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

[Red Zephyr]

Im refering to value by utility really. In other words, how valuable is the work to the faction. Bounty hunting all day should be worth far more to a faction in influence gain than one or two turn ins. You can even use transactions to achieve a value based system. By iterating transactions into smaller chunks like murder is, where every murder is a transaction, you essentially achieve a value (utility) based system where effort reflects your influence reward.

...so the entire mechanic, but people have been confusing what I mean when I say value.

You're getting nowhere with this thread, eh? Maybe because you admit bounty hunting would be better if split into smaller transactions (each kill = 1 point, let's say), which is exactly what Jane Turner suggested on an earlier page, and is different from influence by credit value of the bounties; yet, you're complaining that trade is exploitable because it can be broken into smaller transactions by number of stations visited. You're splitting hairs for no clear reason.

In your own definition of 'exploit,' which you kindly shared from Wikipedia, we should understand that an exploit is advantageous over non-exploits (which this trade issue isn't), and that what constitutes an exploit can be controversial and highly debatable (which this is, just barely).

 

[Walt Kerman]

You're getting nowhere with this thread, eh? Maybe because you admit bounty hunting would be better if split into smaller transactions (each kill = 1 point, let's say), which is exactly what Jane Turner suggested on an earlier page, and is different from influence by credit value of the bounties; yet, you're complaining that trade is exploitable because it can be broken into smaller transactions by number of stations visited. You're splitting hairs for no clear reason.

In your own definition of 'exploit,' which you kindly shared from Wikipedia, we should understand that an exploit is advantageous over non-exploits (which this trade issue isn't), and that what constitutes an exploit can be controversial and highly debatable (which this is, just barely).

Which is why I told her we actually agree! Making transactions equal the value of kills makes it value, in this case a point per kill, which is what I said earlier. Now I've made progress with you as well. This is exactly the type of thing I want. You've just skipped a lot of what I posted, its even in the OP! I'll add you to the list of people who agree then.

I also already posted that I regret bringing up a theoretical trade exploit as its apparently to distracting to the point I was trying to make.

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

 

[Rob At Work]

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?

Yes! in order that peeps just starting in the game can have an effect. Otherwise you become ineffective until you can haul large quantities, how many players will stick around for that?

Also, this isn't the first time this issue has been raised. FDev had the opportunity to remove it (if it was considered an exploit) they chose to balance it instead, therefore it is unquestionably an intended mechanic. (of course opinions will vary about how effective the balancing was/is)

 

[Schlack]

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.

. Specifics are precisely whats important here. I have tested this particular one and found it to be of limited to no concern in terms of exploitation, abuse or balance.

We have been talking about mechanics, exploits and effectively cheating. Avoiding specifics has left the discussion in the realm of conjecture and speculation about different mechanics. This particular mechanic has been presented as a concern (by someone who hasn't even tested it!), now when someone presents a counterview the detail is somehow not relevant? .....

So if Im reading you right, your concern is not about the "exploity" nature of the mechanic but rather that it doesn't reflect "natural" gameplay. Perhaps your argument could be presented more accurately in that fashion.

 

[Deareim]

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.

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!

Thankd

 

[Walt Kerman]

. Specifics are precisely whats important here. I have tested this particular one and found it to be of limited to no concern in terms of exploitation, abuse or balance.

We have been talking about mechanics, exploits and effectively cheating. Avoiding specifics has left the discussion in the realm of conjecture and speculation about different mechanics. This particular mechanic has been presented as a concern (by someone who hasn't even tested it!), now when someone presents a counterview the detail is somehow not relevant? .....

So if Im reading you right, your concern is not about the "exploity" nature of the mechanic but rather that it doesn't reflect "natural" gameplay. Perhaps your argument could be presented more accurately in that fashion.

No. Fourth time Im saying it now. I was not posting the mechanic as a concern, but using a theoretical example of what would make an exploit, not saying that is currently being used.

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

Its not the realm of conjecture when previously Ive stuck to things the devs have already called exploits - its reality. I'll keep sticking to that then.

Besides with the logic I'm being fed here, if you have exploit a b and c, and then exploit d completely outpaced them, a b and c are no longer exploits because they are now economically untenable to exploit d. Thats a whole new can'o'worms.....

 

[Walt Kerman]

Yes! in order that peeps just starting in the game can have an effect. Otherwise you become ineffective until you can haul large quantities, how many players will stick around for that?

Also, this isn't the first time this issue has been raised. FDev had the opportunity to remove it (if it was considered an exploit) they chose to balance it instead, therefore it is unquestionably an intended mechanic. (of course opinions will vary about how effective the balancing was/is)

Except they called it an exploit and did remove it. Not just balance it... It wasnt intended to be used like that. Poof.

 

[Rob At Work]

Now I am confused. If they already removed it, what's the issue?

 

[Walt Kerman]

Now I am confused. If they already removed it, what's the issue?

The issue is that the game design choice is exploit prone, and mutes some tasks other tasks unless you intentionally chop it up. If the game just counted the number of kills, exploration data, etc you would have the actual value of the work.

Instead they are adding thresholds to hide it, so people invent these other methods to get around it.

Just count the number of bonds you collect in a war zone.
Just count the number of bounties when you kill in a haz res.
Just count the number of exploration data when you sell by page.

Or make each one a transaction every time you do it so there is one transaction per value of X if it makes people feel better (comes out to the same thing and makes it by value). Don't know why people are arguing that when it seems like it would just put more load on the server but whatever, its results in the same. I don't care. As long as people are rewarded for their work..

 

[Rob At Work]

The issue is that the game design choice is exploit prone, and mutes some tasks other tasks unless you intentionally chop it up. If the game just counted the number of kills, exploration data, etc you would have the actual value of the work.

Instead they are adding thresholds to hide it, so people invent these other methods to get around it.

Just count the number of bonds you collect in a war zone.
Just count the number of bounties when you kill in a haz res.
Just count the number of exploration data when you sell by page.

Or make each one a transaction every time you do it so there is one transaction per value of X if it makes people feel better (comes out to the same thing and makes it by value). Don't know why people are arguing that when it seems like it would just put more load on the server but whatever, its results in the same. I don't care. As long as people are rewarded for their work..

I would agree to a more rewarding system for the effort/time in game yes, but I fear the amount of work and the over reliance on RNG by FDev is off putting for both FDev and the players respectively.

 

[Walt Kerman]

(1) It will be very hard to convince me that selling per ton was not an exploit.

(2) I could see how one might not see selling exploration data one by one as an exploit since game release didn't feature the sell by page. In this scenario, selling by page removed an intended mechanic

So either the devs intended for the game to be transactional, or they wanted to count the individual items. If they intended to count the individual items, in the case of exploration data, then indeed, its a bug that you are working around. This would have to be true to convince me that this is not an exploit.

In which case they should fix the bug, and make it count the total number of exploration data when pages are sold to reflect the actual value.

Works for me. But would be odd they patched out selling per ton... sure makes it look like lumping value into transactions was intentional

 

[iFred]

(1) It will be very hard to convince me that selling per ton was not an exploit.

(2) I could see how one might not see selling exploration data one by one as an exploit since game release didn't feature the sell by page. In this scenario, selling by page removed an intended mechanic

So either the devs intended for the game to be transactional, or they wanted to count the individual items. If they intended to count the individual items, in the case of exploration data, then indeed, its a bug that you are working around. This would have to be true to convince me that this is not an exploit.

In which case they should fix the bug, and make it count the total number of exploration data when pages are sold to reflect the actual value.

Works for me. But would be odd they patched out selling per ton... sure makes it look like lumping transactions was intentional

Especially when No. 2 is around since release with a short "temporary removal due to bugs" ...

 

[Pappus]

Haven't read through the 25 pages, but there are a couple of things that annoy me about BGS/PowerPlay.

1) The transactional nature. It leads to very inorganic gameplay. Should I desire to help end a war, then the most effective way is shoot a ship, go back and turn it in. This should simply not be on par with shooting 10 ships. Especially not 10 times as effective. It is okay for the 10 ship transaction to not be exactly as effective as 10 single transactions, but it needs to be reasonably close e.g. 7 or 8 so that we are not compelled so hard to constantly stop our activity.

For wars the solution could be to tie it to e.g. massacre missions.

2) There absolutely needs to be limits in place for every player as to how much he can contribute in any given system/action per day. What I see from fortification is that just a tiny amount of players dish out 150k+ garrison every week and this kind of stuff leads to burn-outs by overburdening the players with a lot of free time. They want to help as much as they can, they burn out and we lose a player. Developer these days need to protect players from themself aswell, because we as gamers will often tend to go the easiest route even if it is the most mindnumbing ever. That is how we are.

3) Invisible grind wars should not be a thing and that is what controntational BGS play currently is. You have no idea what your enemy or in what quantity he is doing and again it wil boil down to a few people pitching raw hours against each other where one side voids the whole effort of the other side. Not healthy.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



Stop working, start playing.

Whatever you say my dude.

 

[Walt Kerman]

Especially when No. 2 is around since release with a short "temporary removal due to bugs" ...

Great addition. I had forgotten about that.

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

Whatever you say my dude.

I guess we've reached the end of the discussion then. And I'm not your dude.

I'd just like to know one more thing: how many people who actively participate in the BGS (via their own implemented PMF or having adopted a NPC one) are wanting a change of this procedure in the first place?

If there isn't enough backup for to change something it won't happen. And from all the responses here I don't see a broad support of the idea at all.

I will stay open for changes of the BGS in the future, but until this year is over and we've seen how or if FD changes the impact of Exploration data on the BGS any further discussion is pretty much useless imho.

Back to work I go.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Now I am confused. If they already removed it, what's the issue?

None, really. I think it's about pushing some other value based mechanics so they can easier cheese it - but that is just my suspicion.

 

[Schlack]

I guess we've reached the end of the discussion then. And I'm not your dude.

I'd just like to know one more thing: how many people who actively participate in the BGS (via their own implemented PMF or having adopted a NPC one) are wanting a change of this procedure in the first place?

If there isn't enough backup for to change something it won't happen. And from all the responses here I don't see a broad support of the idea at all.

I will stay open for changes of the BGS in the future, but until this year is over and we've seen how or if FD changes the impact of Exploration data on the BGS any further discussion is pretty much useless imho.

Back to work I go.

More important than our own views are those of FD. I doubt they will invest the time and energy into developing a new build of the BGS to replace it with something rather similar except with different ways to min/max.

 

[Jane Turner]

More important than our own views are those of FD. I doubt they will invest the time and energy into developing a new build of the BGS to replace it with something rather similar except with different ways to min/max.

Nailed it in one!

 

[Ryan Murdoc]

More important than our own views are those of FD. I doubt they will invest the time and energy into developing a new build of the BGS to replace it with something rather similar except with different ways to min/max.

I partially agree. FD needs to bring forth their own vision and see if it works out for the majority of the playerbase. They already came around acommodating for certain needs and demands by revamping Engineering.

Both FD and the players of Elite need to keep a balance. And above all let respect and common sense rule in the conversations. Considering what some loudmouth Social Justice Warrior types have blubbered forth and went ballistic on the people working for FD makes me wish that they would ban people more often. Just to drive the point home that if you're a little spoiled kid that only has demands you'll get what's coming to you.