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

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.

...

A point per kill in BH and combat means that the BGS would work exactly the same for random CMDRs doing it for the cash (and fun) and those doing the same for the BGS. Therefore, to counter 10 people parking in the CZ or res making 25 kills in a single session and cash once each would require 250 kills to counter in a value/effort based system, versus 10 returns to port now (with a single or minimal kills), under the current system.

This is the big piece that you're missing. To make it less transactional, you eliminate BGS play, largely, and make BGS players drown in the larger activity of the (far larger) rest of the player community. I hope that's not your intention.
 
Last edited:
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.

1. While I completely agree that the transactional nature can lead to some unnatural game play, it also allows BGS players to have an effect and counter the activity of randoms. This is perhaps a point those in quiet to no-traffic-but-you systems on the fringe might miss, but change this nature, and groups like the Hutton Truckers are going to be completely overwhelmed by random traffic

2. No. I disagree entirely. If someone wants to do more, they could, and should be able to. If people don't have the time, don't do it. Burn out is the responsibility of the player. With hard caps per system, those CMDRs would just work another system as well (not uncommon, anyway, when managing larger factions)

3. Changing from transactional to value/effort based will not change the invisible grind wars between player groups. It will almost certainly make the grind worse, as you would have to counter all activity from all other CMDRs active in the system as well. Moreover, guessing and anticipating random and opposing traffic is the key part of successful BGS play. I don't get that this is a problem. It is the main piece that makes BGS play fascinating (as well as the intricacies of multi-system faction management)

As my fellow diplomat Schlack likes to say, BGS play is like Kriegspiel. ​The not knowing is the best part...
 
Last edited:

Jane Turner

Volunteer Moderator
A point per kill in BH and combat means that the BGS would work exactly the same for random CMDRs doing it for the cash (and fun) and those doing the same for the BGS. Therefore, to counter 10 people parking in the CZ or res making 25 kills in a single session and cash once each would require 250 kills to counter in a value/effort based system, versus 10 returns to port now (with a single or minimal kills), under the current system.

This is the big piece that you're missing. To make it less transactional, you eliminate BGS play, largely, and make BGS players drown in the larger activity of the (far larger) rest of the player community. I hope that's not your intention.

I'd not thought that issue through before - but yes. Random input will make influence fine control a challenge and unequal input will be a mare! Our local manifestation is Fed Rep Grinders, who appear like locusts whenever there is a war, and its not random noise.
 
Last edited:
Previous Threads



Summary

The Merc of Mikunn were founded on game launch with the purpose of bug reporting on the back-ground simulation (BGS), the crowning achievement perhaps being the first BGS guide which opened the black box which was the BGS at the time. That guide is now stickied in the forum here. We did this to make the game better for everyone and level the playing field between those who knew, and those who did not. It is time once again to level the playing field and release a secret that we have been sitting on for a long time. It is not so secret anymore, but many still do not know, and it is being used against groups extensively. With this knowledge (1) you will know how the BGS fundamentally works, (2) you will be able to create your own exploits, (3) past exploits and how they ended up existing will make sense to you. So without further ado….


BGS: The Skeleton Key

The BGS is operated by transaction and not by value. Value is the ten million in bounties you spent all day collecting. Transaction is the one time you turn it in.

Frontier once posted this chart:


Note collecting bounties is +2 and murder is -5. How much value of bounty is +2? One million? Two million? Neither. The reason why the action above only says “2” is because its only assigned to the transaction and not the value. This means that 2 million bounties turned in at once equals 2 points, and 200,000 bounties done ten times (also a total of two million) will generate twenty points. Same bounty value, but a factor of ten difference in BGS change.

Similarly killing a couple of ships in a warzone and then turning it in is far more efficient. I could kill a couple ships in the war zone and turn in 11 times (11 transactions) and beat ten players fighting against me who play all day and turn in once (ten transactions).

You can apply this to every BGS action in game. There you go, you probably are thinking of new exploits already. Think up an action in game, now think of how to break it down in transactions. Use the chart above to calculate how many points you get.


Past Exploits
Remember the trade exploit where players would sell one item at a time at a loss to nuke a faction down? That was because multiple transactions were made for each sale. Value doesnt matter, transaction did.

Why is system authority so effective vs other bgs actions? Every time you murder someone it instantly creates a transaction, vs bounty hunting where you turn in all at once.

But wait! These exploits still exist. The way the game works hasn’t changed. It’s still transactional – Frontier simply uses thresholds where a minimum amount must be turned in to count. So turning in one item at a time might not work… but several may, or a minimum value may, or jumping out of the instance and doing it again may. Once the threshold is identified, you know how much you need to do to be more efficient than any other group and spam it.

Similarly people can still kill system authority and jump out before the response timer ends and jump back in.


Dear God Why???
I don’t know for sure, but before we call anyone stupid for a horrible implementation, my guess is that the purpose was to allow anyone, be they in a sidewinder or an anaconda, to have an effect on the game and “blaze their own trail”. Problem is, as we discover the thresholds and frontier patches them higher and higher, the threshold will become out of range of the sidewinder, but still provide an exploitative spamable transaction giving the worst of both worlds.

Only Frontier can really say why.


Solution

Get rid of the transactional nature of the BGS and make it by value, value not necessarily being credits.

As long as the BGS is transactional exists, my group can find an exploit. Any patch or threshold to hide it, my group will find a way around. And once we do, we will have a leg up on any group in efficiency, often by a factor of ten or more. My group is defensive and tries to help other groups get involved positively in the BGS. That is our purpose.

Other groups aren’t necessarily like that, and can also figure it out. In fact, they already have. I am aware of it being extensively used to troll groups and the BGS has mostly devolved into offensive exploits vs defensive exploits. Some do not know and get outright destroyed.

I’m sorry I sat on it this long, but I hope everyone understands why we did. And now that many groups know it has become unfair for those who don’t. I hope this levels the playing field, and generates the discussion needed to prompt change. Please complain, but be nice. The purpose here is not to bash Frontier, but make the game better.

My greatest fear here is that Frontier patches out the defensive transaction exploits, and leaves offensive transactions like kill system authority. Please, for the love of Braben, do not.

Please distribute to your BGS gurus to contribute to the discussion. This is needed for a fix and I plan on presenting this to Frontier.

With the best of intentions,
Walt Kerman and the Mercs

Merc Discord: https://discord.gg/Hx5eW8s
Part of another group? Discord for diplomats: https://discord.gg/aukqKNE




EDIT:

Some people think that this design choice does not result in exploits.


Exploit:
In video games, an exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers.

The designers did not intend for you to be selling goods one at a time to bomb a stations faction owner to zero influence. Its a design flaw that creates what are, by definition, exploits. I understand why the design was chosen. It doesn't make these techniques that result from it any less of an exploit.

I don't understand why not just say 200k= 1+ so you can go out earn 1m and get 5+, at least that isnt boring when you know your not wasting your time. In war often the side with the most soldiers win, and occasionally the side with the best soldiers win, better soldiers can earn more creds per noob soldiers.
 
1. While I completely agree that the transactional nature can lead to some unnatural game play, it also allows BGS players to have an effect and counter the activity of randoms. …

Why should a BGS player have more effect and be able to counter the activities of other "random" players?

Same actions should have same effects on the BGS. Artificially create (or keep) game mechanics (game systems) that protects certain players and makes their actions more "valuable" shouldn't exist.
 
Why should a BGS player have more effect and be able to counter the activities of other "random" players?

Same actions should have same effects on the BGS. Artificially create (or keep) game mechanics (game systems) that protects certain players and makes their actions more "valuable" shouldn't exist.


aside from the fact that that has been the way the BGS has worked since it first launched with the game...

Most players don't care about the BGS. At all. BGS players are a nerdy niche, and some in the larger community even consider us griefers, if we flip the wrong system and a credit mine evaporates, or a lockdown happens during a CG, etc. So, the beauty of the transactional system is that it allows BGS players to play their game, while everybody else plays theirs, but with the effects of each on each other tempered.

This way a CMDR in his/her godship (and 100s like him/her), who doesn't particularly care where s/he is, who got there maybe in the hunt for particular materials, and couldn't care less about "some numbers in sysmap, or the color of the coriolis", can happily spend his play time pew pewing whatever side takes his fancy today, or gave the best paying massacre missions at the station, without having too much influence on the outcome of a conflict carefully engineered by a player group, who maybe had to eject another faction first, in order to get their own expanded to their target.

On the one hand, the random bypassers in a godship who felt like CZ'ing today and don't care about the outcome, on the other multiple players who have invested weeks or months to set up the situation the CMDR just stumbled upon and are deeply invested in the outcome.

I am sorry if I have been vague about this previously, as I assumed probably wrongly many in this thread with BGS experience would have experience in central/heavily trafficked areas. We're pretty close to Sol, with a number of popular engineers nearby, and in recent memory had to deal with a massive credit mine in the heyday of the original skimmer missions. Anticipating and countering (or often, try to make use of) random player activity is the majority of our gameplay. Our knowledge of the transactional nature of the BGS and strategic application of that has allowed us to withstand such challenges, while sticking to more traditional, less grindy activity during quieter times.

The idea we'd have to do enormously more to not become simply a piece of cork floating on top of general traffic and activity of the community, does not appeal to me. Instead, again, despite the flaws in the transactional system, I deeply appreciate the genius behind allowing multiple types of gameplay to co-exist.
 
Last edited:
aside from the fact that that has been the way the BGS has worked since it first launched with the game...

Most players don't care about the BGS. At all. BGS players are a nerdy niche, and some in the larger community even consider us griefers, if we flip the wrong system and a credit mine evaporates, or a lockdown happens during a CG, etc. So, the beauty of the transactional system is that it allows BGS players to play their game, while everybody else plays theirs, but with the effects of each on each other tempered.

This way a CMDR in his/her godship (and 100s like him/her), who doesn't particularly care where s/he is, who got there maybe in the hunt for particular materials, and couldn't care less about "some numbers in sysmap, or the color of the coriolis", can happily spend his play time pew pewing whatever side takes his fancy today, or gave the best paying massacre missions at the station, without having too much influence on the outcome of a conflict carefully engineered by a player group, who maybe had to eject another faction first, in order to get their own expanded to their target.

On the one hand, the random bypassers in a godship who felt like CZ'ing today and don't care about the outcome, on the other multiple players who have invested weeks or months to set up the situation the CMDR just stumbled upon and are deeply invested in the outcome.

I am sorry if I have been vague about this previously, as I assumed probably wrongly many in this thread with BGS experience would have experience in central/heavily trafficked areas. We're pretty close to Sol, with a number of popular engineers nearby, and in recent memory had to deal with a massive credit mine in the heyday of the original skimmer missions. Anticipating and countering (or often, try to make use of) random player activity is the majority of our gameplay. Our knowledge of the transactional nature of the BGS and strategic application of that has allowed us to withstand such challenges, while sticking to more traditional, less grindy activity during quieter times.

The idea we'd have to do enormously more to not become simply a piece of cork floating on top of general traffic and activity of the community, does not appeal to me. Instead, again, despite the flaws in the transactional system, I deeply appreciate the genius behind allowing multiple types of gameplay to co-exist.

This +1

Honestly, it sounds like the OP wants an EVE-like system whereby 50 of his players can just farm in one instance for 12 hours then dump 2,000,000,000 worth of war bonds to crush any opposition whom don't have the man power.

It'll turn the BGS into a Sqaudron gankfest.

Besides, hardly a SECRET when everyone involved in the BGS knew how it worked:

Ivuum68.jpg
 
Last edited:
This +1

Honestly, it sounds like the OP wants an EVE-like system whereby 50 of his players can just farm in one instance for 12 hours then dump 2,000,000,000 worth of war bonds to crush any opposition whom don't have the man power.

It'll turn the BGS into a Sqaudron gankfest.

Besides, hardly a SECRET when everyone involved in the BGS knew how it worked:

Unfortunately these groups did not all know about it as I just informed a 3 year old group that works the BGS 3 weeks ago now. Besides, its not like I was posting this for the BGS groups. I didn't post the BGS guide for the BGS groups either. :rolleyes:

The tick happens once every 24 hours so if you save up for 12 hours or turned in repeatedly it would still be added all to the same tick.... If its by a value and utility based sytem, effort would count as you perform it, not necessarily at the transaction like you do now anyway...

With the current implementation you can do exactly what you fear, and save up exploration data crushing all competition, so you should be on my side.
 
Last edited:
So the reality is that this system shouldn't work.

Imagine, if you will, that I am the leader of some station, and I am now awarding medals to participants of my glorious rebellion or whatever.
"Hear me all, today we honor Sidewinder Bob, for his stellar contribution of 100 tons of biowaste, one at a time, delivered to my very door! Huzzah!
Now, also be sure to shame Anaconda Jim on the way out, for his single meager contribution of a mere 500 tons of platinum! How disgraceful for someone of your rank sir."
(I'm aware that you cant really sell biowaste one at a time anymore, but for the sake of pointing out the illogical nature, humor me.)

I wouldn't feel particularly great being Anaconda Jim to be honest.

Simply put, there needs to be an appropriate and commensurate reward for the effort involved, as well as rewarding the pilot who has spent the time upgrading a ship more suited to the job at hand.
As mentioned by someone earlier in the thread, smaller ships might be more convenient to do missions and that's their advantage, and big ships can more easily deliver items and that is their particular strength. Ship diversity should be a thing.
 
Last edited:
Im just going to remind everyone about this.

A type 6 that hasnt done any progression in this game at all. Can make a bigger influence than a guy that spent over 1000 hours in this game. Climbed to Elite, Unlocked the cutter and Engineered it.

If the type 6 guys knows about the trick. And the cutter doesnt. The cutter will lose.

Is this not the most thing as far as a roadmap goes? For like learning the damn game?

We wonder why this game has a bot problem...
 
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.


A point per kill in BH and combat means that the BGS would work exactly the same for random CMDRs doing it for the cash (and fun) and those doing the same for the BGS. Therefore, to counter 10 people parking in the CZ or res making 25 kills in a single session and cash once each would require 250 kills to counter in a value/effort based system, versus 10 returns to port now (with a single or minimal kills), under the current system.

This is the big piece that you're missing. To make it less transactional, you eliminate BGS play, largely, and make BGS players drown in the larger activity of the (far larger) rest of the player community. I hope that's not your intention.

So here we have one person accusing me of trying to promote a system that will be easier to "cheese" though they arent sure how.... And then the other realizing my proposal makes it harder to beat random traffic because you can't cheese it anymore.
 
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.

Im just going to remind everyone about this.

A type 6 that hasnt done any progression in this game at all. Can make a bigger influence than a guy that spent over 1000 hours in this game. Climbed to Elite, Unlocked the cutter and Engineered it.

If the type 6 guys knows about the trick. And the cutter doesnt. The cutter will lose.

Is this not the most thing as far as a roadmap goes? For like learning the damn game?

We wonder why this game has a bot problem...

that someone who doesn't know the rules is bested by someone who does? That seems fair. if the guy who didn't know eventually does know and is able to compete then all is still fair.

Plus someone with high rank, a big ship and knows the bgs will out work sidewinder bob and his 1 trick pony.
 
that someone who doesn't know the rules is bested by someone who does? That seems fair. if the guy who didn't know eventually does know and is able to compete then all is still fair.

Plus someone with high rank, a big ship and knows the bgs will out work sidewinder bob and his 1 trick pony.

The entire point of being fair is that you don't gain a ridiculous advantage by "knowing the rules" in this case to the point where it is an exploit.
 
The entire point of being fair is that you don't gain a ridiculous advantage by "knowing the rules" in this case to the point where it is an exploit.

It's been discussed for two years in the long BGS thread that is now in the BGS subforum, but for the longest time was almost every day on the first page of Dangerous Discussion.

Where this knowledge has been shared by exactly the groups and players who figured it out by their own testing. There is no manual, there never was. You're blaming the ones that figured it out for you?

....

speechless.
 
Last edited:
Obsidian Ant just posted a video on our thread here, the transactional nature of the BGS, and how it is exploit prone. Ill be adding it to the OP.

[video=youtube;k2BrCTZ9k9Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k2BrCTZ9k9Q[/video]

Already has about 20k views!
 
Last edited:
It's been discussed for two years in the long BGS thread that is now in the BGS subforum, but for the longest time was almost every day on the first page of Dangerous Discussion.

Where this knowledge has been shared by exactly the groups and players who figured it out by their own testing. There is no manual, there never was. You're blaming the ones that figured it out for you?

....

speechless.


Blaming? No.
Stop putting words in other people's mouths.

Having a discussion of why the way it works is not particularly good gameplay; That's what we're doing here. because it inherently creates a situation where one can gain advantage over the opposition despite it being a counter-intuitive method.
 
It's been discussed for two years in the long BGS thread that is now in the BGS subforum, but for the longest time was almost every day on the first page of Dangerous Discussion.

Where this knowledge has been shared by exactly the groups and players who figured it out by their own testing. There is no manual, there never was. You're blaming the ones that figured it out for you?

....

speechless.

Besides the gameplay should be intuitive and breaking it down by transaction is not. That makes for bad gameplay.

Also you say it was discussed in that thread for two years, when in reality people didnt catch on immediately, and there was a ton of conflicting information. The only one blaming people is you... for people new to the game not being omniscient. Rauvir blamed no one, you just projected yourself onto him. And you did it all in the same post.

The fact that it shocked so many people should tell you something. The bgs has no reflection of reality, which makes it un-intuitive. An un-intuitive game is bad design.

HPCQ2JZ.png
 
Last edited:
The entire point of being fair is that you don't gain a ridiculous advantage by "knowing the rules" in this case to the point where it is an exploit.

there must be another argument that has not been vocalized because the points made against transactions haven't made much sense. case in point by your example...

if you and i play a game of chess, and you know none of the rules, and are beaten by me, then the game is unfair and i exploited it to win.

no one on earth would argue that. the only argument is to learn the game so you can compete.

if the transaction value produces uneven results (1 ton 'exploit') then its easy enough to adjust the threshold to something more reasonable.
 
Well, it's on YouTube now, that the BGS is all "exploits", and "BGS secrets are revealed", so I am a little upset by all this. BGS play is my main reason to play this game, and your suggestions, whether value or effort based, will almost certainly make the area we've been operating in for over 3 years pretty much uncontrollable.

So, we'll run into player groups we have carefully avoided, wildly expand beyond control from bounty hunting systems rather than choose carefuly, and pretty much take the fun out of BGS play. Already dealing with conflict periods can be painful. I sincerely hope that FDev will ignore this thread, and this will blow over.

You know what transactional also does? It makes me fly my chieftain for BH or CZ, and improve my combat skills, instead of lazy blasting NPCs from the cutter...
 
Last edited:

Honestly, it sounds like the OP wants an EVE-like system whereby 50 of his players can just farm in one instance for 12 hours then dump 2,000,000,000 worth of war bonds to crush any opposition whom don't have the man power.

More players influencing the BGS will always have a bigger impact on the BGS than less players - if both groups have the same knowledge about the BGS.

Those 50 players could farm all day in the CZ and hand in bonds every 500,000 cr creating a large amount of transactions.

The current system doesn't protect smaller groups, it only protects those knowing how to game the system.
 
Back
Top Bottom