Background simulation - anyone still interested in a discussion?

[Moriarte]

I was passing the Lugh system today and a thing caught my eye: Federal jurisdiction. That's what the galaxy map says. Which surprised me, mildly - as I recall, there was a civil war there, few months back, where independent worshippers of the ancient deity Lugh clashed with Federation loyalists over the ownership of the system. In short, the cultists won while I played my tiny undocumented part. Until today the controlling faction for the Lugh system is that, which the cultists installed. Still, the Google map Galaxy map refuses to acknowledge the change in allegiance and still marks Lugh as Federation satellite. So, my question is this: is this a case of double standards?!?

On a more serious note, that encounter got me thinking about the background sim. system and how it could function so that it's existence would enrich the game universe. (Instead of making me laugh with pity as per example above).

Here is the list of questions in no particular order to kick off the dicussion:

1. Are people content with current "limited" version of BGS (background simulation) and think that it should stay that way, bar removing bugs, while powerplay should be improved and worked on?
2. What other states would you like to see within the BGS and what level of integration (if any) with PP (power play) they should inherit? Currently we have these states: war, civil war, outbreak, lockdown, famine, boom, bust, election.
3. What level of transparency can make the BGS system become more attractive for core and casual players? Would it help if changes in standard of living, population, security and other metrics could suddenly become visible?
4. Do you think it would help if cooldowns were reduced and the overall pace of BGS was increased? Would that encourage participation?
5. ...

Feel free to contemplate on the subject and/or the questions.

CMDR Kay Altos.

 

[goemon]

Q3. there was a proposal in another thread to make states more like cg-style, so you have an idea how much effort is needed from one or many commanders to raise probability for a pending state or another... i see a problem there (scaling the effort, probabilities are not tiers, and states are not an outcome of an single faction interest...), but i think it really needs more, hm, transparency and direct feedback how your actions in a system can have an effect on the system. btw: frontier bringing that into galnet is a good idea ("in a state of war only missions of this-and-this type can influence outcome...)
Q4. maybe, but i don't like that idea. no need to trigger a civil war in 2 hours solo playtime. yes, flipping a system should take weeks, sometimes longer, and a brought variety of missions for all roles: combat, trading, smuggling, etc.
Q2. i actually like the desintegration of pp into background sim
Q1. i'm okay with the background sim, besides bugs, of course it can always get better! but i would really really love to see more visual representation of states. from stations being really busy during a boom, to interior changing if you flip that system from theocracy to independent, from half destroyed ships coming in to system force saluting (like they now row up outside if you are wanted) when you bring in 2,5 million of bounties from the local criminal faction.... as now it only changes the text in chats - not even on the galaxy map ;-) also, a lot of cmdr's don#t read a lot of mission texts or chattext, i assume - so they never get in contact with what changes in the background. tthat kind of visuality would help more than any transparency.

 

[IronGremlin]

So, I think the Galmap should have a way to declare that the major faction claims a system as part of it's territory without necessarily having to be the dominant minor faction - think disputed territory. Not sure if the current system reflects that accurately, but it's a concept that I think belongs in the game.

I feel that a fair bit of opacity in displaying the state of the BGS is beneficial to the overall feel of the game, but I think we need other, less system or galmap ways of communicating minor state changes to players - like a better local news feed in stations, and npc chatter similar to what we get currently with combat zones.

I think one of the big failures right now is that it's not made very clear what effect my actions as a player will have on the BGS - will running guns for a dominant power in a war help them win, or does it just perpetuate the instability? I think a clear idea of how our actions might affect things is more important than a clear idea of the effect we have, if that makes sense.

Pacing is a difficult thing to iron out, I think that technical considerations will probably continue to drive that design direction for some time, but if at some point we have to choose between more systems and greater dymanism and a faster refresh, in my mind, dynamism and scope win out.

 

[goemon]

I think a clear idea of how our actions might affect things is more important than a clear idea of the effect we have, if that makes sense.

interesting thought. right now you get a screen of mission effects after handing in a mission. but right, you have - besides reading forum threads - zero information what for you should pick that mission when you see it on the board...

 

[Shaamaan]

I said it once, I'll say it again...

I think there's a reason why people often abbreviate "background simulation" to "". Because it is . If they could implement at least a proper supply-demand market right, that would be a nice start, but no, even that's based around arbitrary "from-to" price values, making most commodities near useless. For example, a remote station, hundreds of LSs away from the entry point should pay in gold for food, because as it is no sane person would ever go there. But no, it's all the same.