I do not like where this is going. Can you please make similar thread on reddit?
Decision Paper on Background Simulator in Elite Dangerous
- Thread starter Jane Turner
- Start date
What is the problem ? I think Jane is doing an awesome job on that and transparent !
Do I say something about bad about it? Jane is doing this thing in a way I would like to reproduce for my further activity and not falling into ranting, flaming and going in circles like usual. Which I would fail miserably to do, as I cannont stand when some people on the Internet dare to defy my no-doubt ultimately true and neutral standpoint.
Yet I could not help to ignore the fact that this was done on the only one platform and with such low amount of players. I wonder whether or not official and unofficial Reddits for ED should be polled as well?
Last edited:
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
Sorry I don't do Reddit...
I will include and protect all views expressed here, even if I thoroughly disagree!
BGS sub-forum would seem to be the best place to discuss the BGS - invite anyone who want to join in
Last edited:
There is quite literally nothing stopping you from posting the threads on Reddit yourself.
Make a link to this discussion on Reddit. This way we can have sensible discussion and weed out possible troublemakers easier.
Personally I do not mind the current model, in which missions and actions likewise influence BGS. I absolutely would not like model 4, because the BGS, the name says, must be conditioned by the actions of the players, otherwise it becomes similar to the reduced version of PowerPlay.
The two things we need are:
- know the Caps of the individual actions / transactions / data delivery with respect to the BGS influences.
- make a distinction between actions in open play and actions in single / private play (the latter should receive a significant malus).
The two things we need are:
- know the Caps of the individual actions / transactions / data delivery with respect to the BGS influences.
- make a distinction between actions in open play and actions in single / private play (the latter should receive a significant malus).
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
Here is where the current weight of opinion is
With individuals counting 1, groups counting 1 and groups with divided options counting half in each choice
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/215554088820015104/440786067633864704/unknown.png
With individuals counting 1, groups counting 1 and groups with divided options counting half in each choice
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/215554088820015104/440786067633864704/unknown.png
Last edited:
If anyone thinks this is an easy problem to solve I suggest you go back and review the threads where FD changed the superpower bounty mechanics. A seemingly minor change had an unintentionally drastic effect on indy factions until it was tweaked further.
Re-posting here from the thread on the main forum. I gave a little thought to a credit based Bounty/CZ model and the issue that would bring - my conclusion is that neither transactional or credit based are without their own problems.
...
Using credit value as the measure has the exact same problem for bounties[the potential for exploitation]. My engied Vette can sit in a res with 1T of gold in its hold and survive all night without any human intervention. This is in fact worse that the current system because i just have to intervene once a day to crush the universe beneath my jeweled sandals. Credit value does not do away with the potential to game the system in any way - it just changes the nature of the gaming.
Lets also look at it from a top down BGS view rather than a cmdr bottom up view (which is the view taken by those most upset by the transactional nature). The BGS has to handle calculations and compare different activities. There will have to be some common currency between the different activities (including those with no credit value). A credit value for BH would have to be assigned to that currency. lets call it 1 "work" (or maybe 1 "transaction" ). Well what is 1 "work"? For arguments sake lets call it the credit value of the average BH cashing. I have no idea what that is but I suspect it to be relatively low given that you have to take into account those small incidental bounties earned, those earned from missions and those from BH sessions (we are after all looking at overall gameplay of all cmdrs not just one hypothetical game play style).
So we have essentially recreated the current position with a credit base instead of a transaction one. That's a lot of effort for minimal BGS change. What happens if we start screwing around with the BH value of "1 work"? Average session = "2 works".... doubles the effect of BH, destroying any semblance of balance and you begin to risk massively distorting the entire galaxy, not just where one lad is min maxing transactions! This is surely not an intended consequence of the credit proposal?
Its not even clear if the BGS server can handle credit conversations or any additional calculation overhead.
Re-posting here from the thread on the main forum. I gave a little thought to a credit based Bounty/CZ model and the issue that would bring - my conclusion is that neither transactional or credit based are without their own problems.
...
Using credit value as the measure has the exact same problem for bounties[the potential for exploitation]. My engied Vette can sit in a res with 1T of gold in its hold and survive all night without any human intervention. This is in fact worse that the current system because i just have to intervene once a day to crush the universe beneath my jeweled sandals. Credit value does not do away with the potential to game the system in any way - it just changes the nature of the gaming.
Lets also look at it from a top down BGS view rather than a cmdr bottom up view (which is the view taken by those most upset by the transactional nature). The BGS has to handle calculations and compare different activities. There will have to be some common currency between the different activities (including those with no credit value). A credit value for BH would have to be assigned to that currency. lets call it 1 "work" (or maybe 1 "transaction" ). Well what is 1 "work"? For arguments sake lets call it the credit value of the average BH cashing. I have no idea what that is but I suspect it to be relatively low given that you have to take into account those small incidental bounties earned, those earned from missions and those from BH sessions (we are after all looking at overall gameplay of all cmdrs not just one hypothetical game play style).
So we have essentially recreated the current position with a credit base instead of a transaction one. That's a lot of effort for minimal BGS change. What happens if we start screwing around with the BH value of "1 work"? Average session = "2 works".... doubles the effect of BH, destroying any semblance of balance and you begin to risk massively distorting the entire galaxy, not just where one lad is min maxing transactions! This is surely not an intended consequence of the credit proposal?
Its not even clear if the BGS server can handle credit conversations or any additional calculation overhead.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
Schlack said:
The BGS has the ability to apply a moderator to transactions.... so e.g.
- x0 for missions in war or bounty hunting in election
- x2 for food trade during famine or Bounty hunting in Civil unrest.
- Goemon's impressive work on profit in trade shows a a non-binary response up to x1
This suggests that some value-based modifiers could be applied to transactions without too much mess
Last edited:
I don't see any particular reason to drastically change how the bgs operates.
Certainly any change to a value system is equally, if not more, exploitable than the current system is. Moreover, value based systems would massively favour large, entrenched, factions and ultimately would subdue change.
Leave it as is, make incremental improvements
Certainly any change to a value system is equally, if not more, exploitable than the current system is. Moreover, value based systems would massively favour large, entrenched, factions and ultimately would subdue change.
Leave it as is, make incremental improvements
Shouldn't large and entrenched factions be favored though, to better reflect IRL state of things?
By the way, still, what is an actual difference between value and transactions+?
IMO, it is like Euclidian and Lobachevskiy geometries, where former is the single instance of the latter.
IMO, it is like Euclidian and Lobachevskiy geometries, where former is the single instance of the latter.
Last edited:
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
Values is 100% driven by values, transaction has a modifier eg. 01x. to 2x based around the value of the transaction, rather than a simple on/off threshold
Pure "value" would not work, some balancing would be needed. Or they will count every murdered peasant by his ship cost? So recount me to transactions+.
To 2x only? Or is it empirically determined figure, based on available data?
To 2x only? Or is it empirically determined figure, based on available data?
Last edited:
So far, this data you had posted shows that some of the modifiers is "float" there.
Is it coded to the receptioning system, or is it coded into transaction though...
So even transaction+ might be not that simple.
Edit.
On the second hand, we have INF+++ unnatural stuff. Yet, it does work somehow.
Last edited:
That's the point imo. Missions already went transaction+.
I cannot stress enough that value is a marginal cause of transactions+. With or without rounding down.
Jane Turner
Volunteer Moderator
I guess the mission pay outs may have to be nerfed in a 100% value system