Maybe they haven't attached themselves because that's a terrible idea which should never be implemented, and fundamentally misses the point of the BGS?
"the point of BGS" was already fundamentally lost some time ago. You can see that when they permitted players to insert PMFs with custom flavour text to attach to, when they implemented the option of direct influence rewards for missions, and when they made BGS domination integral to the goals of power play groups to ensure they have the correct government types to secure their command capital balance.
Not to mention all the times the BGS activities get thrown off a cliff during an update that breaks everything - just look at how poorly implemented the effect of Odyssey missions were on faction influence, especially anarchy. Nowadays BGS is just a hunk of meat they occasionally shock with electric probes to see what happens.
Personally, in a serious conversation, my preference would have been for heavily open weighted BGS rewards. That way, if you're doing something unopposed or if it's just aggregated ambient data then it doesn't matter what mode you're in. But if you're engaging in BGS for the purpose of pursuing conflict, whether directly BGS or for power play goals, you're significantly incentivised and rewarded to do it in open if you meet opposition. That would split the difference of maintaining the original function of BGS, whilst properly supporting how it works as space chess. The people that are such staunch opponents of any open BGS discussion fullstop tend to relegate such arguments into the same box and strawman them away all the same.
What does it matter, Frontier will no sooner implement any change to open-implemented BGS, than they will do anything meaningful to satisfactorily demonstrate that they're taking botting seriously. This entire thread is hot air regardless of who's talking.
I'd argue implementation and "the point" are innately coupled, but semantics. You can't stop people using something in a way it was never intended to be used[1], but that use doesn't change the intended purpose.
[1] Well, you can legislate, but that's not really relevant here
If a game developer implements something and an entire community engage with it in a different and unexpected way, building player groups numbering collective membership in the thousands with the sole purpose of interacting with that mechanic in a way that wasn't originally intended, the sensible developer recognises that dogmatic adherence to the original intended implementation isn't adequate and that they need to develop and grow how those mechanics work to meet the needs of how they're used in practise.
forums.frontier.co.uk
