Please, help me to catch up. What is the difference between value and transactions+?
Decision Paper on Background Simulator in Elite Dangerous
- Thread starter Jane Turner
- Start date
Value = credits. Transactions = points. Points would be turning in a bounty, combat bond, exploration drop or a + influence from a mission.
No, I know what full transactions is.
I am asking about "transactions+".
If bringing in 756 tonnes would result in 75.6 transactions, would not the system just be the same as "value" one and both would have to be rebalanced exactly the same way?
Or is there some principal difference and I have to read full paper?
Ah, ok. I misunderstood.
Transaction+ would count each kill in a combat zone, each kill in a RES, etc and count each system when you drop exploration data as a transaction instead of counting the times you turn it in.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
One way to do it would be to have a modifier - say 0.1 to 2 to cover a range of values say 1000-10,000,000 for bonds and bounties - so there would still be a transaction of 2 points when dropping and a modifer that would take it from .2 to 4 depending on value. This may be easier than we expect since there seems to be a modifier at work in trade transations already.
Or make it possible to drop bounties and bonds singly if you wished
I am about sure that "value" and "transactions+" would bring exactly the same outcome with the same balancing.
I.e., development wise, "transactions+" with a modifier to each transaction is just one way to implement a value base. Unless that I am missing something.
Maybe "Value" does not include effect applying right after the deed is done, rather than the player just cashing in?
So far I can say that I approve value base. With the transactions effecting right after the deed is done. Anything less, and Fdev would have to deal with the same stuff as they do with "hot" ships, i.e. pile more unnatural stuff for it to work with existing unnatural stuff.
In case of "hot" ships, the reason for this mess IMO was the fact that player have a single bank account only.
The game is still beta... yeah, so it's fine for stuff to become a bit volatile. Goids rampage would be a good way to explain this lore-wise, or some way at least.
In overall balance, I think player's ability to manipulate should be tied to population. You should be able to start a revolution in a small "village" using a Sidey, you need a squadron of Cutters to do the same with Sol.
Last edited:
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
Its already is!
But atm, squadron of Sideys is only marginally less efficient than same amount of Cutters, is it not so?
Balance-wise the difference here would be in the "value" of data missions, for example. Not the plain amount of man/hours, as it is now.
Last edited:
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
That point is already included in the disadvantages in the summary post -
DP said:
Is there anything else? Population size is intimately involved in the BGS calculation.
I mean, the overall balancing idea. And that is all.
Not really, no.
if you want to play the BGS, the Sidewinder is a less-than-desirable vehicle due to its cargo limitations. Sure, it's possible to use a Sidey, but it's not desirable because your choice of missions is limited. If you have amassed a trove of data, you've more than likely done it in a more capable exploration ship. Conflict zones are a lot more dangerous too. In short, it's possible to play the BGS in a Sidey, but it's a hell of a lot more efficient in a Python.
Currently, if you are spamming Harmless assasinations on Eagle targets (dunno if those exist), you would have same effect as Elite spamming same on Big3 targets. Transaction is a transaction, nothing less and nothing more.
I am talking about the way value gets assigned to different transaction types. If moving to value base, I might say this system never becoming true full value is quite inevitable, as balance will be wonky for different reasons like following one, and it would require a lot of adjustments.
Current reward system have diminishing returns for your investments after some rather low point, T9-Cutter upgrade for instance, and that is a fact. For influence, this should not be the case, IMO.
And whether or not this should be the case in any aspect is offtopic.
And we do not have free markets, hence we have no real base for completely balance-free value-based system.
Last edited:
Same here.
There is no reason to change something that, basically, works.
Deconstruction: Taking too much notice of Reddit is not a good idea.
Reason here is immersion mostly. ED is already too wonky in that regard. Gameplay of BGS fiddling is too unnatural in the current state.
For missions, not quite true - the Harmless mission will likely be INF+ (INF++ or maybe INF+++ if the influence-biased reward is available and selected) whereas the Elite one will be INF++ (INF+++++ for the influence reward)
It is an unnatural thing as well - how you giving up on reward can increase the influence of your employer? (and not your reputation at the same time to boot. I am wondering honestly.)
Last edited:
that distinction feels like a natural design solution to allow a player choice in the reward of influencing the bgs or influencing their credit account.
its an elegant, simple solution that creates a nice demarcation point between play styles
Nothing elegant about it, in my opinion.
More investment-incentive activities (simply more cargo/targets at least) yielding more influence reward would be more immersive.
I know that this would cause balance turmoil and that diminishing returns policy is applied everywhere "just to be sure" that this would not happen, but such shy decision-making process creates rather bland gameplay, including progress-wise. And "value" base achieves less discrepancy between progression and efficiency, despite the main achievement still would be intuitiveness.
Yet my experience with BGS consists mostly of keeping a faction which is hated by other 8 "alive" in my "home" system. I do not know whether or not I should be voicing anything here whatsoever.
Last edited:
i don't assume the bgs is a final state so my argument is not one on its end value, in that regard there is much more it can be, rather if this is the foundation by which a future greater bgs exists then it is a strong foundation.
transactions have been stress tested for a long time. they are a steady, reliable mechanic to give life to the minor factions and story/coin for the commander.
What if ... what we have works? Maybe needs some minor tweaks but not an overhaul.
What if Fdev have acutally do a pretty darn good job of balancing things and perhaps there's just a small bunch of folk that want to fix someting that aint broken?
Id go as far as saying the BGS is 80% spot on.
Any major or perhaps moderate changes to the overall scheme of thinsg would require a BGS re set.
Quite a few of the folk who have posted here are the same folk who have fed back to Fdev in the past to bring the BGS to where it is now. I reckon it's [retty good.
All that's really needed from what I can see is a few bug fixes and some balancing. Anything major would just banjx stuff and it wuld be 'here we go again' and I dont think regular players (nope not BGS fans just players) have time to see space legs postoponed cos erm well just cos some old timeys want to fix what they've already contibuted to fixing.
Im rambling a bit
Say there was ACE tucking co. 4 casual players with a PMF and there thing was mining. THEN, 1 man jeff turns up in his KILLA CUTTA and buggers all there stuff up. That's just not fun. Or say ACE was an small exploration group that spends months flying aorun in haulars and the KILL CUTTA turns up. That would be bad game play. Really bad. More players having fun is better than a subsection having what they feel is correct. Got to be balanced and that's pretty much where the BGS is at. That's the stuff that matter to me at least. Hauler hauling some tea from A to B and seeing a change makes me feel good. That's whay I ike the simple transaction model.
ANyways moving on. You get some folk saying stuff like 'I does BGS I does and I hate random players' You know that is just a sucky attitude. We are all players of the same game. The BGS crowd might not like Joe blogs and co screwing with there spreadsheets but Joe Blogs might not like playing a game where what they do has no effect or a minimal effect cos a bunc of folk on a forum closed ranks.
Still cant find my lighter
BGS word that has popped up quite frequenlty in my recnt forum reads 'intuitive'. Why cant the game rad my mind and react orcingly to my predensitned pleaure thoughts or summit. Please never use the word intuitive in a computer context.
---
Missions +1
What if Fdev have acutally do a pretty darn good job of balancing things and perhaps there's just a small bunch of folk that want to fix someting that aint broken?
Id go as far as saying the BGS is 80% spot on.
Any major or perhaps moderate changes to the overall scheme of thinsg would require a BGS re set.
Quite a few of the folk who have posted here are the same folk who have fed back to Fdev in the past to bring the BGS to where it is now. I reckon it's [retty good.
All that's really needed from what I can see is a few bug fixes and some balancing. Anything major would just banjx stuff and it wuld be 'here we go again' and I dont think regular players (nope not BGS fans just players) have time to see space legs postoponed cos erm well just cos some old timeys want to fix what they've already contibuted to fixing.
Im rambling a bit
Say there was ACE tucking co. 4 casual players with a PMF and there thing was mining. THEN, 1 man jeff turns up in his KILLA CUTTA and buggers all there stuff up. That's just not fun. Or say ACE was an small exploration group that spends months flying aorun in haulars and the KILL CUTTA turns up. That would be bad game play. Really bad. More players having fun is better than a subsection having what they feel is correct. Got to be balanced and that's pretty much where the BGS is at. That's the stuff that matter to me at least. Hauler hauling some tea from A to B and seeing a change makes me feel good. That's whay I ike the simple transaction model.
ANyways moving on. You get some folk saying stuff like 'I does BGS I does and I hate random players' You know that is just a sucky attitude. We are all players of the same game. The BGS crowd might not like Joe blogs and co screwing with there spreadsheets but Joe Blogs might not like playing a game where what they do has no effect or a minimal effect cos a bunc of folk on a forum closed ranks.
Still cant find my lighter
BGS word that has popped up quite frequenlty in my recnt forum reads 'intuitive'. Why cant the game rad my mind and react orcingly to my predensitned pleaure thoughts or summit. Please never use the word intuitive in a computer context.
---
Missions +1