ED Background Simulation - Large Faction Influence Swing Mechanics

[Sentenza]

Indeed, I don't want these mechanics, they do nothing for gameplay

I had hoped the beta would have addressed these issues, and some limited testing in the beta suggested a change for the better was coming, how wrong was I....

There do seem to be some variations on swings from before but the mechanics still work, more testing is still needed to understand what exactly is going on...

I think the mechanics need to be used against some much loved player factions to get attention from FD, to make a point that they can't remain!

Speak for yourself

This thing does a lot for gameplay. Believe me. Now, it would really be unfair if it was easy to use, but it isn't - you have to literally sweat blood for hours to use it effectively, and rightly so.

As for "be used against some much loved player factions" - don't worry, I'm already taking care of that

 

[Jmanis]

I do realise the efforts required, I work in this field, and deal with functional and non-funtional ESB/BPM/E2E architectural issues on a daily basis and have many years experience developing in these areas too....I think you over estimate the efforts required when you have staff on the task that have a 100% working knowledge of the technicalities

Time will tell either way, I am staying hopeful, but this is on the assumption that FD have the calibre or devs/architects that they should have....AND that they actually give two hoots about this

I opt out of "mine is bigger" style debates.

Good luck holding a candle for this issue. We already got it fixed once, but that change simply lessened the impact to what it is today.

 

[Schlack]

I think the mechanics need to be used against some much loved player factions to get attention from FD, to make a point that they can't remain!

Some people just want to watch the world burn. This would be trolling and pooping all over the game, or a terrorist act to use the hyperbolic rhetoric in fashion today. FD are aware of the problem, we have highlighted it here and elsewhere. Just because they do not respond to the forum does not mean they are not looking at it.

By taking the actions above, all that will be done is to upset the target player groups without solving anything. Any solution is likely to come in a major point patch as it will require reworking the code. As we know from FD this is a looooong process. Skimmer scumming has wrecked the BGS in busy areas in any case and that hasn't been fixed yet. All this will do is push the BGS game further into disrepute.

Saddens me that people cannot be adult about these things but this is the internet afterall.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think you realise how significant the changes could be, nor the tremendous impact on performance. A major release candidate like 2.3 wouldn't even cut it imo. Try 3.0, if you're lucky.

^ This!

 

[anonymousanarchist123]

I opt out of "mine is bigger" style debates.

Good luck holding a candle for this issue. We already got it fixed once, but that change simply lessened the impact to what it is today.

Well I had to qualify why I am thinking what I am, my reasoning is based on my background after all, we have a differing opinion sure, but we can debate right? You have valid reasoning for what you're saying, as do I....time will tell either way

As for already fixed once, that was no fix...but that another discussion

Saddens me that people cannot be adult about these things but this is the internet afterall.

Who said I have to be adult about things, we're playing computer games

Seriously though if FD were to confirm they are actually going to address the BGS properly, removing all these mechanics, I wouldn't suggest such a thing....but I don't know what they're thinking and it seems that a community of whiners affects their decisions most so making people whine might just be the answer here?!

 

[Schlack]

Seriously though if FD were to confirm they are actually going to address the BGS properly

I think that's being a little unfair on the Dev team. The BGS has developed significantly over the past 2 years, with high points (2.0) and low points (1.3). It was never intended to be a game as such, we the players have made it so. Our actions and constructive input has helped shape it. In relation to the BGS their communication hasn't been too bad - some highlights on that score include the Jan 2016 "bible" post from MB and the BGS livestream - although they do like to sneak in changes and its quite a fun challenge to figure them out.

This particular problem appears quite fundamental to how the BGS is designed. If a quick fix were possible I'm quite sure it would be in already. There was a quick fix put in before which apparently didn't work.

edit, reread initial post re solutions, I'm not sure its a simple balancing issue as assumed.

 

[Sixteen-String Jack]

The BGS mechanics just seems overcomplicated for secondary gameplay and consume resources needlessly, and some aspects detract from the system?

The notion that every single unit of goods should affect influence levels is a good example of a resource-hungry, counterproductive and counterintuitive mechanic. You can't force a shop into bankruptcy by repeatedly buying from it then selling the goods back for less. Why not just have a daily bonus to influence for boom and a drain on influence from bust? Expansion states already drain influence.

Also, while I'm not against the principle that small ships should be able to have an effect on the BGS, there is a mechanic for that, the courier missions- which are better to complete in small ships because they can visit outposts.

You could take a load off the servers by removing much of the RNG from the mission system so that more complex missions could be provided. Take the trade missions out because they are often senseless and should be handled by the market not the mission board. Each faction able to offer missions could offer a commander a single mission, simple courier missions for low influence factions, more complex and more influential missions for more prosperous factions. If it was failed or completed another one would be produced twenty minutes later.

The limit of one at a time, but one for each faction, would take a lot of rubbish out of the system, like stacking and mode switching. Also, any complicated mission is currently too time-consuming to be effective. Why get into the SRV and check data points to intercept high-level enemy faction assets, when you can deliver 2 units of mineral extractors or kill three skimmers for the same influence gain?

 

[MottiKhan]

Indeed, I don't want these mechanics, they do nothing for gameplay
...

I disagree. The BGS is the last remaining interesting thing in ED. Finding various mechanics to help us play our way only helps.

But since we want to do away with things that don't interest us, let's get rid of mining, passenger missions, the Type 7, Type 9 and any other stuff I don't use. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

 

[kaivalagi]

I disagree. The BGS is the last remaining interesting thing in ED. Finding various mechanics to help us play our way only helps.

But since we want to do away with things that don't interest us, let's get rid of mining, passenger missions, the Type 7, Type 9 and any other stuff I don't use. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right?

I think you're mis-understanding anon here? I doubt he wants to remove BGS based gameplay altogether....that's his thing

I for example want to have gameplay with the BGS, it's a good thing, a big game of risk on a galactic scale etc, but what I don't want is outrageous swings from the activities of a single player, maybe if 10 players banded together to achieve a goal and we see these swings then I would understand...

Currently the mechanics are in favour of the attacker, if a couple of players know the BGS mechanics inside out they can ruin a factions influence very quickly, and it's very hard to stop it, even if the attacked understands the mechanics fully too (more negative swing activities than positive)

I want a long drawn out battle of the BGS between 2 sides of 10 players upwards, currently it's just a bit meh with these mechanics...but it fits well with the player's "want everything now" attitude that seems to plague this game, so it'll likely stay lol

 

[Schlack]

Currently the mechanics are in favour of the attacker, if a couple of players know the BGS mechanics inside out they can ruin a factions influence very quickly, and it's very hard to stop it, even if the attacked understands the mechanics fully too

The mechanics have pretty much always been in favour of the attacker, never quite so imbalanced as this though. This particular mechanic/exploit is at least apparently defendable with counter sales. There are other current mechanics that have no comparable countermeasure. (I'm not defending the mechanic, just pointing this out)

Regarding destruction of influence, yes a particular factions influence can be tanked in a system, however retreating a faction is a much harder prospect. Clever or determined action can defend against it - and indeed loss of assets. In a multi system faction it would take months of determined effort on the part of the attacker, risking both considerable wrist damage and their sanity from such mindless efforts, to do any long lasting damage. Yes its a horrible mechanic that I wish to see fixed but it is not quite as apocalyptic as it is being painted here.

 

[Sentenza]

I for example want to have gameplay with the BGS, it's a good thing, a big game of risk on a galactic scale etc, but what I don't want is outrageous swings from the activities of a single player, maybe if 10 players banded together to achieve a goal and we see these swings then I would understand...

Yeah it is so much better to have large groups of players that can stomp on smaller groups and single players with complete impunity, isn't it?

 

[Sentenza]

Regarding destruction of influence, yes a particular factions influence can be tanked in a system, however retreating a faction is a much harder prospect. Clever or determined action can defend against it - and indeed loss of assets. In a multi system faction it would take months of determined effort on the part of the attacker, risking both considerable wrist damage and their sanity from such mindless efforts, to do any long lasting damage. Yes its a horrible mechanic that I wish to see fixed but it is not quite as apocalyptic as it is being painted here.

I tell you from experience: processing a load in/out on my Conda takes approx one hour and 3072 keypresses. And you need to do that at least two or three times per day to have a significant effect. Believe me, the sky is not in danger to fall any time soon.

 

[Robert Maynard]

From tonight's Live Stream:

Single unit trading and people using it to artificially inflate the effect on the background sim - it's not ideal, we have a few short and long term ideas about it, we are actively talking about it, it is under active consideration but I have absolutely nothing to announce today - but we hear you loud and clear, trust us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGqndJFKOfA;t=40m15s

Commanders who are consistently using macros to automate long running tasks whilst they are away from the keyboard can expect bad news in the post from the Support Team.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGqndJFKOfA;t=40m35s

 

[Starwolfe]

Nothing like a noncommittal support idea and a threatening comment that can have broad implications.

 

[Deathwatch]

From tonight's Live Stream:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGqndJFKOfA;t=40m15s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGqndJFKOfA;t=40m35s

All the video shows is that the developers still want to follow with the faulty objectives they have set out for the "mechanics" of the current background simulation. Following the broken idea that a small ship should be equal to a big ship.

Thats like saying the fancy panther clipper is as effective as a hauler....

 

[Sentenza]

If there is a way to automate the task while being away from the keyboard I would like to know lol

Yeah in theory it can be done, but in practice, definitely not. Data transmission is not reliable and keypresses are lost all the time. A macro can save your wrist, but you damn sure can't ever take your eyes off from the screen for a minute.

 

[Deathwatch]

If there is a way to automate the task while being away from the keyboard I would like to know lol

Yeah in theory it can be done, but in practice, definitely not. Data transmission is not reliable and keypresses are lost all the time. A macro can save your wrist, but you damn sure can't ever take your eyes off from the screen for a minute.

For example maybe someone has a disability, so has a macro designed to make it easier for them to make transactions for example. Wouldn't the possibility of cracking down on macro's possibly come clashing against those with disabilities ?

 

[Robert Maynard]

If all trade sales by a CMDR during a single docking were treated as one transaction (in terms the effect on the BGS) then this issue could probably be mitigated relatively easily.

 

[Starwolfe]

To a degree, I think FDev just doesn't want to do the right fix - have the effect relative to the value of the trades, not the quantity of them.

Sure, it would mean the Hauler doesn't have the same effect as the Panther Clipper, but isn't that the point?

 

[Schlack]

All the video shows is that the developers still want to follow with the faulty objectives they have set out for the "mechanics" of the current background simulation. Following the broken idea that a small ship should be equal to a big ship.

Thats like saying the fancy panther clipper is as effective as a hauler....

What they have said is they have a few ideas long and short term for changes but nothing to announce right now.

The pants wetting about this issue is really not necessary. There have been worse mechanics. Way back when a single smuggling mission would create a 10% influence swing, this is nowhere near as bad.

 

[Deathwatch]

What they have said is they have a few ideas long and short term for changes but nothing to announce right now.

The pants wetting about this issue is really not necessary. There have been worse mechanics. Way back when a single smuggling mission would create a 10% influence swing, this is nowhere near as bad.

That was fixed though, we can't allow mechanics like this to be just ignored or just treated like they are a minor or non-issue. This idea that all players are "equal" is rubbish, it doesn't work and will always lead to exploits in the BGS.