Mercs of Mikunn - 3 Year report: The Once Secret BGS mechanics and how to figure out exploits

[Ryan Murdoc]

Why is it we engineer our ships? But we dont end up using them for late game activities?

I do use them for such activities, but it depends on every single person what they define as such. For me it's the BGS, for others Powerplay, and again others have different views on the matter.

The depth of the BGS is something people that people dont even know about. They arent going to use the tricks either that veterans have either. All the information needs to be upfront.

We now have the BGS forum for people to ask when curious about things. The sheer amount of diversity when it comes to the BGS (and its odd exceptions) is something that can be quite confusing even to the most intrepid adventurer into the BGS workings. The veterans are helping on giving those who are interested an overview of what can be / should be / can't be according to their own experiences. The BGS isn't set in stone and probably never will be, you can claim to know how it operates today but even the experienced people need to retest and review their previous experiences every now and then (mostly after major updates).

If you think you can simply put a list in front of everyones face and that'll be it you're mistaken. And that is one of the charming aspects of the BGS: you don't get told how it works and need to uncover it again and again to verify it. Like scientists in a Test lab.

Also, its pretty crappy when you engineer a ship. Pre 3.0, because its much easier now.

As time progresses so will the game (since it's said to have a 10 year or longer plan for to be developed), and certain things will be changed and made easier. Take any MMO for example, future updates will most certainly render all the tough NPCs of older Raids into trivial opponents.

Just because its easier when a trick is found. A trick no one else knows.

The knowledge has been around for years, and people have told it around for those working the BGS. At least those who have a conscience and want their fellow gamers to enjoy it. There are always the others though, not denying that.

We should be using what we worked for, we should getting paid for what we worked for and we should have recognition for what we worked for.

I use my now fully engineered Corvette in CZs to kill / farm Materials, I get paid for the kills there and in RES sites, and I'm recognised by the NPC MFs by gaining Reputation and getting offered better missions. And none of that I consider work, because if that is your view on a game, you need to stop playing because it's a chore and nothing you enjoy.

And to the people that have progressed feels like their time was wasted. A lot of us out there feel that way.(yes i get it some wont but a lot of us do).

Never use the word We unless you have a lot of people backing it up, through a poll or collecting signatures etc. You're assuming there are many out there, but trying to project your negativity this way isn't helping your argument in the slightest.

Again, WE DONT NEED ANYTHING WE WORKED FOR.

Stop working, start playing.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Again, by definition, using the game design may be intentional, but the exploit is by defintion using that design to a players advantage in a way the designers did not intend.

Given the original intent of the BGS, you could say that about any action whatsoever intended to make a specific BGS difference rather than just contribute random noise. And certainly things like running missions for the opposition to deliberately hold your influence low enough so that you can control where you expand from, or spreading a single minor faction across thirty systems.

I suspect that your definition is too broad to be much use - it would make using the thruster to generate forward momentum during SRV racing an exploit, for example. And I'm not convinced - the game manual certainly doesn't hint at it - that they intended the gravity behaviour of supercruise to work in such a way that spiral or gravity brake approaches were as effective as they are (though I'm sure they don't mind that it worked out that way either).

 

[Walt Kerman]

Given the original intent of the BGS, you could say that about any action whatsoever intended to make a specific BGS difference rather than just contribute random noise. And certainly things like running missions for the opposition to deliberately hold your influence low enough so that you can control where you expand from, or spreading a single minor faction across thirty systems.

I suspect that your definition is too broad to be much use - it would make using the thruster to generate forward momentum during SRV racing an exploit, for example. And I'm not convinced - the game manual certainly doesn't hint at it - that they intended the gravity behaviour of supercruise to work in such a way that spiral or gravity brake approaches were as effective as they are (though I'm sure they don't mind that it worked out that way either).

No you couldn't say that. Factions came in the game that already were in many systems. They also intended for you to be able to help factions, though i dont think they originally intended for them to be so popular. Its certainly not only their intent now, but will be expanded upon further later this year in squadrons.

The things you list are being expanded upon further and the things I have listed have been denoted as exploits by the devs, have attempted to be patched by the devs, or in the case of exploration data - will be patched by the devs. There is a difference in the developers not expecting something to be popular, and an exploit.

 

[Jane Turner]

The transactional nature of the BGS is no secret to anyone who has tried for about 5 mins to get information, or found the BGS subforum here.

Precisely, so to suggest that people who have taken the time to learn from others or understand how it works are cheating in some way is frankly ridiculous, nay offensive.

If people don't have the wit to look, or in some cases understand the implications of the transactional nature of the BGS when its given to them on a platter and frequently re-explained to them, its hardly the fault of those who do. Even worse when they get all holier-than-thou over it.

I think it's brilliant that ED allows us to have essentially multiple games overlaid on top of each other that don't hurt each other too much: 1) the straight I-just-do-what-I-want, not-caring-about-BGS-or-PP, 2) BGS faction work, and 3) Power Play --- which bleed into each other, but rarely truly mess up the game of someone involved in another.

Agreed - its an absolutely inspired bit of game design, even if it did take a little tweaking over 3 years, the intent was clearly there all along, judging by the way that tweaking has taken place in response to imbalances. Separating the reputation system from the influence system appears to be the key part of that design decision

While you have to take a longer path, that is also an exploit because it multiplies your effect by 5 in a way the devs did not intend.

Rubbish! That is exactly what FDev intended, otherwise they wouldn't have introduced the cargo tagging system where the game knows how and where you acquired the goods any are still in your hold, in addition their cost. They did this from the onset of the game and its a lot of extra data for the game to generate if it has no purpose.

 

[Walt Kerman]

Rubbish! That is exactly what FDev intended, otherwise they wouldn't have introduced the cargo tagging system where the game knows how and where you acquired the goods any are still in your hold, in addition their cost. They did this from the onset of the game and its a lot of extra data for the game to generate if it has no purpose.

Oh? Just like they wouldn't have introduced system where you can sell one ton of cargo at a time and bomb a station? Oh wait... they did that and patched it out. This is security by obscurity, they dont expect the player to figure it out.

You can set a loop around 25 systems visiting a station in each. Pick up goods from each and continually do a loop. At every station you can drop a good from each station on the loop. So every jump you can generate 25. Thats 25 times more effective than trading back and forth normally. It makes no sense logically.

 

[Jane Turner]

Again that is just plain wrong. Its is about twice as effective - since you could run 12 or so back and forth trade runs but it reduces your chances of picking up missions which are up to 5x more BGS effective and can be stacked - so actually a pretty ineffective strategy.

Though either would hit the system cap!

 

[Schlack]

You can set a loop around 25 systems visiting a station in each. Pick up goods from each and continually do a loop. At every station you can drop a good from each station on the loop. So every jump you can generate 25. Thats 25 times more effective than trading back and forth normally. It makes no sense logically.

have you tried it operationally? I don't really see this particular mechanic as an exploit because its such a pain in the backside to do. Its actually comparable to some other BGS activities in terms of effort/reward - perhaps even less so and certainly is not comparable to the 1 ton selling that was patched out previously or indeed anything close.

Its also not fun or sustainable. If someone could keep this up day after day for the necessary time to build a BGS empire, well good luck to them. I dont see it happening.

Missions are where its at these days, especially with the expanded destination effects and reward choices. This allows for a much more flexible and effective means of BGS manipulation while doing a variety of activities.

 

[Walt Kerman]

Again that is just plain wrong. Its is about twice as effective - since you could run 12 or so back and forth trade runs but it reduces your chances of picking up missions which are up to 5x as effective more BGS effective and can be stacked - so actually a pretty ineffective strategy.

I'm not comparing it to missions. You are moving the goalpost. I'm comparing trade to another method of trade. You could make a chain of 25 systems holding 25 different goods types, dropping 25 off each jump in the loop. So if its indeed by station, as you say, those are each different transactions.

have you tried it operationally? I don't really see this particular mechanic as an exploit because its such a pain in the backside to do. Its actually comparable to some other BGS activities in terms of effort/reward - perhaps even less so and certainly is not comparable to the 1 ton selling that was patched out previously or indeed anything close.

Its also not fun or sustainable. If someone could keep this up day after day for the necessary time to build a BGS empire, well good luck to them. I dont see it happening.

Missions are where its at these days, especially with the expanded destination effects and reward choices. This allows for a much more flexible and effective means of BGS manipulation while doing a variety of activities.

If what Jane claimed is true it should work and would generate 25 different transactions per jump. Thats pretty efficient, especially compared to regular trade. Whether it would be fun is beyond the point, I'm demonstrating its not something the devs intend.

Precisely, so to suggest that people who have taken the time to learn from others or understand how it works are cheating in some way is frankly ridiculous, nay offensive.

Well if you take the time to learn an exploit you are learning an exploit. Just because its well known doesn't make it any less of an exploit. Saying otherwise is frankly, denial, nay delusional.

 

[Deareim]

Again that is just plain wrong. Its is about twice as effective - since you could run 12 or so back and forth trade runs but it reduces your chances of picking up missions which are up to 5x as effective more BGS effective and can be stacked - so actually a pretty ineffective strategy.

Though either would hit the system cap!

If i am following your thoughts, trading is less effective than missions since you can stack and each ones count as 1 transactions, isn’t it ?
2 questions :
- is mining working the sane way ? Mesning i “should” mine in different system or using different yields ?
- Following your thoughts, would it mean than BH is most effective ways to generate transactions in any cases ? And faster than 20 missions ?

thanks.

 

[Jane Turner]

If i am following your thoughts, trading is less effective than missions since you can stack and each ones count as 1 transactions, isn’t it ?
2 questions :
- is mining working the sane way ? Mesning i “should” mine in different system or using different yields ?
- Following your thoughts, would it mean than BH is most effective ways to generate transactions in any cases ? And faster than 20 missions ?

thanks.

We've not tested mining I am afraid. Mined goods appear to act as a positive trade, like other commodities, with the advantage over trading that its easier to get over the minimum profit value for a transaction to register (since there is no initial cost) My best guess is that its is tagged as belonging to the miner, rather than coming from a location. Its a simple test to do though. Missions are currently the most time effective way to generate transactions - you can get up to 5 "transactions" for a single mission and have 20 at a time . Hope this helps - best ask this sort of question in the BGS sub-forum though, where you will get a range of views and fewer shouts of Exploit!

 

[Schlack]

If what Jane claimed is true it should work and would generate 25 different transactions per jump. Thats pretty efficient, especially compared to regular trade. Whether it would be fun is beyond the point, I'm demonstrating its not something the devs intend.

So you haven't tried it operationally and are continuing to raise concerns in the abstract without actually confirming how efficient it is or even whether it is a genuine concern. I have tried it operationally and I am not in the slightest concerned about its use by others and I certainly wouldn't use it myself. Sure its technically possible, practically? not so much. It is not efficient, it is not sustainable, it restricts a cmdr to one kind of activity. The whole loop has to be set up again once dropped. I think the level of concern over this mechanic is very overblown. Try it and see.

 

[Walt Kerman]

If i am following your thoughts, trading is less effective than missions since you can stack and each ones count as 1 transactions, isn’t it ?
2 questions :
- is mining working the sane way ? Mesning i “should” mine in different system or using different yields ?
- Following your thoughts, would it mean than BH is most effective ways to generate transactions in any cases ? And faster than 20 missions ?

thanks.

The benefit to missions is that once you turn it they can generate a decent amount of points... and also stack them.

These other questions that you are asking because you now know the BGS is transactonal is exactly my point on why its an exploit. Its a whole can of worms on how to game the system, and once people figure out what works everyone will do it. Everyone doing it doesn't suddenly make it not an exploit.

Bounty hunting is very ineffective because the transaction only occurs when you turn in, not at each kill. Another imbalance caused by transactions.

 

[Rob At Work]

IT'S NOT AN EXPLOIT!

You have worked out the most efficient method, is all.

Could it be improved? - hell YES!

 

[Walt Kerman]

So you haven't tried it operationally and are continuing to raise concerns in the abstract without actually confirming how efficient it is or even whether it is a genuine concern. I have tried it operationally and I am not in the slightest concerned about its use by others and I certainly wouldn't use it myself. Sure its technically possible, practically? not so much. It is not efficient, it is not sustainable, it restricts a cmdr to one kind of activity. The whole loop has to be set up again once dropped. I think the level of concern over this mechanic is very overblown. Try it and see.

You are derailing the point. The point was the exploit. If I wanted to I could stick to the many I have tried which I've been doing. I even mentioned an actual exploit just above it before going into theoretical exploits. Fine then, Ill stick to the actual many ones we know since that was too distracting.

IT'S NOT AN EXPLOIT!

You have worked out the most efficient method, is all.

Could it be improved? - hell YES!

By definition it is an exploit as shown at the end of the original post. You can disagree all you want but the devs think they were which is why they have been patching it out and adding thresholds. It wasn't intended.

 

[Jane Turner]

IT'S NOT AN EXPLOIT!

You have worked out the most efficient method, is all.

Could it be improved? - hell YES!

You just don't get it do you.... everything is an exploit if it grabs the headlines and you are in need of attention. Edit: that sounds catty, but I have had enough of fussy-pooting . The Spoonerism because the original apparently is offensive!

 

[Walt Kerman]

You just don't get it do you.... everything is an exploit if it grabs the headlines and you are in need of attention. Edit: that sounds catty, but I have had enough of -footing .

Nope everything is exactly what it is if it fits the definition. Fortunately I have the dictionary on my side. Watch your language by the way, moderator.

Note the controversy at the bottom about cheats. Not all exploits are cheats. You are conflating "exploit" with "cheat".

 

[Rob At Work]

So you are using the "game system...in a manner not intended by the game designers" that makes it an exploit.

My interpretation is that that you are affecting the BGS in the exact manner the game designers intended- therefore, no exploit

It would appear that you are using the "exploit" word to raise the profile of your argument for a change/rethink. Most/a lot of us would agree that a change/rethink/refresh wouldn't be a bad thing.

Good write up about "Mining" BTW Walt. 100% agree, another area where sustainable gameplay/interest could be enhanced/introduced.

 

[Walt Kerman]

So you are using the "game system...in a manner not intended by the game designers" that makes it an exploit.

My interpretation is that that you are affecting the BGS in the exact manner the game designers intended- therefore, no exploit

So you believe the game designers intended for players to drop cargo off one ton at a time to affect the BGS rather than the whole cargo?

 

[Schlack]

You are derailing the point. The point was the exploit. If I wanted to I could stick to the many I have tried which I've been doing. I even mentioned an actual exploit just above it before going into theoretical exploits. Fine then, Ill stick to the actual many ones we know since that was too distracting.

if a so called exploit is less efficient that other means of effecting the BGS how the hell can it be an exploit? This is precisely the point. There have been 2-3 pages of discussion about a largely ineffective mechanic.......

yes trading in a chain may be more efficient BGS wise than a direct one to one trade route that is maximised for profit. but this reflects the different gameplay styles - one which is front and center of the mission rewards where influence, credits and rep are largely separated. if one is interested in profit, play one way, if one is interested in BGS play another.

 

[Walt Kerman]

if a so called exploit is less efficient that other means of effecting the BGS how the hell can it be an exploit? This is precisely the point. There have been 2-3 pages of discussion about a largely ineffective mechanic.......

yes trading in a chain may be more efficient BGS wise than a direct one to one trade route that is maximised for profit. but this reflects the different gameplay styles - one which is front and center of the mission rewards where influence, credits and rep are largely separated. if one is interested in profit, play one way, if one is interested in BGS play another.

Because I haven't tested this theoretical one so I wouldn't know. This is causing you to miss my point I guess so I will stick to ones I know.

This distraction is precisely why I avoided specifics in OP, or stuck to things the devs already explicitly called exploits.