Time to remove BGS exploits

[[VR] Mad Mike]

The BGS was designed at its core from transactions.

When it was concieved, the idea was that we would not have a very good understanding of it, but that if a CMDR settled in a small system their actions would have a noticible effect.

After it was noticed, it was analysed, and a lot of effort was put in to experiment and investigation. Frontier responded and we have seen much improvement to the BGS. Stability and predictability and uh - Flow. Yeah there's a kind of rythm spread over time to the way operations work in sequence.

But some things work well - so we all do that.
And some things that you would thing should work - don't really do much.

Missions are the base line. - One mission one plop of influence.
Except that mission availability and effectiveness is hugely dependednt on the states of the factions.
The effectiveness of a mission type might be halved or doubled.

But the effect of Trade and Exploration and Crime need to be counted as well.
And all these things can me measured in hundreds, thousands or millions of credits.

Those who advocate for value based influence change are saying that end-game CMDRs should have more clout. Ten trips in a Cutter should outweigh ten trips in a Cobra. Seems fair enough.
But it also means that one CMDR in a Cutter can outweight ten CMDRs in Cobras - and that seems unfair as well.

That's why I advocate for the log of the value.
Transaction has value 10Cr = 1 influence plop.
Transaction has value 100Cr = 2 influence polp
transaction has 10,000 Cr = 4 influence plop
Transaction has value 1,000,000Cr = 6 inlfuence plop

Obviously you can still game this with single transactions, but that gearing is what I am advocating.

A one million credit transaction should have more worth than a ten credit transaction.
Maybe not 100,000 times more, and maybe not as low as six times more, but something more.

I think that is a good and fair idea. As for the single submission exploit. I can think of one "easy" solution . Submission works in 5 mins ticks. If I submit 1 system data, then 10 others over the course of the next 4 mins these work the same as 1 submission as 11 systems in that "tick". Every 5 mins it resets. OK it COULD still be gamed by 1 submission every 5 mins. IF a player wants to do that well at that point I say fair enough but I think most would just play it straight

 

[_Flin_]

Fixing it isn't the thing. Trade 1-clicks have been fixed and the trade influence on the BGS works nicely now.

Seeing the urgency or need to fix these issue is mainly the thing.

The BGS is inherently an indirect long term PvP game. And as with every good PvP the metagame evolves. The current metagame is mature and revolves around murder and transactions. It has evolved and is at the end of it's lifecycle.

Murder and Explo are the backbone of current gameplay, plus some finer strategic details.

It has been like that since 2.3, and it's time for a change.

 

[sollisb]

I have some 16 weeks in game on this version of my CMDR, and I still don't use, don't know about, not care, about the BGS. May as well not be there fas as I'm concerned.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That is a blank statement that sounds good but is untrue. Tell me: How do you use exploration as a weapon where the faction you want to attack owns all stations with landing pads? Well... you don't.

In that situation you can't. The only way as you know is to use whatever means you have to induce a war to own a station and then use exploration data.

These sentences show you have not really grasped the extent of the effectiveness of murder. One person in a low pop system can tank the ruler by 30% influence loss in one hour. So in two or three days, the ruler is at 1%, triggering retreat. That will probably happen before any lockdown or civil unrest ever happens (because cooldowns).

You can only fight this by investing about 5 times as much time into exploration as the attacker does into murder.

When I was with Utopia, we fought against BGS attacks like this all the time. Its not easy to fight back, but its possible with organization and vigilance. The Terra Matter area is under constant attack and has been for over a year. On my own I fought off a massive attack on Midgard by simply using the tactics they used against themselves.

And the Fed/Imp hardware comes as a response to a crime. Which then gets killed, and then spawns more waves in response. It really is a difference to fight FAS, FDS and Corvettes than Vipers, Anacondas and Pythons.

Depends how good you are. NPC Corvettes are actually easier to kill than NPC Anacondas, and the toughest security opponent is actually the Python. The Viper Mk 4 is a pain as its tanky and fast. When you have 12 security ships firing at you and you want to kill as many as possible these two ships are the last to be killed. Its actually faster to kill Anacondas and Corvettes as once the shields are down the powerplants are very vulnerable. Clippers, FAS and FGS naval vessels are mincemeat.

Counterquestion: Why is it right, that you can only retreat a faction when it rules? Why is it not able to attack a minor faction that has neither a station nor does it rule the system?

But you can. Unless its changed since I left Utopia, killing faction ships does negatively influence that faction. The last bubble I flipped had a rats nest of Fed govs in them and each day I'd kill a set number to adjust their influences. Its not easy, and often this had odd consequences but it worked.

Quick fix: Cap murder at 2% per player per day. Or 15% total. Or whatever. As it is right now, it is a nuclear option.

As far as I know there is a cap as to how much killing can influence a system already in place, in a similar fashion to the diminishing returns that exploration data provides.

Do remember also that Sandro said at FX 17 that system security will get some teeth, so the situation may change and that this will get addressed.

 

[_Flin_]

lalala

What you basically say is:

"All is well. It worked some day in the past when i did it. Git Gud".

Thank you for your input.

 

[Rubbernuke]

What you basically say is:

"All is well. It worked some day in the past when i did it. Git Gud".

Thank you for your input.

No need to be rude, but then its expected I suppose when an opinion does not match yours.

It is a case of 'getting gud' if you want to do serious BGS work. To flip a billion pop system solo requires a scaled response, so you do have to kill more difficult opponents, and when you face opponents trying to destroy your bgs work you have to 'git organised' and take the gloves off.

Utopia got to have 100% flips for bubbles for a reason. Its current project is to flip every system in its influence to friendly govs, with 219 left to go out of nearly 900, eradicating negative govs entirely. And thats just the first stage.

I do agree the BGS could do with more variety to alter influencing govs, but that would involve FD changing the transactional nature of the underlying engine and I don't think thats possible without a total rework. It is true that murder is a potent tool, but its balanced by bounty hunting, trade and exploration data. If your opponent holds system assets you can attack them locally and hurt them without damaging system rep too, so I don't see the problem as murder works both ways.

 

[Apos]

Its a shame, if player groups could learn to work together; we could effectively steer the game as one.

Indeed. We poor players just brought the Alliance close to Sol in order to provide easier access to players to the Chieftain and incoming Alliance ships and all we were met with is hostilities. [where is it]

Oh the humanity.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

The BGS was designed at its core from transactions.

When it was concieved, the idea was that we would not have a very good understanding of it, but that if a CMDR settled in a small system their actions would have a noticible effect.
…

I agree with you, the BGS was designed to make the inhabited galaxy feel more dynamic and "living". In addition to that I don't think that it was designed as a way to actively change system ownership.
I don't think that FD realized that players would spend their whole playtime and energy in changing systems.

I still think that players have too much influence on the political part of the BGS. For me it's just absurd that a few players can change the ownership of a station or even system.

Those who manipulate the BGS are affecting the game lore of all the other players and this can be in a negative "lore breaking" way. FD should, in my opinion, restrict this ability.
Currently the results of players affecting the BGS are often making no sense and some would result in big wars - if the galaxy was something logical (human logic, not math logic).

OK, enough of a long intro.

DNA-Decay, you wrote about value of transaction as a solution for those "exploits".

I think changing the way the transactions are counted would be a better method.
Currently one transaction is "sell everything of one type". If the system would count every single item as one transaction and the "buckets" for those transactions where increased it would make handing in single steps not useful anymore.

Example: Player spends time in a CZ. That player kills 23 enemy ships and gets 23 combat bonds. Player docks and hands in the combat bonds all at once. BGS registers this as 23 combat bonds - 23 transactions - and not as just one transaction.

Same for exploration: every system counts as one transaction, no matter if they are sold individually or in bulk.

The only problematic thing remains "murder". As this mechanic doesn't involve real "transactions" and only the action is counted without the player having to do something in addition. In that case just increasing the "bucket" would be enough.
Personally I would also reduce the effect of murder. Having a much lower effect on faction influence.

 

[_Flin_]

I do agree the BGS could do with more variety to alter influencing govs, but that would involve FD changing the transactional nature of the underlying engine and I don't think thats possible without a total rework. It is true that murder is a potent tool, but its balanced by bounty hunting, trade and exploration data. If your opponent holds system assets you can attack them locally and hurt them without damaging system rep too, so I don't see the problem as murder works both ways.

Our experience for the different tools at hand is pretty complete.
Our judgement regarding murder, however, differs.

Transactions need to be balanced.

Explo 1-click is just dumb. Not that explo shouldn't have it's uses for the BGS, but that clicking one by one actually makes a difference.
Murder is too potent. Having 20% drops with not a lot of effort is too much. Yes, we use it too, but that's not the point. It has e.g. no cap, like trade has. You just do it, and in case there are diminishing returns, they are pretty flat.
And the other transaction playstyles are boring and tedious. Just think about "how can i manage to maximize the number of transactions", and you will probably begin to yawn.

The change for trade has already been implemented, so it shouldn't be too hard to mimic the changes and lessen the impact of transactions in the influence queue, or cap them.

What we want is a variety of eligible playstyles. We want strategic and clever gameplay. Use of states, use of missions, use of game mechanics, trade, bounty hunt, explore, missions, piracy, smuggling.
Attack a ruler different from a non-ruler, and do different things in different situations.

For maximum efficiency you should always have the need to combine multiple different actions. It has been like this in the past, and that was when the BGS was at it's finest.

 

[Kerrash]

Perhaps I should try to broker a deal between the heads of all the player groups...

 

[Theodrid]

Perhaps I should try to broker a deal between the heads of all the player groups...

Blimey, don't make things worse Kerrash!

 

[Apos]

Perhaps I should try to broker a deal between the heads of all the player groups...

Good luck with that. That would be like trying to get the SDC to not gank people, but go ahead.

 

[[VR] Enexemander]

You can't broker a deal with a group whose gameplay revolves entirely around attacking other groups. And we have reputable sources that EDF has a history that extends further than us.

Their RP are all alibis really.

And good luck having their officers actually reply to begin with. Best you'll get is "we will talk about it", then they'll never come back to you.

Don't worry, they'll get bored of not getting their way eventually.

The accurate part of this post is that EDF has a long history. We've been in the official lore several times.

Our officers will also always talk to anyone. We all have lives and live in different timezones, so it might not be right this second, but it is something we make a priority. In the EDF, we are also not a TOP DOWN kind of fleet. If we are going to make a big decision, we try to involve all our members. It's highly likely that if you asked a question that involved the entire fleet, the officers wanted to discuss it with everyone first. Since, again, we all have lives, live in different countries, and not everyone is active on voice comms, it can take a while.

Look Apos, roleplay all you want. It's fun. I do it. But don't be a jerk IRL.

 

[Apos]

The accurate part of this post is that EDF has a long history. We've been in the official lore several times.

Our officers will also always talk to anyone. We all have lives and live in different timezones, so it might not be right this second, but it is something we make a priority. In the EDF, we are also not a TOP DOWN kind of fleet. If we are going to make a big decision, we try to involve all our members. It's highly likely that if you asked a question that involved the entire fleet, the officers wanted to discuss it with everyone first. Since, again, we all have lives, live in different countries, and not everyone is active on voice comms, it can take a while.

Look Apos, roleplay all you want. It's fun. I do it. But don't be a jerk IRL.

We have reputable sources that you attacked the Hutton Truckers in the past, so I'm not sure who is the jerk again?

I asked a simple question: What is your goal? And yet I still haven't got a clear reply to something so basic yet.

 

[Miklos Atreides]

I agree with you, the BGS was designed to make the inhabited galaxy feel more dynamic and "living". In addition to that I don't think that it was designed as a way to actively change system ownership.
I don't think that FD realized that players would spend their whole playtime and energy in changing systems.

I still think that players have too much influence on the political part of the BGS. For me it's just absurd that a few players can change the ownership of a station or even system.

Those who manipulate the BGS are affecting the game lore of all the other players and this can be in a negative "lore breaking" way. FD should, in my opinion, restrict this ability.
Currently the results of players affecting the BGS are often making no sense and some would result in big wars - if the galaxy was something logical (human logic, not math logic).
...

I am fully ok with the ability of a player or a group of players to change a system or sttion. Only thing with BGS is that it is still not really incorporated into the galaxy.
It is shifting some strange background numbers (getting modified by players input) and the outcome can be seen once a day. It needs a lot of more integration.
If the BGS would be realti ...äh, no, but clocktickwise every second hour. Filling the NPCs with good flying from A to B based on senseful data and shifting the rest in a
background action would lead to a lot more dynamic.
If BGS evolves to being able to inhabit uninahbited Systems on Expansion then we will see a lot more opportunities for players when expansion becomes successfull and outposts
begin to grow to Orbis Starports, maybe including the generation of Community goals if the event allows it.

In short the pitfall of BGS is not its existance, it's the lacking integration that makes it that clunky.

Regards,
Miklos

 

[[VR] Enexemander]

We have reputable sources that you attacked the Hutton Truckers in the past, so I'm not sure who is the jerk again?

Can you really not separate your real life from this game?

You invaded Federation space with the express purpose of getting a response from Federation players. We're the ones that stepped up. Instead of any kind of thank you, all you're throwing at us is your victim complex. Pro tip- You can't simultaneously be the aggressor and the victim. Pick one. Spoiler alert, you already picked one in this conflict.

BTW, we're cool with the truckers. We had a conflict in the game, had some fun, and made some friends. You know, like you're supposed to?

 

[Apos]

Can you really not separate your real life from this game?

You invaded Federation space with the express purpose of getting a response from Federation players. We're the ones that stepped up. Instead of any kind of thank you, all you're throwing at us is your victim complex. Pro tip- You can't simultaneously be the aggressor and the victim. Pick one. Spoiler alert, you already picked one in this conflict.

BTW, we're cool with the truckers. We had a conflict in the game, had some fun, and made some friends. You know, like you're supposed to?

I don't make friends with compulsive liars, nor have fun seeing them play the "let's be civil card" after their own repeated attempts at slander.

You will be treated with the same standard you have upheld.

 

[[VR] Enexemander]

I don't make friends with compulsive liars, nor have fun seeing them play the "let's be civil card" after their own repeated attempts at slander.

You will be treated with the same standard you have upheld.

I think you have some personal issues. And with that, I'll take my leave.

Have fun everyone.

 

[Apos]

I think you have some personal issues. And with that, I'll take my leave.

Have fun everyone.

Don't let the door hit you on your way to your next murder spree.

 

[Rubbernuke]

What we want is a variety of eligible playstyles. We want strategic and clever gameplay. Use of states, use of missions, use of game mechanics, trade, bounty hunt, explore, missions, piracy, smuggling.
Attack a ruler different from a non-ruler, and do different things in different situations.

For maximum efficiency you should always have the need to combine multiple different actions. It has been like this in the past, and that was when the BGS was at it's finest.

I'd love more playstyles, but then it becomes an issue with RNG / balance if the new playstyles come from missions. I'd like something like espionage, you could have strategic scan points, or scan ships stealthily and hand in the data obtained as you fly round a system. If a security ship scans you then the data is invalid perhaps (since they know whats compromised). The other is maybe amplifying passengers influences on the BGS more than it is currently.

And you can still mix and match actions with the BGS too. Certain combinations now can boost factions very quickly and put them on a very advantageous footing when wars become pending. As far as security elimination, on a 1.5 billion pop system I found that after killing 50 security I moved 1.5%, with 100 it moved 1.7% and 150 1.8%. It could have been how ED rounds things up or down, but it became very difficult for a single commander to do much more. I think once crime and punishment come into force this will attenuate murder with the BGS as it will become much more difficult to fly unmolested. For example I was hostile to the Feds but all Federal aligned stations still let me dock, which I found disappointing.