Livestream Discovery Scanner 6 - Reshaping the Simulation

Hey Dav, I remember way back that the idea was floating around of letting the BGS affect system population, as well as allowing factions to expand on their own into empty system and spawn their own stations.
Is this something that is still being looked at, and if so what kind of hurdles can you foresee?
 
Looking forward to watching this one.

- what's your aim when it comes to balancing the desire of "people playing the BGS" to have a reasonably predictable and controllable system, with the desire of "people living in the BGS" to have interesting things happen around them?

- is happiness going to be used for anything in future?

- will all BGS properties detectable in game be available through the journal as well in future? (e.g. local news articles, traffic reports) Or is there a reason that they're not beyond "we haven't implemented it yet"? (Fine, if so - I'll stop asking...)

- the original pre-release design envisaged a larger role for the BGS in terms of events like station construction, population movements, etc. Is this still on the roadmap somewhere?
You have your answer in the leaks. And it is yes. at least for the colonization part-
 

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
Misa and Mangal have asked all I want to.

My big 3 are.

1. can we reintroduce or find a replacement for blocking states as a means to introduce strategic planning and complexity as a means to control very large factions?
2. Bots, bots, bots, bots bots. Please do something about them. Though we try, we can't compete with accounts that do no sleep for 24 hours and do not need to supercruise.
3. Can we Approximately double the effectiveness of missons - they currently hit diminishing returns at about 40++ and a quarter of a full swing. With missions being so weak, this really handicaps new player gtoups.
 
1. can we reintroduce or find a replacement for blocking states as a means to introduce strategic planning and complexity as a means to control very large factions?
The original expansion system proposed for 3.3 would have done fine for that; that is, to expand, all systems needed to have "high influence and happiness", whatever that meant. I think 99% of the problem of runaway expansion is due to this.[1]

Old BGS meant expansion couldn't go pending if you were in conflict, as conflict was global. With conflict becoming a state local to the system for a given faction, that means conflict is no longer a blocker to expansion in some other rando system, and this is the crux of the problem; the intersection of 3.3 mechanics with pre-3.3 mechanics.

As long as we're not talking about conflict in a single system becoming a global effect again, because especially in the current system, that would be an absolutely terrible idea (The original global conflict state wasn't great either). Which I guess neatly leads to another question:

- Any ETA on implementing the originally intended expansion mechanics? There's big problems with unchecked expansion caused by using the pre-3.3 expansion mechanics in current BGS.

[1] some tangential discussion... I think "high influence" being over 75% everywhere wouldn't be great... but perhaps "Elated" and at least 50-60% across all systems? Or even 60% averaged across all systems?
 

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
Yeah, I wasn't specifying the route - just the outcome, though in my head it did make some sense to suggest that you could either fight in a conflict or expand, but not do both
 
The original expansion system proposed for 3.3 would have done fine for that; that is, to expand, all systems needed to have "high influence and happiness", whatever that meant. I think 99% of the problem of runaway expansion is due to this.[1]

Old BGS meant expansion couldn't go pending if you were in conflict, as conflict was global. With conflict becoming a state local to the system for a given faction, that means conflict is no longer a blocker to expansion in some other rando system, and this is the crux of the problem; the intersection of 3.3 mechanics with pre-3.3 mechanics.

As long as we're not talking about conflict in a single system becoming a global effect again, because especially in the current system, that would be an absolutely terrible idea (The original global conflict state wasn't great either). Which I guess neatly leads to another question:

- Any ETA on implementing the originally intended expansion mechanics? There's big problems with unchecked expansion caused by using the pre-3.3 expansion mechanics in current BGS.

[1] some tangential discussion... I think "high influence" being over 75% everywhere wouldn't be great... but perhaps "Elated" and at least 50-60% across all systems? Or even 60% averaged across all systems?
How can you have un-checked expansions ? just curious.
 
Yeah, I wasn't specifying the route - just the outcome, though in my head it did make some sense to suggest that you could either fight in a conflict or expand, but not do both
Usually, if you are fighting, all you resources are put in it, not in the expansion...

And I really would like we don t speak about happiness... BGS is enough broken.
 
Hurrah! Discovery Scanner is one of the best things FD do, can't wait but will have to as I'm on my hols with ropey internet.
 
I wonder if it were possible to map the populated systems for their economy, population, security, etc. and derive a area influence out of that that affect the base tendencies of states in the nearby systems to introduce more location dependent tendencies for system states. Such a map would be mostly static unless you change systems, like the Witch Head Enclave, so upkeep would be low cost.

For example a system with no agriculture nearby but a high population would be prone to famines or a system with industry but no extraction systems nearby is more prone to busts or a system far out and surrounded mostly by empty anarchy systems more prone to pirate attacks, etc.
 
G'day Dav,
I have a question regarding Squadrons. Could FDev possibly implement a way for Squadrons to have more involvement and control over their PMF or adopted faction? For example, on the Squadron Allegiance page:

have a check-box next to each system to freeze/un-freeze expansions
have another check-box next to each system to retreat from the system after the next 'tick'
In addition, it would be awesome if when you are flying within your pledged factions space that you have the same privileges as System Authority - to do things such as pull-over trading ships (players/NPCs) and scan for cargo for illicit cargo etc...

Also, does the 'YOUR SQUADRON IS NOT ALLIED TO A POWER' on the Squadron Allegiance page really need to be that big?!?! If this was a small check-box instead it'll leave much more room on this page for more important information...
 
G'day Dav,
I have a question regarding Squadrons. Could FDev possibly implement a way for Squadrons to have more involvement and control over their PMF or adopted faction? For example, on the Squadron Allegiance page:

have a check-box next to each system to freeze/un-freeze expansions
have another check-box next to each system to retreat from the system after the next 'tick'
That couldn't work because any number of squadrons can pledge to a single faction, and pledging confers no ownership of that faction (because... short version... you aren't even part of that faction). It'd also break several fundamental concepts such as the fact you aren't part of that faction.... and that NPC factions present to players as autonomous bodies who act independently.

Squadrons are essentially paramilitary forces, and have no authority within a faction, and i think it's important to keep it that way to maintain the integrity of the BGS's function of being that living, breathing universe.
 
That couldn't work because any number of squadrons can pledge to a single faction, and pledging confers no ownership of that faction (because... short version... you aren't even part of that faction). It'd also break several fundamental concepts such as the fact you aren't part of that faction.... and that NPC factions present to players as autonomous bodies who act independently. Squadrons are essentially paramilitary forces, and have no authority within a faction, and i think it's important to keep it that way to maintain the integrity of the BGS's function of being that living, breathing universe.
Your line of thinking does make some sense IRT NPC factions, and highlights some more shortcomings in the PMF - Squadron relationship. This should also be fixed/improved, because the relationship should be logical (it's illogical to think you are not part of your PMF)...
 
Last edited:
Hooray for Dav \o/
Hooray for lab-coats \o/
Hooray for cheeky grins \o/
Hooray for Flimley \o/
Hooray for everything \o/
Hooray for all that !

Question...
Any insights into future development plans for the BGS? ..Population controls possibly? If we could import people into systems via the passenger route. What fun and antics that would be !

Flimley
 
Last edited:
Your line of thinking does make some sense IRT NPC factions, and highlights some more shortcomings in the PMF - Squadron relationship. This should also be fixed/improved, because the relationship should be logical (it's illogical to think you are not part of your PMF)...
I very strongly disagree with your assertion that there's any differences between NPC and PMF factions, other than the fact FD let players name one. But there's plenty of threads over on the BGS forum where we can debate that.

But for this thread, well, inspired by this discussion... some questions for the stream:

1. What's the nature of the relationship between a Commander (Player) and a faction; subsequently what's the nature of relationship between a squadron and the faction they're pledged to? Are they just an "external contractor/contractor group" or are they "part of" the faction?

2. Does that relationship change based on whether it's a PMF or a procedurally generated (NPC) faction?

3. Perhaps not BGS related, but where do "registered groups" (i.e those used to back requests for PMFs) sit now that we have Squadrons in the game?


For context around questions 1 and 2, opinion can vary that a commander is never more than a "mercenary" taking on open-contracts, right up to "They are a full-blown member of that faction", while opinion on pledged squadrons vary from being nothing more than an issue-motivated group who supports that group, right up to "The squadron is that faction". Opinion around PMFs also varies just as wildly, from "Just another NPC entity which players were allowed to name" right up to "That faction belongs to our group, and provides a measure of authority over it".

Opinions on these relations between Commanders, Squadrons and Factions, and the distinction (if any) between PMFs and "NPC" factions generally underpin very divisive discussions about the general mechanics of the BGS, the intent of the BGS and the level of control players should have, so it would be great to get some clarity on this issue.
 
1. Can we have some strategy added back to the bgs?

2. What is the planned expansion/happiness malarky, and when is it coming?

3. Please can journal entries be written from squad page?
 
Top Bottom