I did indeed, and barring other info, I presume the handing in 1 ton at a time is unintended behaviour, and i thought FD had stopped that happening. The rest of it, as working, means a more level playing field.
How does that make any sense, Black Markets actively punishing Anarchy factions why the heck if its a negative would they spawn them, How can you call this a level playing field. Anarchy relies heavily on goods from illicit sources coming in as they can buy cheap sell high.
Negative trading shouldn't ever exist, why would the main market worry about it, the only person it affects is the trader.
I did indeed, and barring other info, I presume the handing in 1 ton at a time is unintended behaviour, and i thought FD had stopped that happening. The rest of it, as working, means a more level playing field.
The 1 unit at a time trading causing big positive or negative swings alike is most definitely there, not sure if it went away for a short time between releases/patches but it is most definitely an issue since 2.2, if you don't believe me test it! Just be sure to buy and sell using the same mechanism as per details in the first post.
Although many inputs collect a certain (Blackbox) Bonus, delivering many times tiny Bounties or Combat Bonds always had the expected, far reduced results.
... Disclaimer : personal experience only of course.
Since you have populated systems available within 20ly then yes I'd put in a ticket.
I had intended to do some testing of fines recently but after inconclusive results from my first test war broke out in my test system so I switched focus to combat bonds.
The test system in question has 5 factions and a population of 238k. My faction is the only non-native faction and neither faction involved in the war owns any assets so bonds were turned in at a third party port. There were no crime or bounty hunting reports and I was the only ship on the traffic report for the duration of the test. Since the only planets, stations and CZs are over 200k ls from the A star interference is unlikely.
Day 1 - 10x approx 500k combat bonds, roughly 5.2m total. After the tick my faction's influence increased by 4.2%.
Day 2 - I was too intoxicated to shoot straight so took the day off from war.
Day 3 - 1 combat bond worth 5.2m. After the tick my faction's influence increased by 0.4%. (0.4% seems to be the smallest change I can cause in my systems)
Day 4 - 5x approx 500k combat bonds, roughly 2.6m total. After the tick my faction's influence increased by 1.6%.
My conclusion is that once again quantity of transactions is more important than their value.
i was BHing for a week in a remote system, to test various aspects of bounty hunting.
here is how i set up the test:
system has only 2 factions, and one outpost. population of 4000. it has various high, normal and low res, where only ships of those two factions are spawned.
i was shooting everyday a fixed number of wanted ships of the controlling faction. i was only claiming bounties of the controlling faction, at the controlling station.
- i claimed no bounties (day 1,2)
- i claimed a low total value of bounties (day 3)
- I claimed a high total value of bounties (day 4)
- i claimed a low total value of bounties (day 5), with cashing in 3 times
- I claimed a low total value of bounties (day 6), with cashing in 12 times
How does the Crime Report works?
The Crime Report IS NOT
- a number for crimes committed by CMDRs
- the sum of all spawned bounties
- the sum of all bounties of CMDRs in that system...
The Crime Report lists the total of bounties and fines in the last 24 h (approx), which went into any CMDR’s left hand trasaction panel.
- if you shoot a WANTED ship with 150 K bounty of a controlling faction, 50 K bounty of a minor faction, and 100 K bounty of a major faction, this will count as 300 k in bounties into the crime report.
- if you get 60 K in bounties for shooting non-wanted ships, this will again count as 60 K in the crime report.
- if you gain a fine of 12 K for smuggling illegal goods, this will again count as 12 K into the crime report.
How does the Bounty Hunter Report work?
The Bounty Hunter Report IS NOT
- the number of shot wanted ships
- the total value of bountie claims, which a CMDR got by shooting wanted ships in that system
The Bounty Hunter Report lists
- the number of single Bounty Claim-Transactions per minor or major faction in the system. (When you hunted 20 wanted ships down, and you claim the bounty for all of them in one go, the Bounty Hunter Report will list it as “1 Bounty Claimed”)
- the total value of Bounty transactions in system
Which conclusions can you draw from Bounty Hunter Report and Crime Report?
Not a lot.
The Bounty Hunter Report and the Crime Report can tell you, if somebody is in the system without jumping in or out, but is cashing in Bounties (if you keep track of your own activities), or isn’t cashing in Bouties, but gaining Bounties or Bounty-Claims
If you see a huge difference between Crime Report total and Bounty Hunter Total, some of the following cases might be the reason:
a) someboy cashes in bounties from that system in another system (for exampel: he wants to push your minor faction in another system).
b) somebody is not cashing in any bounties (for exampel - those of the other minor factions, because he wants to help your major faction).
c) somebody is gaining a lot of bounties because he shoots non-wanted ships (for exampel ships of other minor factions than your controlling factions, because he wants to help)
d) someboy isn’t a good smuggler and gains heavy fines bringing in illegal tobacco in his anaconda.
Bounty Hunting and Influence - Chart and Conclusions:
DO NOT SHOOT WANTED SHIPS OF A MINOR FACTION YOU WANT TO GAIN INFLUENCE. Shooting (WANTED or not…) ships of a minor faction does hurt that minor factions influence. But if you have shot one, cash in the Bounty.
The Bounty Value of a single ship or the total bounty value has a neglectable effect (maybe even non…). SHOOT AS MANY SHIPS AS YOU CAN, NO MATTER THEIR BOUNTY VALUE. if you look for influence gain in the shortest time, go for pirates in harmless eagles, not dangerous anacondas.
The Number of Bounty Transactions is the most important numbers. CLAIM YOUR BOUNTIES AS OFTEN AS POSSIBLE. Claiming 10 times 100 k CR will have 10 times approx the effect of claiming 1 time 1 Mio CR.
/Disclaimer: i have described what i have found. some of the above resembles the 1T-trading exploit. there aspects of it, which i like - basically, somebody in an eagle can help a minor faction as effectivly as somebody in a corvette. and in terms of influence gaining, kinetic weapons aren’t a bad thing for bounty hunting. the more often you need to rearm, the more often you have a reason to cash in your bounties.
___
UPDATE: same rules apply for cashing in bounties at a station not controlled by the faction you want to back! e.g.: cash in only bounties from the faction you want to back, in as many transactions as possible, no matter whether you control the station or not.
___
* influence in that chart, is influence delta, e.g. change of influence.
while both test are quite old (pre 2.0.), and while i have read quite some other ideas how bounty huting or combat bonds work, i have not seen any test with different results.
e.g. we tend to speak "from experience" about the BGS, instead of testing it (in no-traffic systems).
both test have the problem, that maybe they hit the max. influence cap because smaller population systems, though.
anyway, if those tests don't match your experience, i'd suggest putting your ideas on testing in a appropriate system.
The 1 unit at a time trading causing big positive or negative swings alike is most definitely there, not sure if it went away for a short time between releases/patches but it is most definitely an issue since 2.2, if you don't believe me test it! Just be sure to buy and sell using the same mechanism as per details in the first post.
e.g.: pick a no-traffic system, do 1 t trading, note and reproduce numbers the other day, do the same amount in 100T batches etc. - and put your numbers under the linked bug report on the first page.
Im calling you out on that mate, people use no traffic systems in the BGS community to eliminate any other variable, clearly you stating the opposite shows you haven't used it for a good while, because that has been common tactic.
Testing something effectiveness against people well thats another case, but Ive seen these methods used on groups and seen what happens even when those using it number less than 5 against groups with decent deployments etc.
Im calling you out on that mate, people use no traffic systems in the BGS community to eliminate any other variable, clearly you stating the opposite shows you haven't used it for a good while, because that has been common tactic.
Testing something effectiveness against people well thats another case, but Ive seen these methods used on groups and seen what happens even when those using it number less than 5 against groups with decent deployments etc.
what are you talking about? both tests linked above have been conducted in no traffic systems. and i have seen no other tests on combat bonds or bounties since than. if you know of newer ones, please link them.
people "used" many things in manipulating the BGS, which couldn't be proven in any tests. e.g. if a theory "meets experience", that's sometimes not the mechanic of the BGS.
all i ask is, that if somebody has a theory about how things work, they conduct a test and share the results.
it isn't hard to test, whether 1T trading is back or not - it just needs effort. same goes for bounty hunting or combat bonds.
Yawn. No news here, everything has been known about for a long time and there's no trick or exploit to it (apart from maybe unit trading). I detailed several of these effects, with examples, on the BGS thread many months ago so you aren't revealing anything.
Consider this... should a noob in a Sidewinder be allowed to play the bgs the same as any other player? Yes, they should and that is why multiple turn ins for bounties, bonds, etc have the effect they do. Otherwise that noob in a Sidewinder couldn't compete with me in my FdL.
wow, that... that explains alot of the BGS madness lately... i kinda like option 1 if that means more players working = more effect. gives us a real multiplayer incentive for a change.
There's always been a significant difference in capability between those groups who make an effort to learn the BGS and/or participate in the BGS discussion and those who don't.
No matter what you change, that will still exist.
The strength of more transactions vs. more value (in virtually all activities) does seem to be intended. Those of you not seeing the difference, I have to suppose you're hitting the influence cap in the particular system you're testing before the maximum impact is reached. Lower pop = greater swing possible.
Edit: as an example - the process of unit trading (alone) never produced more than 3.5% change for one faction in 8 billion population for me. The same thing can easily produce > 10% in extremely low populations with no traffic.
+1 to the OP. Yes, the Black Market stuff is widely known, but the 1t trading was supposed to have been fixed since an earlier ticket was submitted about the bug. If it's back, it might need to be revisited. Game updates seem to introduce bugs each and every time.
We know that something went awry with the BGS when 2.2 dropped. Maybe several of the old exploits might be back. A test might be in order.
Positive unit trading (i.e. +profit +influence) never stopped having its effect. Negative did, but I'll have to re-test to see if its back as the OP says. It was nerfed in 2.1.0x.
Yeah, my takeaway is the BGS system is outright borked.
I don't understand goemon's arguments against fixing it, either.
One eagle *shouldn't* have the same control over a system as a Federal Corvette. Do you know how much work it takes to obtain a Corvette? Meanwhile anybody can hop into an Eagle almost immediately when just starting the game. How is it fair that someone with no effort or time invested can control a system the same as someone who has invested the most time & effort possible?
Just silly really, I hope that the BGS gets a solid fix to all of these issues & more. I know it's pushed many folks away from the game, like twitch streamer LondonGaming4Fun, and that winds up making me feel sad about the game, too.
One eagle *shouldn't* have the same control over a system as a Federal Corvette. Do you know how much work it takes to obtain a Corvette? Meanwhile anybody can hop into an Eagle almost immediately when just starting the game. How is it fair that someone with no effort or time invested can control a system the same as someone who has invested the most time & effort possible?
It doesn't. Its still easier to work the BGS in a big ship, but not totally. Basically, take handing in bounties as an example. An eagle player needs to choose their attacks more carefully, unless a really superb pilot, they can't go shooting the first ship they see if its an Elite Anaconda or something. Meanwhile, the Corvette just goes in guns blazing regardless. They then both return and hand in their bounties, but on average, the Corvette user will do it more often and quicker.
There is a difference, just not as pronounced as it would be if it was all about size of bounties/trade/etc rather than number of times you hand in.
gotta remember Fdev say they fix specific things and then we find they havent actually been applied, false patch notes, theres a long line of them, probably just a lack of QA checking code changes due to rushed new featureas, but hey use it and abuse it while its a thing until it gets actally fixed. Fdev havent patched it, addressed it or even said its not working as intended so for now assume its working as intended. Might be time to stir up as many systems as we can and change the geo-political strucutre, me im off to expand the alliance
gotta remember Fdev say they fix specific things and then we find they havent actually been applied, false patch notes, theres a long line of them, probably just a lack of QA checking code changes due to rushed new featureas, but hey use it and abuse it while its a thing until it gets actally fixed. Fdev havent patched it, addressed it or even said its not working as intended so for now assume its working as intended. Might be time to stir up as many systems as we can and change the geo-political strucutre, me im off to expand the alliance
Sometimes they back date things and then errors come back or the think the cover all ways to get at certain mechanics and there are still holes, but while we of the BGS still act as elitist snobs we aren't going to get any of this fixed. It started off so well when the Mercs first started the BGS thread but ever so slowly over time groups began to retract and stop communicating with each other and now use proxies to fight each other, they fear using mechanics like these and others against each other because they know under sustained attack any system will fall.
Sometimes they back date things and then errors come back or the think the cover all ways to get at certain mechanics and there are still holes, but while we of the BGS still act as elitist snobs we aren't going to get any of this fixed. It started off so well when the Mercs first started the BGS thread but ever so slowly over time groups began to retract and stop communicating with each other and now use proxies to fight each other, they fear using mechanics like these and others against each other because they know under sustained attack any system will fall.
actually we should push Fdev to fix it, in the meantime lets share the info and weaponise it or at least stir up the galactic map outside of powerplay areas if it works as described by the OP, id like to see the supporters of all 3 powerblocks stir up big changes across vast areas of space, that should get Fdevs attention. I know a few rare gov types ( prison colones, therocratic governments and the like that could do with a bit of boosting). Again minor factions are limited to the speed with which they can expand, the AEDC alliance minor faction expanding intative could benefit from this actulaly, its a bit like unknown artifacts. Its time to get to work
Just a notice: people have been shadowbanned for a few days for automating things like this. One CMDR's exchange with support indicated that it was specifically automation (in his case a keystroke macro) of e.g. trade that was against the rules - the actual procedure/tactic is WAD. I'm sorry I don't have the text, so feel free to treat that last as hearsay.
while both test are quite old (pre 2.0.), and while i have read quite some other ideas how bounty huting or combat bonds work, i have not seen any test with different results.
e.g. we tend to speak "from experience" about the BGS, instead of testing it (in no-traffic systems).
both test have the problem, that maybe they hit the max. influence cap because smaller population systems, though.
anyway, if those tests don't match your experience, i'd suggest putting your ideas on testing in a appropriate system.
Interesting....
Note though that I benchmarked my mentioned results in a no-traffic System or one where we were 100% on our own (confirmed with participating Members).
Hence my confusion, as these Benchmarks just don't match mine (V2.1 and V2.2 timeframe).
Anyway, thanks for showing them, I'll be sure to have a 2nd look at my numbers and their effects in the future
PS.
I'm under the impression that these old benchmarks worked in the times where i.e. the "1 ton at a time" trading was possible as well.
I assume all of these were fixed together as the "# of Inputs vs. Bonus Boost Multi" Forrmula was corrected - which would explain why handing 10x 100k Bounties has a muted effect (despite notable but limited Bonus) compared to handing in 1x 10M Cr in Bounties.
It's still a useful Bonus, so i.e. I know I'm better off handing in 3x 1M Cr of Inputs vs. 1x 3M Cr of Input.
Just a notice: people have been shadowbanned for a few days for automating things like this. One CMDR's exchange with support indicated that it was specifically automation (in his case a keystroke macro) of e.g. trade that was against the rules - the actual procedure/tactic is WAD. I'm sorry I don't have the text, so feel free to treat that last as hearsay.
