Decision Paper on Background Simulator in Elite Dangerous

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
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 think that rank, reputation or (and specially) ship price should have an effect on the influence a faction gains by player actions.

I see no reason why the successful completion of action X should have a different effect based on who did it and in what ship.

If a station needs 10t of grain and they get 10t of grain, then why should it matter if those 10t got delivered in a Hauler, Cobra or T-9?

For combat the rank of the wanted NPC or enemy NPC could affect the influence gain of that action. Not sure if this is something that should be added, but at least it is plausible for me. Depending on how killing wanted or enemy NPCs is considered to affect the influence of a system.

Same for reputation. Since influence affects all factions and in someway reflects the reaction of the other factions to that action, why should the reputation of the CMDR with one faction affect the other factions?


Rank could affect the influence since a higher ranked CMDR is helping a faction and this support alone could help the faction - just like celebrities endorsing a product in marketing.
But I think it would be better to not let rank affect the BGS.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

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.

As long as Murder did still have that impossible impact on the BGS it was nice to have something equally unbalanced to counter it. Now that Murder has been reduced and made harder we can do the same with the Exploration data. Q4 this year supposedly will have that change coming.

 

[RamirezKurita]

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.

I'd argue that the Yuri Grom event wasn't a function of the BGS, but instead direct developer intervention. All the BGS did was provide some basic information for FD to scaffold the new power around, rather than the BGS actually driving the creation of a new power. If there were actual in-game triggers for the elevation (and demotion) between powers and minor factions, all done procedurally without FD intervening at all, then I'd argue that it is a function of the BGS.

Beyond other simple things like expansion, I'd like to see the BGS be capable of procedurally commissioning, mothballing and decommissioning capital ships (factions would generally try to bring capitals out of mothballed fleets rather than build their own), rather than the current dev intervention method for capital ship construction. I would also be nice to see systems be capable of shifting their own economies in response to economic factors and what trade is going on through the systems, which would then be coupled to dynamic outfitting and shipyards. And this is all without mentioning the capabilities that would be offered by the usage of persistent NPCs within a faction's ranks, as each NPC would have their own personality, goals, methods and motivations that would further flesh out a factions character as well as giving multiple additional layers to the BGS (both for players to work with, as well as providing a platform for further evolution of the galaxy).

 

[Jane Turner]

I'd argue that the Yuri Grom event wasn't a function of the BGS, but instead direct developer intervention. All the BGS did was provide some basic information for FD to scaffold the new power around, rather than the BGS actually driving the creation of a new power.

I could argue the opposite point of view. Grom won the dangerous games as a wild card entry - ie. they were not in the top qualifying groups based on the number of systems they controlled. When time came to insert them, there were few spaces left. Several of the remainng profotable command centres were in the space caretaken by the other entrants (and kept power free) Consequently in order to reduce tensions Groms favourable government types were (I assume) selected to match the spaces created by BGS players!

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

The result is the same now.

Ugh I hate when you people do this,

Take one snippet out of the rest of what I said. Not really going to repeat it all again. You know how it should be. 1 transaction not 560.

 

[Jane Turner]

Ugh I hate when you people do this,

Take one snippet out of the rest of what I said. Not really going to repeat it all again. You know how it should be. 1 transaction not 560.

But it is 1 transaction not 560 - you've really lost me!

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

In my opinion, mission to murder 21 pesants should result in 2.1 transactions. Mission to murder 46 pesants should result in 4.6. Or something along those lines, with avoiding diminishing returns policy unless it has a logical place.
If it would turn small systems in an alarming rate, this would only be right.

On the other hand, I certainly can get behind missions yielding more value than actions of your own volition. Not the best system possible, but...
Mechanisms to implement a justifiable and logical system of truly sandbox actions would result in more development time.
Free markets, including stock and securities ones, dynamic CZs, alarm short-term states in systems (and not just for one Cmdr), player/squadron base ownership and much more.
All the difficulties here come from the fact that all this system is built in a game about "lonely spacer". Allowing full freedom would result in arguably easier balancing by incentives.
The collision of players' ambitions and actions would balance out the rest.

First and arguably the easiest step in the right direction would be placing a hard limit on mission targets and goals available in the system for all CMDRS.

By leaning towards "Value" or "Transactions+" (which is the same thing in my opinion), I do not want to say that capabilities of your ship should be ALL which dictates your abilities.
I want to say that your knowledge should be directly multiplied by abilities of your ship.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

By leaning towards "Value" or "Transactions+" (which is the same thing in my opinion), I do not want to say that capabilities of your ship should be ALL which dictates your abilities.
I want to say that your knowledge should be directly multiplied by abilities of your ship.

If you pitch two identical ships against each other it still comes down to the capabilities, knowledge and skill of the Commanders behind each screen that'll determine the outcome. That goes for PvP as well as PvE.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

If you pitch two identical ships against each other it still comes down to the capabilities, knowledge and skill of the Commanders behind each screen that'll determine the outcome. That goes for PvP as well as PvE.

If you pitch the same commander against same amount and quality of NPC peasants and cargo boxes to haul, more capable ship would should be the difference. This doesn't mean more expensive. Just more suited for the chosen method.

 

[Jane Turner]

In my opinion, mission to murder 21 pesants should result in 2.1 transactions. Mission to murder 46 pesants should result in 4.6. Or something along those lines, with avoiding diminishing returns policy unless it has a logical place.
If it would turn small systems in an alarming rate, this would only be right.

Well no - it would make very little difference unless caps are also removed - its currently really easy to max out the transactions - increasing the value of transactions wouldn't change that.

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Well no - it would make very little difference unless caps are also removed - its currently really easy to max out the transactions - increasing the value of transactions wouldn't change that.

But better-suited ship filling transactions faster would still be more reasonable.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

If you pitch the same commander against same amount and quality of NPC peasants and cargo boxes to haul, more capable ship would should be the difference. This doesn't mean more expensive. Just more suited for the chosen method.

I personally don't know anything about Trading (cargo boxes), but I can vouch for a Python to be the best suited ship for the chosen method when it comes to short range Passenger hauls. All those ships who should be used for this are either too small to be of any use (Dolphin) or lack the ability to land on medium pads (Orca / Beluga).

Engineer it with Dirty Drives 5 (Drag Drives), Increased FSD Range 5, pimp the Shields a bit and you're set. If you want to add weaponry be my guest, but I personally don't need such. You're wanting Speed to let those who interdict you see your colorful exhausts; assuming they even manage to drag you out of SC (has yet to happen to me).

And while it is correct that Passenger missions only go from one big Station to another (or ground Port respectively), there are still Systems out there who only host Outposts to land on. Try making any meaningful BGS impact in these places with the designated Passenger ships.

 

[Ganjanoof]

I see no reason why the successful completion of action X should have a different effect based on who did it and in what ship.

If a station needs 10t of grain and they get 10t of grain, then why should it matter if those 10t got delivered in a Hauler, Cobra or T-9?

You are right. And my claim is about having 1x 100t counting more than 1x 10t, but less than 10x 10t. Ranks and all the stuff are not required in the math actually. The idea was to allow bigger players get an advantage from their capabilities. What they own by assumption. Thanks for pointing out.

 

[Manticore]

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.

Good post and I agree.

The BGS is fine as is............... my opinion. Changing something as fundamental to the game as the BGS would basically break the game as it has been played for the past four years.

People complain that ED is "dying" and "finished". In my opinion it ain't but a change to the BGS would certainly kill it.

"I can't change the direction of the wind, but I can adjust my sails to always reach my destination" - Jimmy Dean


“Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself.” ― Leo Tolstoy

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Good post and I agree.

The BGS is fine as is............... my opinion. Changing something as fundamental to the game as the BGS would basically break the game as it has been played for the past four years.

People complain that ED is "dying" and "finished". In my opinion it ain't but a change to the BGS would certainly kill it.

I disagree. Im down for a full overhaul. Lots of people I've spoke with are.

But you know opinions and all that. Still, it would be nice to freshen everything up.

Changing the way long term games work with shake ups, meta changes and so on is a really good thing to do to keep games healthy.

 

[Jane Turner]

I disagree. Im down for a full overhaul. Lots of people I've spoke with are.

But you know opinions and all that. Still, it would be nice to freshen everything up.

Changing the way long term games work with shake ups, meta changes and so on is a really good thing to do to keep games healthy.

Can you persuade them to come in here and say if there are any pros and cons missing please? I'll add shake up is good for the ones that involve change on my next edit

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Can you persuade them to come in here and say if there are any pros and cons missing please? I'll add shake up is good for the ones that involve change on my next edit

Sure Thing!

 

[Frenotx]

Fantastic effort on the OP, from all involved. This isn't really my field so I can't contribute much, but I wanted to voice my appreciation of people trying this hard to help improve the game. Otterfox-approved.

 

[Jane Turner]

Added to the 1st post - if I have got anything wrong - please. When someone goes I prefer x it's easy - but some people have done a great job of arguing from different perspectives. If you want to be added, removed, swapped just shout!

The preferred option of those who have expressed a preferrence

Option 1	Option 2	Option 3	Option 4
DNA-Decay, _Flin_, Mangal Oemie (AEDC) irongut (Canonn) commanda2212 (SEPP) Ben Ryder (Guardians of Harmony) mr.Gr3y (Palladin Consortium) Limoncello Lizard, Mrjupp (Sacra Occulus) the100thMonkey Jane Turner MottiKhan(CI) Endincite (ALD) Roybe (Crimson State) Perseus Perseus(Patreus) Marra Morgan picommander FrogsFriend, rekurzion, Ryan Murdoc, Manticore, Noob	Walt Kerman (Mercs of Mikunn)Logan Terrik (Xukong Nexus) Egy Ace Fyke, Falcon_D	Misaniovent (Patreus) Zadian Lichtfrost Abil Midena Deareim (Mercs of Mikunn) IAN NORTON (Null)Ganjanoof	NRCrosby (Winters Wolves) Agony Aunt, That90skid

<Option 1>
<Option 2>
<Option 3>
<Option 4>

 

[CaptainKirby]

Great discussion, thank you to everybody involved.

To be honest, I always thought I'd hate the transactional system. I had to explain it to many Cmdrs in the past and every time I was like, "It's stupid but that's how it works." But looking at this discussion, the pros and cons and the alternatives, I really have to admit that it's not really that bad. Let me shortly explain my point of view, even though I might repeat some arguments found in this thread:

Every minor faction has its own challenges and problems to deal with, and its location often is the most important factor. Our faction controls several systems near Alioth. Alioth as the Alliance capital system is important for many players, and the engineer did the rest to attract lots of players who sought the Alioth permit. Another nearby engineer as well as Mahon's HQ in Gateway guarantee contant traffic in our region. Hence, our biggest challenge is to control the influence movements and states in our region despite more or less strong random activities. We're a small but dedicated group, so if you think about it the transactional system definitely is our best shot in this situation. A value-based system would be the beginning of the end of our successful BGS efforts. It sometimes wears me out, but it makes sure that those who actually want to play the BGS don't get into too much trouble caused by those who have completely different goals and just happen to be in the same system for some time.

The BGS has huge potential to evolve even further, and balancing the transactional system might still be worth a try. But I like the general concept that focused and deliberate actions have a greater impact than random actions. That's the edge needed to make this part of the game worthwhile.

What I personally really miss is an easy way to deliberately lower the influence of a specific faction. There are some ways to do so, but they are rather annoying and their impact is usually not balanced. Although I'm aware that implementing such mechanics might open Pandora's box in terms of griefing and undefendable attacks on PMFs. I still see the need of carefully balanced mechanics. But that's a different issue whatsoever.


Jane, feel free to add my name to Option 1. Thanks a lot!