatucas 82.2%
19/03 | Shalatucas 82.2% EXP
18/03 | Shalatucas 82.4% EXP
17/03 | Shalatucas 80.6% EXP
16/03 | Shalatucas 78.4% EXP
15/03 | Shalatucas 80.7% EXP
14/03 | Shalatucas 85.9% Won
13/03 | Shalatucas 87.4% Elec
12/03 | Shalatucas 87.9% Elec
11/03 | Shalatucas 85.1% Elec
10/03 | Shalatucas 83.6% ElecOur Faction received very massive Support during difficult Elections, which started out at the very unfavorable high starting Influence of 83.6% for us (case : our Faction wasn't controlling the System yet but had far overtaken the Controlling Faction).
After we won the Station & System, the Support was mainly typical Mining Deliveries (Terraforming Economy) and common Metal-Trades, nothing special and hardly a fraction of what we put into it during these Elections.
(based on the numbers I saw, we won Elections intra-day; apparently by a very narrow margin... we literally threw everything and the kitchen sink at it during these few days. On occasion I alone ran >70 Missions for our Faction per day).
I did visit its Shipyard about a month ago, and I'm sure it still had only the Sidewinder.
Hence, my assumption that whatever happened to it has to be quite recent.
Last edited by a moderator:
It seemed like they discussed it in the context of a relief valve on influence, and as a way to keep factions from being continually high enough for expansion. Plus I wouldn't think development level or wealth would be stored as a percentage. Could be wrong though, I haven't had a chance to re-watch the stream yet.
0.1% to each of the other factions, each day when no activity is conduct in the system (traffic reports tell me this) is not random.
Another good edition - interesting, informative and entertaining - a big thanks to all.
And let's just remind ourselves, up to and around two million player transactions per hour in the BGS...
...TWO MILLION...
Or if you prefer, 33,000 per minute... or, 560 per second...
Bloody good job!
And let's just remind ourselves, up to and around two million player transactions per hour in the BGS...
...TWO MILLION...
Or if you prefer, 33,000 per minute... or, 560 per second...
Bloody good job!
Legacy_LuckyLuke
Banned
I've been trying to find this on YouTube - is it not published yet?
Legacy_LuckyLuke
Banned
Brilliant - thanks !
Thanks so much for responding to my post, Dav. Really appreciate it. That's a very helpful clarification. I can presumably deduce from it that it's 'inward trade' that matters for faction-influence while shipping out, doesn't (and that bears true with our extensive testing). The profit-factor is new to me, though - so far, our tests were inconclusive as far as profit went, but this may have been because our tests were still 'polluted' by the misconceptions over whether exports mattered too. We'll test again! Thanks for the lead...
Hmm - interesting. Can you reveal a little more, please? We're having difficulty assimilating whether an increased number of transactions lowers or raises the influence cap for that day - our initial results indicates that it raises it, but I'm not sure if this is merely an aberration caused by us testing in low-population, low-traffic systems in order to limit the 'noise'.
Ok - I'm sure you're aware, then, that there is a growing number of people 'testing' the theory that trading 'tonne-by-tonne' is a great way to flip a station much more quickly than doing it 'normally' in singular bulk transactions (regardless of profit). I raise this because I am not 100% sure that your algorithm is working entirely as you intended across the full spectrum of input conditions. Try it, if you haven't already. Tonne for tonne, dealing in 'bits' seems way, way more effective, as I surmised some months ago.
Hmm - again, that would tend to suggest that the more player-activity in a system, the tighter the influence cap squeezes down on the final number, yes? If so, it's not always what we're seeing - or maybe I'm just having trouble deciphering your phrasing? A slighty more overt pointer would be welcomed...
Whilst this may be true, the apparent effects of a large exploration cash-in are such that there DOES seem to be waste here. The influence value of the data diminishes, if cashed-in in one big dump on a single day after a long exploration mission, because the influence cap bites in as a limiter.
Conversely, if that explorer saves chunks of his data, and then dribbles it in system-by-system (not page-by-page) over the next few days, he gets far, far more influence value for that same total quantity of data, because the caps don't take away its value so much, or at all, if small enough dumps are made. Yes, it takes longer, yes there is an element of 'gaming' around the influence-cap system here, but in truth, the astute long-term explorer feels they have to do it this way if they want their hard-earned, valuable data to maximally help their team's effort to flip a station or rebalance a system. Obviously the single explorer working in isolation purely for their own cash benefit doesn't need to do this and won't care one way or the other, but the team-player explorer who is working with a player-group is basically 'wasting effort' if they don't know about this 'trick', and they cash all their data in in one big page-by-page dump the conventional way. Intended mastery, or gamey exploit - what's FDev's view?
In short, whether we're talking about commodity trading or exploration data, it's the same - mini-transactions appear (if we're looking at this correctly) to have an overwhelmingly greater power over influence than individual profits or bulk-actions. My gut feeling is that the code isn't working quite the way you envisaged, maybe? Station-flipping is easy now if you know the technique, as some folks using these dribble-tactics en-masse to quickly bring about a conflict have already demonstrated to quite dramatic effect - I think maybe The Code needs checking, to see if the code needs fixing, if you get my meaning...
Thanks again for taking the time out to read and reply - I'm really very grateful to you all, both for this kindness and the excellent work you have all done to provide us with this deep and engaging simulation.
Regards
Last edited:
I'd asked this question before the stream. During the stream Dav said the collecting and handing in Combat Bonds was the best was to win a war/civil war. This is not born out in game. In game whist it might offer a small amount of influence, murder offers a massive about of influence change. In our wars we have a good number of players mining the combat zones. We were massively out matched by just two pilots killing police at our stations. TO the tune of losing 4-5% influence a day, despite our efforts in a system with 994 million pop.
My interpretation of his comments here and in the stream is that more transactions in a system per tick allows the cap to go up, so that larger influence swings are possible if all the driving factors are moving influence in the same direction. I think this fits very well with the observed results of small quantity trading or selling exploration data by system.
Let's say a large population system (100 million-ish) has a default cap of 3% total influence movement. Going there and selling a cutter full of mining metal would be big profit, but very few transactions. So the influence of the station owner would go up, but only as much as the default cap plus a little from the transaction number. So influence goes up 3.1%. Now, sell that same cutter load one tonne at a time, and you've just increased the number of transactions in that system by about 700, pushing the cap higher. The profit you generated is the same. Total possible positive influence movement from that profit is the same. But the cap is higher, so more of the positive influence is allowed, and influence goes up by 10%. Same theory for the number of transactions involved with an exploration sale.
Once the 1T trading was reported, they obviously changed something. Either in the balancing of the transactions against the cap, or in properly weighting how much profit = how much influence gain. (Inverse for selling at a loss, it seems)
Thinking about it that way, does it match your observations? High praise for bringing this to light btw. I think we've all learned a lot about the BGS mechanics because of it.
Here's a link to a Word doc I made with notes. If there are errors or omissions, let me know and I'll add or correct them.
View attachment BGS Video Notes.docx
edit: remove link + attachment
View attachment BGS Video Notes.docx
edit: remove link + attachment
Last edited:
Thanks!
I must say it is the first stream that was actually interesting since it has started.
Thank you for it.
- Status