Decision Paper on Background Simulator in Elite Dangerous

[Mangal Oemie]

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

That's an interesting result... At first I thought I was in the minority, but that was clearly not the case.


BTW, though...

http://www.businessinsider.com/pie-charts-are-the-worst-2013-6

and scroll down a bit more for some special hatred for 3D pie charts...

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

I guess the mission pay outs may have to be nerfed in a 100% value system

Missions will get according value. Not their return CR one, maybe.

Consider merging transactions+ and value. They are the same stuff, their implementation would be the same as well. It is only a difference in balancing.

 

[Ganjanoof]

Consider merging transactions+ and value. They are the same stuff, their implementation would be the same as well. It is only a difference in balancing.

Well I think transaction+ is only a translation of value in terms compatible with the way the bgs currently works.
OFC this is an assumption but most of ppl around this thread know that the description of the current bgs, drawn from reverse engineering, is more than likely accurate and even exact. So it is designed as purely transactional. It's a strong constraint.
Transaction+ allows a fixed framework for computation, so it can be processed client-side, which makes a huge difference as legitimate doubts have been risen about the servers being able to process dynamic calculations during the tick.
It also fits the description of 'incremental improvements' as previously suggested by another member. Going for a pure value thing would mean a real overhaul. Which is less likely by assumption (cost of development).

 

[CMDR EDGEL0RD]

Well I think transaction+ is only a translation of value in terms compatible with the way the bgs currently works.
OFC this is an assumption but most of ppl around this thread know that the description of the current bgs, drawn from reverse engineering, is more than likely accurate and even exact. So it is designed as purely transactional. It's a strong constraint.
Transaction+ allows a fixed framework for computation, so it can be processed client-side, which makes a huge difference as legitimate doubts have been risen about the servers being able to process dynamic calculations during the tick.
It also fits the description of 'incremental improvements' as previously suggested by another member. Going for a pure value thing would mean a real overhaul. Which is less likely by assumption (cost of development).

If hauling one biowaste box and sixty of them will yield 0.01 and 0.6 transactions respectively, or killing one harmless sidey and an elite Cutter will yield 0.01 and 1.2 transactions, would not it be the same as value though? Direct value would still need MAJOR balancing. In pure "Value", one biowaste box costing 800 will yeld something like 0.8 or 800 transactions.

What I want to say, "transactions+" can be remade in a way which would result in direct reflection of value.
And, if value would be the course of actions, deveopers would not do it any other way.

 

[CaptainKirby]

What I want to say, "transactions+" can be remade in a way which would result in direct reflection of value.

You're absolutely right. Transactions+ can be implemented in a way that wouldn't differ from a pure value based system. But it can also be implemented in a different way, because you can add other factors without re-balancing the value of payouts etc.

Anyway, the current results suggest that most people agree there's something to re-balance or improve within the BGS, but the solution doesn't seem to be a complete overhaul of the transactional system. In my opinion it wouldn't do justice to the BGS if the undoubtedly existing deficiencies of the current system were to be replaced by another system with pretty similar or maybe even worse flaws. In the end it'd be a cheap attempt to fix a complex system.

This discussion was a great idea and it helped at least me to realize that it's not that easy to meet all the needs I see in the BGS. It's problematic though to start with a solution because you assume the problem is well-known. Let's rather write down again what we find painful within the current state of the BGS (and also why), and then we can start a new approach to find solutions that'd fix (most of) these things.

 

[Jane Turner]

The Seven Stages of the Transactional BGS

SHOCK & DENIAL-
PAIN & GUILT-
ANGER & BARGAINING-
"DEPRESSION", REFLECTION, LONELINESS
THE UPWARD TURN-
RECONSTRUCTION & WORKING THROUGH-
ACCEPTANCE & HOPE-

 

[CaptainKirby]

The Seven Stages of the Transactional BGS

SHOCK & DENIAL-
PAIN & GUILT-
ANGER & BARGAINING-
"DEPRESSION", REFLECTION, LONELINESS
THE UPWARD TURN-
RECONSTRUCTION & WORKING THROUGH-
ACCEPTANCE & HOPE-

Made my day!

 

[Mangal Oemie]

The Seven Stages of the Transactional BGS

SHOCK & DENIAL-
PAIN & GUILT-
ANGER & BARGAINING-
"DEPRESSION", REFLECTION, LONELINESS
THE UPWARD TURN-
RECONSTRUCTION & WORKING THROUGH-
ACCEPTANCE & HOPE-

Brilliant.

Though not as brilliant as the classic Jane aphorims:

"The BGS is balanced around a single CMDR in a Cobra"

apart from "The BGS is transactional in nature" probably the most important thing to remember about the BGS....

 

[the100thmonkey]

"The BGS is balanced around a single CMDR in a Cobra"

EXPLOITZ!

 

[Greno Zee]

Sorry for late response.
My preferrence would be Transaction Plus.
With few additions:

First, we need to clarify whether it is desired to have experienced CMDRs impact the influence more than the beginners. If so, I would suggest to have the transactions modified by the CMDR's rank in the respective area. For instance, we might want to have Elite CMDRs having double the impact Harmless ones have.
Let me demonstrate on Trade (sorry for my ignorance, I don't know whoat impact the profit has on influence so i leave it out here). Also, for demonstration purposes, let's assume selling full cargo results in 1 INF point (it probably really does, doesn't it).
When you buy cargo, it is marked with the percentage of your cargo space it takes up (to prevent ship switching before selling).

I've got a Sidewinder with 4 tons of cargo space and my trading rank is Peddler.
I buy 2 tons of Gold. My cargo is marked being 50% influence worth.
I fly to my destination and sell with profit.
So, I have just added ,5 INF (because when buying my cargo was 1/2 of my cargo space). But my rank is a modifier, Peddler adding 33% (3rd rank out of 9). As a result, I've just added ,665 INF point to the faction controlling the station.

All other means can be modified in a similar way - exploring, bounty hunting.

Of course, it might be the rank modifiers are not what frontier would want, so then it's pure Transaction Plus for me.

 

[NeilKD]

My preference would be to stay with Option1 (current) with a tweak to the Missions/Passengers Boards so that the offerings are related to and dependent on the Faction's State. The rider to that is that all Missions/Passsenger Requests offered by that Faction will have an effect on Influence and State for that Faction.

That will take much of the uncertainty and confusion out of the equation.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

I'd like to add I'd like to see all BGS links removed from PowerPlay, if this goes Open-only.

The suggested changes are arguably an improvement (though the missions could be a potential disaster) but I still think it is better if it is removed already. Let PP'ers PP. Let BGS'ers BGS.

 

[Sixteen-String Jack]

Whenever anyone claims the BGS shows evidence of good design I remember the prison empires era when the prison systems began to expand because they were the only faction in their system and had 100% influence. It hasn't changed, either. The existing BGS is almost pure drivel. If I blame Walt for anything it is that all those years ago he convinced me that it was capable of being improved to the point of adequacy.

The supposed 'factions' have almost no effort put into them, they have no character just labels. What they determine most is the hazard rating of a system- which is scarcely relevant to the game. This is an aspect in which 21st century Elite is actually inferior to the eighties game, where anarchies had pirate swarms which had no need to interdict you.

This notion of should the points be counted differently is an extension of the lack of character of both the factions and the BGS. How can you ask why competition for government can't be insulated from regular traffic and fail to recognise that political factions do not trade in domestic appliances with each other? How can you object to 'big influence swings' and support the notion that a mining colony of a few hundred thousand can 'expand' into a system of hundreds of millions? A system has one station, no planets and yet a political faction can have an 'outbreak' on it which does not affect the other political factions?

Should a small fast ship have the ability to affect epic space conflicts, yes of course. Not by delivering twelve times ten units of gold instead of 120 all at once.

As long as you retain the 'fail' aspect of missions as having influence it will be exploitable. Why have 'fail,' there is no need for it, the time wasted is sufficient penalty?

Another exploit is 'piracy' by direct attacks on security, the 'police can't run' issue, the concept of an infinite security force that is yet unable to show up in sufficient numbers. This is where a threshold might help- yet security murders are an automatic transaction so each one counts? If you kill a pirate shouldn't that be attached to influence automatically, why would you need to hand in a bond? Why is a res an infinite pirate resource?

If we had a Space Opera version of political conflict rather than our current polizeimaterialschlacht it would be far less exploitable, and if we cut the bloated mission system down to size by only having some of the missions as political it is feasible. And more fun, even if some of you have made the domestic appliances run in less than twelve parsecs. Is there skill to knowing a threshold value? I vote for 'mission minus,' only sophisticated missions would count and only completion not failure.

Another time I would like to explain what a political entity is, what a government is and why the combat zone is a four year old placeholder for the wars, invasions and rebellions we could have. It can happen. Trust me, don't listen to Walt.

 

[pantognost]

This is actually really simple.

I read about the BGS and I think that FD have a good case of tunnel vision. The solution to the BGS exploits and all is simple and, honestly, right before their eyes. I can sum it up through one sentence:
Why engineer a system when you can use common sense?
How do groups of people change status in the real world? By setting and achieving aims. I mean, a company starts small and aims to earn 1mil.$. If it does it becomes from a fledgling, an established company. The same for a state with land etc, etc.
So, why not implement a goal/achievement system? A faction becomes booming if a certain combination of metrics (money, certain commodities, security, etc) reach a certain threshold. Same for losing influence and going to war etc. Just establish a combination of thresholds and flag states accordingly. I know that this is like the non transactional model, but I suggest a significant difference that is in fact a fusion of it. States should have complex combination of metrics that would allow all demographics to contribute. E.g. for boom it would have to require that both a certain volume is achieved and also a certain rate of procurement is provided. Thus everyone can meaningfully contribute.
Now considering that the power play system implements already a complex system of flags for changing states. I think that there is already the infrastructure to implement this system which is both realistic and engaging for all.

That’s my 2.5 cents.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

Q4 is incoming soon, only 2 more days to wait for the Livestream where the BGS will be the focus of the discussion. Let's see what they have in store.

 

[Frigna the Hutt]

There is a fundamental change: for the first time Frontier recognizes a role for BGS, as part of the game. While so far, even in the comments in this section of the forum, the BGS has been presented as a "background" mechanism of context to the system.

 

[Marra Morgan]

There is a fundamental change: for the first time Frontier recognizes a role for BGS, as part of the game. While so far, even in the comments in this section of the forum, the BGS has been presented as a "background" mechanism of context to the system.

Isn't that already implied in the name Background Simulation?

 

[XanderVekk]

The Seven Stages of the Transactional BGS

SHOCK & DENIAL-
PAIN & GUILT-
ANGER & BARGAINING-
"DEPRESSION", REFLECTION, LONELINESS
THE UPWARD TURN-
RECONSTRUCTION & WORKING THROUGH-
ACCEPTANCE & HOPE-

Rep for this! I needed the laugh after today, thanks!

I'd like to add I'd like to see all BGS links removed from PowerPlay, if this goes Open-only.

The suggested changes are arguably an improvement (though the missions could be a potential disaster) but I still think it is better if it is removed already. Let PP'ers PP. Let BGS'ers BGS.

That'll be difficult with the whole trigger system. It's especially bad for powers like Aisling, where the expansion trigger is different than the fortification one.

Flip the whole sphere one way, expand, then re-do everything all over again. :-/

 

[Frigna the Hutt]

Isn't that already implied in the name Background Simulation?

I'm sorry. I use google translate: I can not explain how I would like to. The difference is in the ability of the players to influence the BGS. If minimally and only indirectly, as the BGS is now structured. Or if, with the patch, a direct influence on a few or many parameters will be possible.

However we wait what they will say in the live.

 

[Jmanis]

I'm sorry. I use google translate: I can not explain how I would like to. The difference is in the ability of the players to influence the BGS. If minimally and only indirectly, as the BGS is now structured. Or if, with the patch, a direct influence on a few or many parameters will be possible.

However we wait what they will say in the live.

I don't think this will be the case. Back in this video, Dav & Adam make a pretty clear statement that the background sim is meant to be indirect... if it were direct, then it would be a "foreground sim" not a background sim.

[video=youtube;y5DGyG6Qwvkp]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5DGyG6Qwvkp[/video]