Jane, can you add another disadvantage to "Missions only".
It encourages board swapping.
It encourages board swapping.
Decision Paper on Background Simulator in Elite Dangerous
- Thread starter Jane Turner
- Start date
Yet this game undoubtably have a progression, although which needs a lot of work about it's concept.
And I do not feel that those four miners should be able to ignore it for BGS exclusively, casual or no.
Well I think you hit it there.
Concept.
My concept for anyone playing is they make a much of a difference as an old timer.
I like the idea of the BGS being something that folk can get involved in immedaitely and see a difference.
As games go ED is old.
Progress aint about running to a formula adn getting the best stuffs. Its about moving on up with others. Darn. I guess I can only really say that it works very very well now and the BGS crowd is being very sel;fish after putting in so much effort to making the BGS accessible to all.
Concept.
My concept for anyone playing is they make a much of a difference as an old timer.
I like the idea of the BGS being something that folk can get involved in immedaitely and see a difference.
As games go ED is old.
Progress aint about running to a formula adn getting the best stuffs. Its about moving on up with others. Darn. I guess I can only really say that it works very very well now and the BGS crowd is being very sel;fish after putting in so much effort to making the BGS accessible to all.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Id like the missions only transactions. Really like this idea.
At the same time, I think we should "get in what we put out" if it happens to be any different. The Value of shipping and receiving needs to impact numbers no different than unpacking a box you ordered from the store. They shouldn't send you each box separately. If it is a bunch of small boxes. They send it all together in a Bigger Box. We need to be counting the Material Sent. Not how many boxes showed up. You get what you ordered/delivered. The end result is what matters.
But the Mission based transactions would be great. Because there are multiple ways you can attack a situation through them. Instead of just going there and killing said cops to lower someones BGS Numbers. We could take missions to reflect the BGS just like those Spec Ops Missions. But we would need a whole mission rework too. It would need to be super consistent and not reliable through RNG.
I play games where Damage and Actions are predictable. You need to make decisions in Micro and Macro gameplay depending on what your opponent is doing. Elite currently falls under this, the problem is. Everything is unpredictable(except engineers 3.0), and the BGS rules arent just out there for everyone to see.
Id really like to see a defined set of rules. Everyone knows. Level playing field stuff.
The Transaction thread Walt put up wouldn't be as big of a deal. If it weren't for the multiplayer part of this. But since more players get involved in it. I think it needs to be a level playing field and reworked like Engineers 3.0 was. Clear, Clean and straight to the point for all to use and see.
This way the game is reliable on skill. And not if someone got lucky, or knows more information than the other guy.
Experience and Skill is something this game should recognize a bit more.
Great write up Jane,
o7o7
At the same time, I think we should "get in what we put out" if it happens to be any different. The Value of shipping and receiving needs to impact numbers no different than unpacking a box you ordered from the store. They shouldn't send you each box separately. If it is a bunch of small boxes. They send it all together in a Bigger Box. We need to be counting the Material Sent. Not how many boxes showed up. You get what you ordered/delivered. The end result is what matters.
But the Mission based transactions would be great. Because there are multiple ways you can attack a situation through them. Instead of just going there and killing said cops to lower someones BGS Numbers. We could take missions to reflect the BGS just like those Spec Ops Missions. But we would need a whole mission rework too. It would need to be super consistent and not reliable through RNG.
I play games where Damage and Actions are predictable. You need to make decisions in Micro and Macro gameplay depending on what your opponent is doing. Elite currently falls under this, the problem is. Everything is unpredictable(except engineers 3.0), and the BGS rules arent just out there for everyone to see.
Id really like to see a defined set of rules. Everyone knows. Level playing field stuff.
The Transaction thread Walt put up wouldn't be as big of a deal. If it weren't for the multiplayer part of this. But since more players get involved in it. I think it needs to be a level playing field and reworked like Engineers 3.0 was. Clear, Clean and straight to the point for all to use and see.
This way the game is reliable on skill. And not if someone got lucky, or knows more information than the other guy.
Experience and Skill is something this game should recognize a bit more.
Great write up Jane,
o7o7
Last edited:
There are different types of old. I am very old for Dota for instance, despite still keeping myself in top 100 dotabuff on some heroes. And I had recently hit thirties.
Actually, I had highlighted my position on ED progression from a hardcore player standpoint a couple hours ago, without any suggestions yet, and would welcome any feedback, especially from casual players. (Although it started rather awkwardly. I should had really looked at it before posting with a freshier look after getting some rest).
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-secretly-a-full-on-casual-game-at-the-moment
But sorry about advertising.
As I said before, I view final balancing here so Sidey would be able to influence small outpost, which is adequate to point of progression.
I too support experience and skill. But, would this not require addning value to transactions?
Last edited:
No idea what DOTA is. A pal of mine has mentioned it but I really dont know.
When it comes to being a hardore player of any game its kinda subjective. Im a hardcore washerupper by my mussez saz Im not.
I'l check your thread. No harm in saying it aint on topic but if you wanna no more see here.
No dont add value as a BGS factor. Cred value is a junk metric. There are often and I do mean very often hugen influxes of creds based on bugs. That has not been fixed and going on trhe history of the game wont get fixed. A cred folw will appear and an optimal ship will go there and screw things.
My point being in a way is; so what is so terribly wrong with the way things are?
BGS gurus here's your chance.
Game has been around for ages. Tweaks get done as and when is needed. BGS aint broke. What I get from this thread is a small bunch of players want stuff there way and really nothing substantial to support any kind of big change.
EDIT - reminds me of the mining needs more love threads from maybe a year or two ago.
When it comes to being a hardore player of any game its kinda subjective. Im a hardcore washerupper by my mussez saz Im not.
I'l check your thread. No harm in saying it aint on topic but if you wanna no more see here.
No dont add value as a BGS factor. Cred value is a junk metric. There are often and I do mean very often hugen influxes of creds based on bugs. That has not been fixed and going on trhe history of the game wont get fixed. A cred folw will appear and an optimal ship will go there and screw things.
My point being in a way is; so what is so terribly wrong with the way things are?
BGS gurus here's your chance.
Game has been around for ages. Tweaks get done as and when is needed. BGS aint broke. What I get from this thread is a small bunch of players want stuff there way and really nothing substantial to support any kind of big change.
EDIT - reminds me of the mining needs more love threads from maybe a year or two ago.
Last edited:
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
If a cobra and a cutter had the same amount of cargo space. The Cobra turned everything in one at time. And the Cutter turned in the same amount of cargo all at once. No matter what the result. It should be the same(depending on the material traded as each type can have a different effect). By the way, thats a tanky cutter lol. But there are some places where there are only medium pads. So a Python and other smaller ships would be viable in these cases. And it would still give meaning to the other ships.
The current Hauling CG's deal in tonnage delivered. And its not transaction based right?
The only transaction should be the first one. Thats it. This is why I like the mission reward system Jane mentioned. Everything can be monitored and gated. People would be rewarded for their progression within the game too. By moving forward in the game you are capable of making more of an impact.
This would also stop someone from buying multiple accounts and setting them up for botting easier. Since they dont need to progress right now. It would be a direct nerf to bots too.
I guess what im trying to get at here is. We need Counter-play and rewards for progression.
Last edited:
I’m not so keen about the transactional nature of the BGS myself. Mainly because if I was supporting my faction I would also want to maximize my profits in the limited amount of time I have to play the game.
I’m still not so convinced as to needing a transactional game mechanic for influencing the BGS.
That being said, what I would really like to see implemented is the part in the OP where players have to pick a faction in a system to be aligned with before they can influence the BGS. Just like how things are done in Powerplay and in CZs. This opens up a lot of other gameplay mechanics such as being intradicted by opposing forces if the faction is at war. It would also put a stop to accidental BGS manipulation by commanders just wanting to run missions (like what happend to some systems during the passenger money maker gambit.)
Trade effects on the influence of the faction can also be somewhat sorted out this way. Currently, trade affects only the station’s controlling faction. But with this new method trade would affect the influence of the faction the player is aligned with. In open, this could lead to pirates or guardians choosing an opposing faction’s trade ships to destroy (easily identifiable now.) In private groups, players can easily identify the own faction ships and see how their faction is doing. In solo, you get to role play your links to a faction more.
This method is sort of like what PP should have been.
I’m still not so convinced as to needing a transactional game mechanic for influencing the BGS.
That being said, what I would really like to see implemented is the part in the OP where players have to pick a faction in a system to be aligned with before they can influence the BGS. Just like how things are done in Powerplay and in CZs. This opens up a lot of other gameplay mechanics such as being intradicted by opposing forces if the faction is at war. It would also put a stop to accidental BGS manipulation by commanders just wanting to run missions (like what happend to some systems during the passenger money maker gambit.)
Trade effects on the influence of the faction can also be somewhat sorted out this way. Currently, trade affects only the station’s controlling faction. But with this new method trade would affect the influence of the faction the player is aligned with. In open, this could lead to pirates or guardians choosing an opposing faction’s trade ships to destroy (easily identifiable now.) In private groups, players can easily identify the own faction ships and see how their faction is doing. In solo, you get to role play your links to a faction more.
This method is sort of like what PP should have been.
This is a misapprehension - the BGS is predictable. What is unpredictable is other players (well, some at least).
The rules are very well-known now, are publicly available to those who care to look, are pretty simple, and apply consistently across the board. The seasoned BGS-oriented groups are much more into the game of state and information management - they know the rules, which again are actually pretty simple. A good analogy would be poker. The rules are simple; the complexity of the game arises from the limited information you have of the other players' hands and judging your actions as the round evolves. Jane has likened it to Risk or Diplomacy.
What all four games have in common is that they rely on informaton asymmetry to drive the gameplay.
Last edited:
I thought we had this finally settled with the very BGS section that this thread is placed in to be containing literally everything that is known about the BGS as a whole. And where people can discuss / ask questions and get answered.
Yes, it took FD three years to finally come around with it but it is here now! Absolutely nobody that wants to play the BGS has any excuses to moan or rant that there isn't any information available. Also this game isn't supposed to hold hands (it already does more now as when it launched though).
Still working as intended yes.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
The result is the same now.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
Changes since the last update are now included in the 1st post and the DP. Oh and Roybe, to avoid an American English/ UK English debate I've replaced lobtomises/lobotomizes with leaves the BGS cold and lifeless.
As I said on the "other" thread I went from What a ridiculous idea a transaction-based system is to what a brilliant piece of game design it is as soon as I started working through the ramificaitons of changing it. I'm sure I read an interview with either Michael Bookes or David Braben where they said that the BGS was their greatest achievement.
Roybe said:
Picommander said:
the100thMonkey said:
As I said on the "other" thread I went from What a ridiculous idea a transaction-based system is to what a brilliant piece of game design it is as soon as I started working through the ramificaitons of changing it. I'm sure I read an interview with either Michael Bookes or David Braben where they said that the BGS was their greatest achievement.
It is already the case today. And it has been completely integrated in FD gameplay.
I’d prefer a transaction + with balancing multipliers, provided those would translate both value and relative effort.
I’ve read the whole thread for once, and there are a few things I’d like to correct (in a sense).
1. Missions
Missions are quite in a top state now imo. The only tweak I’d go for would be indeed reducing the inf/rep gain for the big money. Say divide it by 2 (1+ for an Elite mission instead of 2).
What missions still do lack is not related to this debate. It is a) consistency b) bug fixing. Combat / massacre missions should count in wars OR should not be adverted in the board as yielding influence gain. Trade missions should either not be issued or not be adverted as yielding influence.
2. Exploits
I had no idea of bot-like combat farming. Still it should not be a reason not to take into account the total value/number of kills in a res /cz. Suggestions as depletion are the right fix imo, and they should be implemented separately as it can be considered an exploit to the general gameplay even not speaking of the bgs.
So what’s still to be discussed ?
Market trade / exploration data and combat actions.
There is a general logic in the game based on ranks and reputation. These 2 factors could be used as parameters in the multiplier’s equation. As the price of the ship performing the action.
I’d allow for more points per transaction when reputation, rank or ship price is higher.
I don’t have a problem with hitting the inf gain cap by turning 20 kills separately in a neutral/competent/Cobra. But an allied/elite/fdl should be allowed to achieve the same with 4x 5 kills, or 3x10 to keep the idea of diminishing returns.
For the fun !
As for credits : one can argue about big rich old players having to put less efforts in achieving the same result as a new poor player. But it is quite universal and applies in every aspect of the game, so why not for the bgs ???
As a last point, exploration data needs the most the tweak. It is plainly ridiculous that a single honk worth 500 credits has the same effect as a full detailed scan of a 30 bodies system. Totally ridiculous and almost an exploit.
So now tbh: who, among all contributors in this thread, can swear he / she never used it ?
We did, and most of us consider it borderline in terms of immersion / fun / realism / whatsoever.
I’ve read the whole thread for once, and there are a few things I’d like to correct (in a sense).
1. Missions
Missions are quite in a top state now imo. The only tweak I’d go for would be indeed reducing the inf/rep gain for the big money. Say divide it by 2 (1+ for an Elite mission instead of 2).
What missions still do lack is not related to this debate. It is a) consistency b) bug fixing. Combat / massacre missions should count in wars OR should not be adverted in the board as yielding influence gain. Trade missions should either not be issued or not be adverted as yielding influence.
2. Exploits
I had no idea of bot-like combat farming. Still it should not be a reason not to take into account the total value/number of kills in a res /cz. Suggestions as depletion are the right fix imo, and they should be implemented separately as it can be considered an exploit to the general gameplay even not speaking of the bgs.
So what’s still to be discussed ?
Market trade / exploration data and combat actions.
There is a general logic in the game based on ranks and reputation. These 2 factors could be used as parameters in the multiplier’s equation. As the price of the ship performing the action.
I’d allow for more points per transaction when reputation, rank or ship price is higher.
I don’t have a problem with hitting the inf gain cap by turning 20 kills separately in a neutral/competent/Cobra. But an allied/elite/fdl should be allowed to achieve the same with 4x 5 kills, or 3x10 to keep the idea of diminishing returns.
For the fun !
As for credits : one can argue about big rich old players having to put less efforts in achieving the same result as a new poor player. But it is quite universal and applies in every aspect of the game, so why not for the bgs ???
As a last point, exploration data needs the most the tweak. It is plainly ridiculous that a single honk worth 500 credits has the same effect as a full detailed scan of a 30 bodies system. Totally ridiculous and almost an exploit.
So now tbh: who, among all contributors in this thread, can swear he / she never used it ?
We did, and most of us consider it borderline in terms of immersion / fun / realism / whatsoever.
Oddly, I fully understood why they went transactional the moment we first stumbled upon it. As a trader it was blatantly obvious what would happen if certain actions were purely based on value: there'd simply be a large number of systems where countering ambient traffic trends becomes impossible. The transactional model functions both as a way to make the simulation look more varied or authentic to some degree, and as the factor that allowed BGS manipulators to have at least a chance nearly everywhere. Not saying it's the only way to achieve those goals, only perhaps the simplest way.
All that being said though, I have been of nearly the exact same opinion as you for a very long time (even a long lost suggestion post iirc): the simple expedient of flagging ourselves as working for a faction opens a rabbit hole of amazing utility. You list many great reasons, and the potential goes way beyond that. Clear support and opposition sides in a CG, or for the hundreds of competitively-minded PMFs fighting their (currently) chaotic wars. It could even tie people into the story more clearly, with actors like AEGIS that have an ingame facet but no clear way to show support/opposition. Things that people have been asking for for ages.
Edit: pushing the tangential into plain OT territory here, sorry Jane.
Last edited:
Like opening up the HQ of a Powerplay community, expanding in and taking control? Took a total of 3 months here, though no idea if that qualifies for the term ages.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
I'd love a further expansionstate above expansion and investment - a colonisation.... but that's in a future where FD take a plunge and find a safe way to allow populations to be dynanic
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
Its in line for a change - possibly by raising again the lower cut off, but it might be possible to put a value modifier 0.1-2x for say 400 -2 million value