Day 64 of a broken background sim

[Rubbernuke]

To be fair Nukie 'ol chap, no matter how well something is designed, when it comes to computer games, there will be the chance to Min/Max it.
People can gradually work out the best ways to get their desired result, but thiss is not the same as knowing if you do X then you get 2xY. I'm more than happy to have the BGS be somewhat dark as long as whatever one does can be shown to be repeatable under the same circumstances.

Right now...This is the main problem.

But this is also a fatal flaw, in that by not telling anyone how something works you can potentially have your players miss a whole load of subtle touches- or, at the same time send players crazy by testing everything to the point of OCD. FD did it with PP, and really annoyed its players. FD semi caved in before 3.3 BGS wise, and it helped smooth things out. Post 3.3 its anyones guess. In my destructive testing I've seen some crazy stuff that borders on exploits, and yet I don't know if it is an exploit or not. QA & support won't say when I tell them, so what do I do? FD can fiddle server side, but at the same time unless they explicitly say they have changed a value its rough on players as that change can equate to hours of lost time grinding away.

I hope when I get back home and play again things will be better, but from previous years I have doubts.

 

[Stigbob]

That you are not obliged to follow.

Anyway, another good example where you don t know if bugs of not. All horizons systems without orbital of any kind have their economy sliders decays due to no action/traffic. So they are going in bust/famine. Normal ? Not normal ? Who knows...

Try using the ground stations. Presumably they all have some at least or they'd be undesirable systems in which case why would you put any effort at all into keeping them.

The famines should cheer people up anyway, there's been lots of griping about pharmaceutical isolators from people who won't use mat traders.

 

[Kaocraft]

You'd get an immediate min-maxers guide to it which sort of sucks all the fun out of it YMMV.

I'd rather know the rules to the game I'm playing in this case, especially with something as abstract and convoluted as the BGS. In the previous iteration of the BGS there were a lot of counterintuitive and outright infuriating little catches like missions which lie to you about how much INF they move, transaction-based scorekeeping, etc. They're annoying but if we know about them at least everyone is on even footing.

If the rules aren't made explicit then what you get is a handful of large groups who manage to gradually uncover these little quirks, keep them secret, and exploit them for themselves. This may or may not be a problem depending on how you look at it but in general I would prefer if metagaming were kept to a minimum, and this is one case where making the rules public would reduce the need for metagaming. Min-Maxing is more of an issue with static systems like ship builds. With the BGS everything is dynamic so you still have to employ thought, context, and strategy whether you have a min-max guide or not.

But yeah while I don't think min-maxing is much of an issue anyway, I think even it's worst possible incarnation would still be offset by the benefits of being able to properly tell (and report) what is and isn't a bug and what is and isn't working as the Devs intended it.

 

[Deareim]

Try using the ground stations. Presumably they all have some at least or they'd be undesirable systems in which case why would you put any effort at all into keeping them.

The famines should cheer people up anyway, there's been lots of griping about pharmaceutical isolators from people who won't use mat traders.

Not talking about using the station. But about system economy state decaying.

 

[Deareim]

I'd rather know the rules to the game I'm playing in this case, especially with something as abstract and convoluted as the BGS. In the previous iteration of the BGS there were a lot of counterintuitive and outright infuriating little catches like missions which lie to you about how much INF they move, transaction-based scorekeeping, etc. They're annoying but if we know about them at least everyone is on even footing. If the rules aren't made explicit then what you get is a handful of large groups who manage to gradually uncover these little quirks, keep them secret, and exploit them for themselves. This may or may not be a problem depending on how you look at it but in general I would prefer if metagaming were kept to a minimum, and this is one case where making the rules public would reduce the need for metagaming. Min-Maxing is more of an issue with static systems like ship builds. With the BGS everything is dynamic so you still have to employ thought, context, and strategy whether you have a min-max guide or not.

But yeah while I don't think min-maxing is much of an issue anyway, I think even it's worst possible incarnation would still be offset by the benefits of being able to properly tell (and report) what is and isn't a bug and what is and isn't working as the Devs intended it.

I am not even sure FD actually knows the rules. There are been many times by the past they have discovered through players feedback how the the BGS was actually working. Same for PP.

 

[Stigbob]

Not talking about using the station. But about system economy state decaying.

Because you are not using the ground stations maybe.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Anyway, another good example where you don t know if bugs of not. All horizons systems without orbital of any kind have their economy sliders decays due to no action/traffic. So they are going in bust/famine. Normal ? Not normal ? Who knows...

I would guess intentional similar to the 3.2 famine+outbreak inactivity increments, since otherwise there's pretty much no chance of any system getting a negative economy state through normal player activity.

It also doesn't seem to take very *much* traffic to counter it, if so - even the quieter surface-only Colonia systems are remaining at the top of Investment. But "quieter" out here means "1 or 2 a day", not "none in a week".

But this is also a fatal flaw, in that by not telling anyone how something works you can potentially have your players miss a whole load of subtle touches- or, at the same time send players crazy by testing everything to the point of OCD.

Yes. Black-box is fine, I think, if it's completely bug-free. Otherwise you have basically no way to tell if unexpected behaviour is a bug or not. You have to be able to trust that it's not - it's just something you're not familiar with - for it to be something to investigate rather than something to complain about.

And I don't think anyone needs to be told things like the fine details of "7 positive transactions for a 34% influence faction in a 100,000 population system will lead to X influence rise". All credit to the groups who figured that out in 3.2, but I don't think that sort of information should be handed out up-front.

I think - in fairness - we do have a pretty good outline of how things are supposed to work already, but a little bit more detail on e.g. what sort of transaction types should be effective in which states would be good. I do wonder if some of the issues we're seeing are because Investment has significantly reduced transaction effectiveness across many types, for example. It would be thematically appropriate.

More important, I think, is that when bugs are fixed that should be announced. Frontier do this for client-side bugs, but because most of the BGS bugs are server-side then if we're *lucky* they get rolled into the patch notes for the next client patch weeks later and usually we don't hear anything at all. Some weekly server-side fix notes would be really useful.

 

[Factabulous]

More important, I think, is that when bugs are fixed that should be announced. Frontier do this for client-side bugs, but because most of the BGS bugs are server-side then if we're *lucky* they get rolled into the patch notes for the next client patch weeks later and usually we don't hear anything at all. Some weekly server-side fix notes would be really useful.

So much this - I'm not burning another week on Biowaste missions until they say they have fixed them. It's just taken 2 weeks for me to get my first Famine faction, if that hadn't worked it would have been annoying.

(Oh, and I was seeing reduced effectiveness / smaller caps when working in the Famine vs Bust sections, so I agree there is something to the different sections having differing reactions to inputs)

 

[Jane Turner]

Because you are not using the ground stations maybe.

The point is that some systems decay when unused and others don't. Should all be decaying like in 3.2 and so some are bugged, or has that been deliberately, but inefficiently removed?

 

[Stigbob]

The point is that some systems decay when unused and others don't. Should all be decaying like in 3.2 and so some are bugged, or has that been deliberately, but inefficiently removed?

Systems without player input are static IIRC, so the only ones decaying are occupied but not getting enough attention to stay stable. I don't think its a coincidence that the ones dereim says are decaying lack orbitals.

 

[Dommarraa]

The point is that some systems decay when unused and others don't. Should all be decaying like in 3.2 and so some are bugged, or has that been deliberately, but inefficiently removed?

Yes, its wierd.
Low traffic systems seem mainly (there are exceptions of course) to tick along like in 3.2, unless someone does a simple mission for one of the minor factions, in which case it will get a double digit boost.
Medium traffic systems just all converge together around 20-30% into constant conflict, despite 1 faction owning all assets so (in theory) getting all the passive Bounty/Trade influence gain. (See Khun - Might be high traffic, but few people actually land at any of assets)

 

[Jane Turner]

Maybe this patch will help

 

[CMDR Carbo]

Maybe this patch will help

There is nothing about the BGS in the patch notes.

 

[Deareim]

Maybe this patch will help

I see you still got your sense of humor ^^

 

[Schlack]

There is nothing about the BGS in the patch notes.

sadface

Day 69.

Unless there have been undocumented changes.....

 

[Deareim]

There is nothing about the BGS in the patch notes.

Most of BGS changes are server side so we will not know unless FD decides to tell us.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Systems without player input are static IIRC

That's never been entirely true, and for this sort of decay mechanism certainly wouldn't be. Quite a few BGS mechanisms (markets, for instance) have a "return to equilibrium" mechanism in the absence of player input.

 

[Stigbob]

That's never been entirely true, and for this sort of decay mechanism certainly wouldn't be. Quite a few BGS mechanisms (markets, for instance) have a "return to equilibrium" mechanism in the absence of player input.

Maybe but its irrelevant to the point I'm making.

If Dereim is worried about systems states decaying whilst no maintenance goes on then either ditch the system or put some time into maintaining it. One of the changes to the BGS that's fairly apparent to me is you need maintain what you've got to prevent decay. If you spread across multiple systems some of them lacking anything that would pull random people in boosting you with the usual claiming buying selling at your stations then you need to do it all yourself.

If you don't they'll decay.

It makes perfect sense to me, it adds a limiting factor to how many systems you can control. The effect may even be cumulative for the larger PMF's preventing galactic domination. It also means abandoned factions will just die off.

 

[Dommarraa]

Maybe but its irrelevant to the point I'm making.

If Dereim is worried about systems states decaying whilst no maintenance goes on then either ditch the system or put some time into maintaining it. One of the changes to the BGS that's fairly apparent to me is you need maintain what you've got to prevent decay. If you spread across multiple systems some of them lacking anything that would pull random people in boosting you with the usual claiming buying selling at your stations then you need to do it all yourself.

If you don't they'll decay.

It makes perfect sense to me, it adds a limiting factor to how many systems you can control. The effect may even be cumulative for the larger PMF's preventing galactic domination. It also means abandoned factions will just die off.

"makes sense" ?

Makes zero sense to me as a Background Simulator. Owning assets become pointless as they no longer contribute. Only makes sense as a game mechanic Conflict Generator.

 

[Stigbob]

"makes sense" ?

Makes zero sense to me as a Background Simulator. Owning assets become pointless as they no longer contribute. Only makes sense as a game mechanic Conflict Generator.

Subjective, I think its worth it just to prune away dead factions.

Besides which an asset with no assets isn't really an asset.