Decision Paper on Background Simulator in Elite Dangerous

[Jane Turner]

This is (or will be) the collected view of everyone who has commented

Background
Since its release, Elite Dangerous has had a Background Simulator (BGS) which is affected by player actions. The way the BGS functions was deliberately obscured by Frontier developments (FD) until a statement was issued on the influence and state effects of different transactions, in January 2016. After a lengthy period of instability the BGS now runs predictably but it is not always intuitive. The BGS is sensitive to deliberate actions, but less sensitive to random actions. Very small changes to how BGS activities are counted e.g. to the effect of major power bounties, can disrupt the equilibrium dramatically. Recently a thread started on Reddit and the Frontier forums by, Walt Kerman, >>>HERE<<< challenged the current transactional model and suggested that it should be replaced by a value-based argument. This decision paper examines the pros and cons of four alternative models:

1. Transactional: Keep the BGS exactly as it is now, only making changes in response to future imbalance in the game. Influence effects are separated from reputational and monetary gain of activities. Requires players who want to maximise their BGS effect to maximise their transactions, which currently e.g. requires frequent dropping of bonds and bounties, single selling of exploration data. Etc. Conversely players who are maximising their profits and minimising their transactions will have less BGS impact.
2. Values: Change the way influence and states are effects from transactional to values based. This will require players to maximise their kill rates, trade volumes etc. This will require a major re-write of the BGS and a lot of thought into how to weight the value of different activities. Reputational, monetary gain and influence effects are completely interwoven
3. Transactions plus: Make alterations to aspects of transaction definition to make the BGS more intuitive, eg count each Combat zone kill as a transaction rather than each drop of bonds. Or add a value modifier 0.1% to 100% of a transaction. This will require a re-weighting of the transactional value of different activities and a period of imbalance and some changes to the BGS code. There is some separation of influence effect from financial and reputational.
4. Missions Only: Remove all influence effects from activities apart from missions which in turn should be improved to reflect demand and state better. Reputation and influence remain separated.
   
   The main purpose of the thread is to try and understand why different people/groups have differning views.
   
   

Model
Transactional	Requires no additional development time to implement above what is already used to balance changes. No risk of BGS instability Familiar to many Insulates the BGS of systems partially from “gold rushes” and random traffic in popular systems - favours those who are actively playing the BGS over those who are just doing stuff. Allows all players to contribute effectively to the BGS. Minimises the impact of combat afk/automation/healing beam tricks for bonds and bounties Allows changes to payouts without disrupting the equilibrium of the BGS Keeps some of the mystery/fun nature of the BGS	Least intuitive so it requires explaining to players who wish to have a BGS impact. It gives players who have researched the BGS an advantage over those that haven’t - hence can be seen as “exploity” Makes engineered and “end game” ships no more influential than mid-tier ships To maximise the BGS effect involves some non-immersive behaviours Requires commanders to choose between making money and influencing the BGS BGS is relatively static - just minor changes
Value-based	Most intuitive Makes engineered and “end game” ships more influential than other ships. Encourages FD to fix credit exploits Shakes up the game most initially (then settles to minor changes only)	Requires the most development time and may not be possible without starting again. Guarantees instability and maximises that period of instability Reduces the ability of players in other than end-tier ships to contribute effectively to the BGS. Maximises the disruption caused by players CGs, trade hubs, gold rushes and high traffic areas who have no interest in the BGS Promotes the use of combat afk/automation/healing beam tricks for bonds and bounties Requires rebalance if any payout is changed
Transaction plus	More intuitive than 1 Shakes up the BGS	Will require some Dev time, but much less than 2. Likely to cause imbalance which will take time to rebalance Promotes the use of combat afk/automation/healing beam tricks for bonds and bounties Will have disruption caused by players CGs, trade hubs, gold rushes and high traffic areas who have no interest in the BGS
Missions only	100% transparent Removes all “gaming the system aspects” No risk of BGS instability Avoids the BGS of systems partially from “gold rushes” and random traffic in popular systems unless they are missions related Allows all players to contribute effectively to the BGS. removes the impact of combat afk/automation/healing beam tricks for bonds and bounties Allows changes to payouts without disrupting the equilibrium of the BGS	Reduces the “dynamic” galaxy - the BGS becomes cold and lifeless and unaffected by many player actions Requires some effort to improve the missions system It removes the incumbency advantage (may be seen as an advantage too). Encourages board swapping more than other options After the initial change, the most static option for the BGS

[td]Advantages[/td]
[td]Disadvantages[/td]

Suggested solutions to disadvantages


How to make a transactional BGS more intuitive

• fundamental changes to CZs and war mechanics. These might include special missions and more complex objective-based CZ.
• Provide a simple tutorial and links to more detailed content

How to minimise the disruption and imbalance time while a new system is implemented

• Freeze (snapshot) the BGS at the point at which the change is implement it and roll back to that point once stability is achieved. (let people keep credits/materials reputation)

How to remove the influence of AFK/Bot/automation healing tricks

• Have CZ/Res deplete or relocate in the case of CZ
• Have ATR-like ships arrive after a defined period of time

How to reduce/remove the effect of BUGS (BGS Unaware Brinders) (options 2 &3)

• For each star system, add a sub-tab in the right hand panel (like for when you select a faction to fight for, or pick sides, in a cz), and you can see a list of factions in that system. You can tick a box for whatever faction(s) you want. Thereafter, if you perform an action for that faction, it will be included in the BGS calcs. If you do not, your actions will not impact the BGS. This setting would stick until you changed it.
• Most players who aren't interested in the BGS do stuff for credits or reputation, they certainly aren't going to take the credit cut that the Inf+++++ mission options give. This could work even better if the high credit options for mission had an even more reduced effect on the factions' influence. There could also be options for the cashing in of combat bonds, bounties and exploration data. The "I'm just in it for the money"option.

How to introduce transactions plus

• Have a multiplier 0.1 to 1 over a range of values to replace the current binary system

Other comments:

• Stop missions being misleading - eg offering high influence for trade during a war state
• If value is used in trading it should be related to demand, not profit
• Allow partial turn-ins of combat and BH missions
• I've always thought one thing that makes BGS too much like clockwork game is that there is no corruption. Activity should have more than one effect, eg, you might boost your faction influence by smuggling weapons for them but you might also increase the level of corruption. A corrupted faction might let you get away with piracy and smuggling but also might be more unstable or more prone to elections or wars.
• Allow pledging to minor factions - the NPC’s can do it!
• Introduce population changes based on system states and the underlying balance sheet of the system. (birth/death/immigration/migration rates - could even lead to a new state - colonisation.
• Don't bother tweaking BGS, make player group membership interesting, rewarding and offering such a level of entertainment so that it interests players just for the sake of it.
• Factions could use intraday Trends updated as frequently as possible in order to give at least some intraday feedback how all Factions are doing. I don't expect hard numbers ("how would things look if the Systems would vote on the next full hour?"), a coarse version of the predictions similar to those found in the PowerPlay mechanics would be absolutely sufficient.
  

By all means post your view about which is your preferred option(s), but please try and deconstruct why you prefer one option over another. In particular is there any advantage or diadvantage not identified which is contributing to your feelings/opinion. If we can get all the reasons pinned down and clear, then disagreements can only arise for different people/groups giving different weight to the criteria. Oh and be nice


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) Ryan Murdoc (Ghost Legion) commanda2212 (SEPP) Frigna the Hutt (Da Vinci Corps) CaptainKirby (AID) 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(Patreus) Marra Morgan picommander FrogsFriend, rekurzion, , Manticore, Noob, mistohise NeilKD	Walt Kerman (Mercs of Mikunn)Logan Terrik (Xukong Nexus) ph1Lt0r (Privateers Alliance) Egy Ace Fyke, Falcon_D	Misaniovent (Patreus) Zadian Lichtfrost Abil Midena Deareim (Mercs of Mikunn) IAN NORTON (Null)Ganjanoof, Greno Zee	NRCrosby (Winters Wolves) Agony Aunt, That90skid, Sixteen-string Jack

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

 

[DNA-Decay]

I kinda hope they don’t follow anyone’s advice too closely.

The mysterious black box is part of the fun.

I hear people’s frustrations when it doesn’t match their theory, but I kinda like the weird.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

Those who demand the changes have to come up with how they can work, how they need to be balanced etc.

To demand something and not giving logical and feasible solutions that FD can implement without having to rewrite the entirety of the BGS is not an option.

 

[Marra Morgan]

I think you've captured the main points well, Jane. I don't have anything to add to the pros and cons right now.

Personally, I favour the transaction approach, but with a minimum threshold that is kept black-box (but not RNG - derive the minimum from other factors such as supply, demand, state, influence differentials etc).

Those who demand the changes have to come up with how they can work, how they need to be balanced etc.

No, they don't.

It's a developer's job to come up with the how.

Players play, critique and feedback / whine.

 

[Misaniovent]

I don't view the transactional-nature of the BGS as inherently broken, and I don't view using understanding of that nature to affect the BGS as exploitative. I believe the BGS is intentionally obfuscated and should remain so, but there should still be an intuitive factor that allows CMDRs to have an impact without requiring them to dedicate themselves to the tedium the current transactional system sometimes requires.

I support an adjusted transactional model that increases the weight given to higher-value transactions. Your example of having a kill in a conflict zone count as an automatic transaction makes sense; this is why murder is so effective. At the same time, there's value in maintaining some granularity here, where increased dedication increases results.

What I would really prefer would be some fundamental changes to CZs and war mechanics. These might include special missions and more complex objective-based CZ.

This should include changes to how bounties are handled. Having bounties automatically turned-in isn't desirable, because it removes fine control over who a CMDR is supporting while bounty-hunting. There's still room for improvement: perhaps we could accept contracts from minor factions to collect issued bounties, where kills by CMDRs on contract are automatically turned-in. This would allow CMDRs to choose whether or not they want to bounty-hunt for profit or for effect. As it stands now, we ask CMDRs to limit the number of turn-ins they make, lest we reach undesirable influence levels.

Exploration data is a powerful tool. It makes sense that each discovery should have an impact on its own, but that impact should be weighted on the basis of its value.

 

[Jane Turner]

transaction plus updated to include weighting as an option

3. Transactions plus: Make alterations to aspects of transaction definition to make the BGS more intuitive, eg count each Combat zone kill as a transaction rather than each drop of bonds. Or add a value modifier 0.1% to 100% of a transaction. This will require a re-weighting of the transactional value of different activities and a period of imbalance and some changes to the BGS code. There is some separation of influence effect from financial and reputational

 

[Limoncello Lizard]

I support the transactional system. Though it's not perfect, it does at least give us some tools to counter random players in busy systems who are just grinding Fed/Imp rank, or spamming whatever the latest credit exploit is. Changing to value based, or even the transaction plus model will make it impossible to make changes in some systems.

 

[Jane Turner]

Can you expand a bit on "impossible to make changes in some systems" It feels like a negative that hasn't been fleshed out.


Is it - removes flexibility when adjusting payouts, or something else?

 

[CMDR Endincite]

I can flesh that out a bit. As originally a trader, I wondered how FDev had made it so the affected factions in trade hubs weren't simply blowing away competition and expanding constantly.
That how, is the transactional model. If it were value based (to any degree, really) factions supported by mass trade would be basically unassailable. Yes, you could act against them, but if you ever stop they're headed right back to the top.

 

[Jane Turner]

Not sure if that is what Limocello meant, but regardless it's a new disadvantage and so added

 

[CMDR Endincite]

Quite, just posing an example of what I think is a fairly obvious issue with even partial value-basis. Ambient ("rando") BGS effects are greatly magnified, perhaps beyond counter.

 

[Misaniovent]

Quite, just posing an example of what I think is a fairly obvious issue with even partial value-basis. Ambient ("rando") BGS effects are greatly magnified, perhaps beyond counter.

Basically, yeah. The system needs to be able to be intentionally affected without being too chaotic. The current system achieves this.

 

[FrogsFriend]

A couple of suggestions that I suppose should go into the Transactions Plus option:

1. Missions. Make them do what they say in the text. If it says they'll help in the current State then have them help. If they only help stop or extend the current State then remove the Influence effects from the reward options but show the state effect instead (just +/-, not necessarily by how much). If they have no effect on States or Influence, because of the current State, then just offer Credits and Reputation options.

2. Bounties and Bonds. I believe the potential drudgery of attempting to maximise transactions, i.e. one kill then hand in and repeat, already effectively discourages that sort of activity except in exceptional circumstances. However, there is still the situation where people, understandably, believe that handing in bigger Bounties and Bonds will have more effect than cashing in smaller ones. It could be worth adding some scaling. Potentially slightly reducing the effect of small values and slightly increasing the effect of larger, but nothing excessive (increasing on a fairly flat s-shaped curve to give diminishing returns). There's no need to make Bounties and Bonds the single most effective tool for influence gain.

3. Trade. This works very well as-is. There are already limits and thresholds in place that provide diminishing returns for larger trades, negate the effects of multiple small trades and reward profits.

I find the current system works fairly well overall, tidying up a couple of the unintuitive effects is all that's really needed.

 

[Jane Turner]

Arguably that is already covered by

"Maximises the disruption caused by players CGs, gold rushes, trade hubs and high traffic areas who have no interest in the BGS"

if I add trade hubs

 

[Jmanis]

Value-based influence gains utterly breaks activities like trading.

For example, I'll get about 600cr/t trading Biowaste to an Agricultural economy (High Demand)

Meanwhile, I can buy Imperial Slaves at a Torval control system, and sell them for upwards of 2,000cr profit at that same Agricultural economy, where Imperial Slaves are High *Supply*.

This is completely counterintuitive and makes no sense. Trading and the BGS needs to be based on trading to commodity demand, not profit margins.... i.e profit != need.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

Can you expand a bit on "impossible to make changes in some systems" It feels like a negative that hasn't been fleshed out.


Is it - removes flexibility when adjusting payouts, or something else?

Thanks for this thread, Jane. This is more the sort of level-headed serious discussion BGS players are used to.

I'll give two examples, that show two different sides of this problem.

Leesti's return to the Alliance
In 2016/3302, AEDC flipped Leesti (back) to the Alliance, after having been ruled by Independent Leesti for Equality for about a year. ILFE owned the main station, and George Lucas gets a lot of traffic (regular trades and rares, though the latter's BGS influence is debated), there's good mining in the area (when it still mattered), and bounty hunting as well, IIRC. By itself, this system of 5B population is therefore very stable in the hands of the ruler. It took us a ridiculous number of missions over weeks to eventually engineer the conflict for ruler and flip the system. (10,000s total) The vast majority of that on a daily basis just to counter the random traffic.

I am not complaining it took this amount of work - that's how it goes. Heavily trafficked and large population size. But we had a chance. It was possible with a concerted effort from dozens of diplomats over the course of weeks and months. Should the BGS be value based (2) or transactions+ (3), there would have been no chance whatsoever. The work required to match general activity would simply have been too much.

LHS 380 management
As part of peace terms following our 4-month conflict with EDF, LHS 380 is a system we are present in, but will not take. With the ruler owning all (meaningful) stations, an 11 million population, and very high traffic, you'd think this would be stable, but it is not: The ruler is in 5 systems. Another faction is in 8, and we ourselves in 28. With high mission traffic, especially, and even more so since the mission destination effects of 3.0, this system is near-uncontrollable as it as, as mission effects are turned off and on and factions rise and fall (as of today, the ruler has been in 3rd place for 2 weeks as the result of a long-running conflict elsewhere). Avoiding conflict here, is manageable, but a serious challenge requiring "inception" BGS tactics, and going with momentum, rather than go against the grain. And I will admit that our efforts don't always work, and we end up wasting a week on a pointless conflict, hurting us elsewhere.

---

BTW, I really don't see too much difference between value, and transaction+. The former is a bit more extreme, and favors the big ships for combat-related activities, but counting each kill as a transaction would come pretty much to the same, in comparison to transaction-only, and would require a similar amount of balancing before things settle down. Murder still works as it always did, but the consequences are higher, and frankly, all we really needed the C&P to do was help diversify tactics, which as far as I can tell it has.

BTW2: Believe me, I completely understand the desire for value-based. When the full implication of transactional hit me (it already had in waves, but I remember the moment when it fully hit home), I was a little sick. There may have been a bit of cursing... But then you give it more thought, think about the why, and it became clear to me that the way the system works allows our style of game play - as the examples above show, but can give others on a more broader level - of deliberately managing the BGS, while neither inconveniencing the larger player community too much, nor their game styles interfering with ours. I think that is genius.

BTW3: I know what it does to game play. How this turns BGS into a grind. Don't let it. The vast majority of the time you don't have to resort to it, or 1-click explo just to recover from the past conflict. 1-click bounties and bonds is soul-destroying. We pretty much only ever use it during conflicts we invested a lot of time in, and are not going well, or to counter a significant attack, or fighting against massive random traffic (a popular BH system, for instance, in war time). It's not fun. And fun is why we play this game. Fun is how you keep longevity in the game, which is the most important factor for BGS success. The day you don't play, you lose - that's how the BGS works.

So use it selectively. Don't burn out doing horrible things, except during emergencies. Keep your sanity, and keep it fun. (And for BGS "generals" offering operations to a wider player group, be even more careful what you're doing to your members. The longevity of your group, and the enjoyment of your members is far more important than any BGS outcome.)

Alliance Banzai

 

[Jane Turner]

A couple of suggestions that I suppose should go into the Transactions Plus option:

1. Missions. Make them do what they say in the text. If it says they'll help in the current State then have them help. If they only help stop or extend the current State then remove the Influence effects from the reward options but show the state effect instead (just +/-, not necessarily by how much). If they have no effect on States or Influence, because of the current State, then just offer Credits and Reputation options.

2. Bounties and Bonds. I believe the potential drudgery of attempting to maximise transactions, i.e. one kill then hand in and repeat, already effectively discourages that sort of activity except in exceptional circumstances. However, there is still the situation where people, understandably, believe that handing in bigger Bounties and Bonds will have more effect than cashing in smaller ones. It could be worth adding some scaling. Potentially slightly reducing the effect of small values and slightly increasing the effect of larger, but nothing excessive (increasing on a fairly flat s-shaped curve to give diminishing returns). There's no need to make Bounties and Bonds the single most effective tool for influence gain.

3. Trade. This works very well as-is. There are already limits and thresholds in place that provide diminishing returns for larger trades, negate the effects of multiple small trades and reward profits.

I find the current system works fairly well overall, tidying up a couple of the unintuitive effects is all that's really needed.

I think I'll add a footnote - other things that would help - tehre are a few comments on missions - I'll collate them in the morning and when I am not in a CZ..

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
3. Transaction Plus
Advantages

• More intuitive than 1

Disadvantages

• Will require some Dev time, but much less than 2.
• Likely to cause imbalance which will take time to rebalance
• Promotes the use of combat bots and trade bots
• Will have disruption caused by players CGs, trade hubs, gold rushes and high traffic areas who have no interest in the BGS

…

I prefer the transaction plus system. It's more logical and more elegant.
Combat bonds and bounties should create one transaction for one destroyed ship the moment the bounty or bonds get handed in (just destroying a ship shouldn't count as a transaction).

I'm not sure if the "transaction plus" system promotes the use of bots, at least not compared to the current system.

I don't think that disruptions caused by CGs, trade hubs, gold rushes, high traffic areas and players without interest in the BGS is a bad thing. (But I hope that FDev would become more aware of what effects their changes/additions/CGs can have on the BGS interested players.)

All systems require dev time and changes to the game can and will cause imbalances. FDev has been patching, fixing and re-balancing the BGS since almost 1.0. How much dev time each of those systems would cost is probably something only FDev can answer.

Ideas for the future:
Transactions could get modifiers for system state increasing the "value" of a transaction depending on how important that action is. Bounties could have more effect if the system is in lockdown, importing food could be more effective in famine, luxury items more effective in boom …
High influence and reputation rare goods (maybe only available once every 24h and not transferable to prevent "tea bagging"). These could add an additional tool for BGS influencers who prefer to fly smaller ships.

 

[MottiKhan]

...
I'm not sure if the "transaction plus" system promotes the use of bots, at least not compared to the current system.
...

Have you seen the Healies for Feelies 2 video? AFK "combat" with essentially unlimited kills. This can and will be used for BGS manipulation in either a credit or transaction plus system as described. One player can set this up with his own alt and farm credits, mats and "transaction plus" counts until the server resets.

As it is, it's bad enough. We don't need this added to the griefer's toolbox.

It can't be effectively used in a transaction turn in system like we have. Not even for murder, since the ATR will eventually take one ship down and the next will fall in short order.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Have you seen the Healies for Feelies 2 video? AFK "combat" with essentially unlimited kills. This can and will be used for BGS manipulation in either a credit or transaction plus system as described. One player can set this up with his own alt and farm credits, mats and "transaction plus" counts until the server resets.

As it is, it's bad enough. We don't need this added to the griefer's toolbox.

It can't be effectively used in a transaction turn in system like we have. Not even for murder, since the ATR will eventually take one ship down and the next will fall in short order.

This is indeed a problem that needs to get fixed, but I think the problem of "AFK combat" or the completely imbalanced, overpowered engineering should get fixed.

But your example isn't bot usage. If a bot is capable of flying to a combat zone or RES and then fight for a long time without problem it could be programmed to got to the CZ/RES kill a few ships and then fly back to the station and hand in the bonds/bounties.
The problem of bot using should get fixed and not used as a reason not to change the BGS to a more logical system.

But I understand the point you are making and it is indeed something that needs to be considered in the balancing of a transaction plus system.