ED Background Simulation - Large Faction Influence Swing Mechanics
- Thread starter anonymousanarchist123
- Start date
dynamicbob
Banned
The hell I do. I needed a nuke and now I have one
if one wanted to the timeframe is maybe 2 weeks to a few months to turn the galaxy upside with nukes, we just dont need to focus on player factions but theres prison factions and therocracies that could be expanded to give more flavour. The outer rim is prime for turning things upside down, im tempted to go expand the federation / empire and alliance towards each otehr a bit more we need a bit more friction. Or overthrow the 3 superpowers and raise indepdant factions
maybe the op can just copy and paste the first post? it explains it well...
no, because it isn't specific on 1t trading.
if nobody of those having run tests want to do it, i'll put up a bug report tonight with the data of your tests.
Ehm sorry but the issue is not the 1t trading but the fact that ALL influence changes are transaction based wich the OP clearly mentions and the fact that these machanics are easy to abuse.
And also, it is not a bug but a flaw in game design wich FD are very well aware of since this has been reported to them several times, and what good does sending them data do? They know the BGS better than any of us and know exactly how much any given action does.
i think we differ, what the issue is here. you can read up on the first pages why some people (including myself) think that transaction based influences changes are well designed, at least better than going for total volumes (of CR or tonnage) - as long as they can't be exploited by nuking or bumping without leaving a station.
So you think it is fair that 1 pilot flying back and forth between conflict zones and station can win a war against 50 pilots who are not aware of this mechanic?
And remember that 1 pilot does 51 runs 1 kill per run and the fifty pilots do hunderds of kills and hand in 50 bonds and still lose.
Last edited:
yeah... nice thinking there but... they are NOT well designed. everything is transaction based and accounted for. the 1t thing is just the tip of the iceberg here.
i tested the other point the OP pointed out yesterday: CZ, one faction almost lost. went in the CZ, killed 1-2 ships, went back to the station, handed in bonds, rinse, repeat for about 10 times. huge swing occured.
before i knew that i would have stayed an hour in the CZ killing everything that moves. guess what? its just ONE transaction. thats not well designed.
right now, there is no real incentive for bigger ships. get a vulture, win a war single handed against an army of corvettes. get a transporter, bomb them with trading. get an ASP, boost a faction with exp data...
and thats the only thing i havent tested yet from the main post. but i'm pretty sure the OP isnt lying here either.
i tested the other point the OP pointed out yesterday: CZ, one faction almost lost. went in the CZ, killed 1-2 ships, went back to the station, handed in bonds, rinse, repeat for about 10 times. huge swing occured.
before i knew that i would have stayed an hour in the CZ killing everything that moves. guess what? its just ONE transaction. thats not well designed.
right now, there is no real incentive for bigger ships. get a vulture, win a war single handed against an army of corvettes. get a transporter, bomb them with trading. get an ASP, boost a faction with exp data...
and thats the only thing i havent tested yet from the main post. but i'm pretty sure the OP isnt lying here either.
Would it be fair to put players with smaller ships (combat, cargo,...) at a disadvantage?
it has nothing to do with shipsize... it has to do with workload. if a small ship can beat an army, then its just wrong.
someone mentioned earlier dimishing returns. that would be perfect. one small ship and forge the universe all day long - as long as there is no (player)counter. then its only fair, more work/better results.
bigger ships basically equeal more workload.
because the process of getting into a USS/CZ/RES, flying to station, dock, cash in, and undock takes 7-10 minutes, your exampel-player would need 6-8 hours for countering your 50 players doing 1 CZ session (of 20 minutes to 1 hour).... if he is that dedicated, i'd say: yes: let him win the war.
i don't call it fair, but the alternative you provide would make BGS work a rich mans hobby, for players in huge ships etc. - while now a player with an eagle can take part in it.
huge ships have their role in earning potential (scales nicely in trade and mining, scales a bit in combat, does not scale in exploration). they don#t need an incentive in manipulating the BGS.
compared to the size of any system, the difference between a corvette and an eagle is minor ;-)
that's already the case. in a small population system, 3 bounty claims bring you ~ 3-4% +inf, while 12 bounty claims bring you ~5% +inf.
As i understand the design philosophy, every action taken by CMDRs effects the BGS. The BGS is supposed to be the aggregate of all player actions. Even a small sidey trading 4t of goods is supposed to effect some small change.
Our testing, and experience in high traffic/high activity systems, indicates that transactions are only one part of the equation. Other factors are taken into account and other mechanisms are also at play such as diminishing returns. While we haven't been able to determine the exact formula we have been able to come up with a working theory that guides our activity. (No, not going to share).
Some of the more apocalyptic commentary here is a little overblown. Yes there is a problem here however its not the worst nuke that has existed in the BGS to date. FD should be able to tweak things to account for it - their challenge is keeping true to the design philosophy and how that effects other parts of the BGS. Given past experience, do not expect FD to comment on this thread - if we are lucky they may comment on one of the Q&A livestreams. They will likely quietly put a fix in server-side.
This will be fixed (I'm assuming quite shortly) and I am more concerned with other aspects of the BGS that have become unbalanced over Season 2. While this issue is creating a lot of heat and light, it is the other aspects of the BGS that require attention that will have far more long term effect.
Our testing, and experience in high traffic/high activity systems, indicates that transactions are only one part of the equation. Other factors are taken into account and other mechanisms are also at play such as diminishing returns. While we haven't been able to determine the exact formula we have been able to come up with a working theory that guides our activity. (No, not going to share
).Some of the more apocalyptic commentary here is a little overblown. Yes there is a problem here however its not the worst nuke that has existed in the BGS to date. FD should be able to tweak things to account for it - their challenge is keeping true to the design philosophy and how that effects other parts of the BGS. Given past experience, do not expect FD to comment on this thread - if we are lucky they may comment on one of the Q&A livestreams. They will likely quietly put a fix in server-side.
This will be fixed (I'm assuming quite shortly) and I am more concerned with other aspects of the BGS that have become unbalanced over Season 2. While this issue is creating a lot of heat and light, it is the other aspects of the BGS that require attention that will have far more long term effect.
no, it shouldn't. i think we differ a lot - i strongly don't think that elite is a "progression" game at all. but this is really going offtopic here - i have named all reasons before in this thread, you have a different opinion, that's fine for me.
Fair enough, we really do have diferent opinions on that matter and i know its beside the point but let me give you one last argument to get my point across
If two eagle pilots, 1 fighting for each side and one knows the mechanic the other doesent its still unfair, also some CZs spawn right infront of the station making the trips minimal.
If two eagle pilots, 1 fighting for each side and one knows the mechanic the other doesent its still unfair, also some CZs spawn right infront of the station making the trips minimal.
yeah, knowing something working in favour of those who doesn't know is unfair.
imagine somebody knows how auto-resolve distance and breaking lock works with silent running in a 1 vs 1 combat, and the other don't.
anyway, how the backgroundsimulation WORKS is not communicated in game, and - as frontier has stated - they don't intend to change that. which makes it very complicating to find exploits and bugs as that 1T trading exploit/bug - literally we don't know how most things are supposed to work, what is changed etc., beside not really knowing how it is working (see @schalck excellent post).
the 1T trading thing on the other hand is one of the few exampel where frontier have clearly stated that it isn't working as intended - so even more important to raise a bug report, that it is back.