It should also be that security ship kills should be weighted per ship- so if I mow down Eagles in a medium sec area it has less impact than if I kill an Anaconda. Currently all sec ships are equal in value which is odd. In fact, why not weight all kills? So if I smash a T-9 for faction x it stings more than a T-7 or 6.
Mercs of Mikunn - 3 Year report: The Once Secret BGS mechanics and how to figure out exploits
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
Another vote here to switch it to value based. As well as the previous reasons mentioned, from a game play perspective the transaction model isn't very helpful because you effectively have to stop playing the game in order to maximise your influence and remain competitive in BGS work, eg, you have to stop fighting in conflict zones & repeatedly spend time in super cruise to hand in combat bonds.
CMDR Justinian Octavius
CMDR Justinian Octavius
No i'm not. Please read what i said again.
Have in mind that the result of your posting could be something like "We remove the BGS until its fixed and in the meantime have fun with the Guardians FSD-Booster". Oh, wait...
Deleted member 38366
D
True... as the BGS itself, it's all subject to intransparency and stealth changes with the occasional FDev Intervention and a few outright Server hickups on top.
Without a BGS Guide (I think my personal super-compressed, vastly incomplete BGS Draft I patched together has almost 60 Pages
), new Players without access to the crowdsourced Information would have to spend months to get half of the needed Information.If anything, they'd find out they're terribly ineffective. Relying on the exceedingly scarce in-game Info alone would likely be downright catastrophic.
Dunno, it's never been different though... BGS has always been this way, notably standing out as the absolutely only in-game mechanic that remains (officially) vastly undocumented.
Last edited by a moderator:
it is like the bug stopping ATR of spawning. Every big factions knows but don’t share it.
That is why you see some players with billions of bounty on their head.
That is why i appreciate your thread even if i don’t really play the BGS anymore nowdays. I think the BGS should not be that shallow -transactional or not - so that eveyone start from the same point. But I suppose FD had its reasons again...
Temporarly removed (TM).
Last edited:
True... as the BGS itself, it's all subject to intransparency and stealth changes with the occasional FDev Intervention and a few outright Server hickups on top.
Without a BGS Guide (I think my personal super-compressed, vastly incomplete BGS Draft I patched together has almost 60 Pages
If anything, they'd find out they're terribly ineffective. Relying on the exceedingly scarce in-game Info alone would likely be downright catastrophic.
Dunno, it's never been different though... BGS has always been this way, notably standing out as the absolutely only in-game mechanic that remains (officially) vastly undocumented.
Yeah. The BGS has always been transactional from day one
That's justifiable. The total imports of the UK (population ~70 million, so about the same as a mid-sized system) are around 1 million tonnes per day. Someone turning up in a T-9 and selling 500 tonnes of generic commodities might be impressive but would barely be a blip on the stats.
So it's assumed that if a player is "doing something" there will be hundreds or thousands of NPCs doing the same thing. At that point which ship the player is actually flying is irrelevant - they're indicating a direction of political and economic movement, not actually causing it all personally.
...
Leaving argument from realism aside, the case for Sidewinders and the like being able to cause BGS changes I think makes perfect sense for a *Background* Sim. In the original design as something to cause the galaxy to change automatically as players acted, so that the opportunities available weren't completely static over time ... obviously you'd want it to be movable by a single small ship not necessarily even consistently working in a particular direction, to stop all but the busiest systems completely stagnating.
Now that it's more of a foreground sim, and one of the major sources of cooperative and competitive gameplay, it makes much more sense for it to be value-based - there will still be lots of options for small ship pilots, who can run many missions equally well in a Sidewinder, explore equally well in a Sidewinder, and with a bit of engineering and skill, farm plenty of bounties that way too even if not quite as efficiently as a high-end combat ship.
Exploit? - Not sure that is the correct expression in this case.
Some systems are more prone to exploitation than others. Simply by knowing that its transactional and not value based is major in that you don't need to be clever to figure the exploits out. When its value based your first thought goes to, darn i need a better ship for the task, rather than spam.
Just because it's exploitable (with a little focus - but then isn't everything) doesn't make it an exploit; no system is unexploitable. However, I do get ya motivation for the change though.
Also, A single sidewinder "SHOULD" exert a big influence on a system if he is one of the few to trade in that system. If he is one of many similar or larger ships, the influence should be proportional to the total tonnage (not value) of "required goods" being sold in that system - IMO.
Last edited:
Well it would also be a good time to revise the rules like in war only Bonds actually Help
So in a War, all "war time missions" can add to the effort.
The Military Intelligence Salvage
The Assassination of Enemy Generals and Deserters
The Surface base attacks
The Strategic Data Delivery
The War Materials Cargo Missions
And what ever Passenger Missions crop up during war (Troop Transport and VIP Generals travelling about - we have a Soldiers in the Passenger Mission Stats)
So you can use the ship you like in the activity you like and contribute based on the value of the mission to the overall war effort (the INF+ rating) along side the raw bonds cashed in
That way a Sidewinder might not make a difference with the 4 tons of Weapons delivered a time, but it as you put it in the context of the game universe actually make a notable difference if there is a critical military intelligence salvage mission, or it drops of an SRV that hack the security core at a surface outpost that allows troops to get in.
Any ship can have an effect if they are part of an important mission.
The difference would be every mission would not be available at all times and for varying INF+ as they would be different levels of operational importance, but CZs and Bonds are always there.
Same goes for other states but just the easiest example
Last edited:
There are a number of things going on here that I'd like to unpick if I may.
1. Large BGS groups have a large effect. well yes. Irrespective of any mechanic more bodies will mean more effect. This will be true on just about any basis on which the BGS is built.
2. CMDRs are ingenious and are going to find the cracks in any system and exploit them - human nature. These can only be minimised/addressed by FD over time. they have existed since launch and new ones are introduced in almost every patch. - my personal favourite was 10% influence swings from single mining missions!
3. Transactions vs sanity. There is absolutely no way that AEDC could have maintained its existence and interest of our CMDRS for over 3 years if we were min maxing transactions as the entire basis for our actions. Sure in extremis, we have, and indeed will do in future as that's pretty much the only way to do survive in those circumstances. That however comes with a burnout/bored/sanity cost though. How many times can you go to a Res, kill one ship, SC, Dock, Cash, Rinse, repeat...... puke.? Playing like this IS NOT FUN and is not sustainable.
In the normal day to day you just cant build a campaign, maintain player interest, keep them sane or prevent burnout if your entire basis is maxing transactions. The only way for a groups long term survival is essentially to have cmdrs play relatively normally (if directed) while being congniscant of the transactional nature. There is therefore a natural limiter to playing transactionally.
4. I think the value vs transaction debate is really a debate on balanced mechanics. There are pros and cons to using either. The mechanic is not really of relevance where there is balance between efforts/time expended and the result. I think the new missions system and C&P mechanics have gone some way towards a better balance (lets face it, its unlikely to be perfect). I think the balance between the 3 current biggies isn't too far off. (anecdotally speaking) Murder, Mission stacking and Explo single sales now seem pretty similar in terms of effort expended and results. perhaps other activities could be balanced up to match.
5. There are of course many changes I would like to see and these go far deeper than the simplistic value/transaction debate. Take explo for instance, rather than value or transaction I would like to see influence effects based on discovery type. Discoveries more useful to a faction gain more influence (ELW, Terraformable, Pristine Rings etc). For wars/civil wars i would like to see bespoke battlezone instances where SLFs battled around CQC type infrastructure - you sign up for a battle, telepresence in and fight for your side to determine the victor of the war. Population changes to change influence - oh yes please. Market manipulation to increase influence - oh yes please.
Unfortunately none of these will happen without a major overhaul so tweaks is the best were going to get for the forseeable.
1. Large BGS groups have a large effect. well yes. Irrespective of any mechanic more bodies will mean more effect. This will be true on just about any basis on which the BGS is built.
2. CMDRs are ingenious and are going to find the cracks in any system and exploit them - human nature. These can only be minimised/addressed by FD over time. they have existed since launch and new ones are introduced in almost every patch. - my personal favourite was 10% influence swings from single mining missions!
3. Transactions vs sanity. There is absolutely no way that AEDC could have maintained its existence and interest of our CMDRS for over 3 years if we were min maxing transactions as the entire basis for our actions. Sure in extremis, we have, and indeed will do in future as that's pretty much the only way to do survive in those circumstances. That however comes with a burnout/bored/sanity cost though. How many times can you go to a Res, kill one ship, SC, Dock, Cash, Rinse, repeat...... puke.? Playing like this IS NOT FUN and is not sustainable.
In the normal day to day you just cant build a campaign, maintain player interest, keep them sane or prevent burnout if your entire basis is maxing transactions. The only way for a groups long term survival is essentially to have cmdrs play relatively normally (if directed) while being congniscant of the transactional nature. There is therefore a natural limiter to playing transactionally.
4. I think the value vs transaction debate is really a debate on balanced mechanics. There are pros and cons to using either. The mechanic is not really of relevance where there is balance between efforts/time expended and the result. I think the new missions system and C&P mechanics have gone some way towards a better balance (lets face it, its unlikely to be perfect). I think the balance between the 3 current biggies isn't too far off. (anecdotally speaking) Murder, Mission stacking and Explo single sales now seem pretty similar in terms of effort expended and results. perhaps other activities could be balanced up to match.
5. There are of course many changes I would like to see and these go far deeper than the simplistic value/transaction debate. Take explo for instance, rather than value or transaction I would like to see influence effects based on discovery type. Discoveries more useful to a faction gain more influence (ELW, Terraformable, Pristine Rings etc). For wars/civil wars i would like to see bespoke battlezone instances where SLFs battled around CQC type infrastructure - you sign up for a battle, telepresence in and fight for your side to determine the victor of the war. Population changes to change influence - oh yes please. Market manipulation to increase influence - oh yes please.
Unfortunately none of these will happen without a major overhaul so tweaks is the best were going to get for the forseeable.
The problem with allowing missions to contribute, as they currently stand^, is:
- Doing missions which target the opposing faction will result in reductions in all factions, even ones unaffiliated with the war.
- Doing war-theme missions based out of systems that aren't involved with the war will result in influence gains (this doesn't make any sense: If Bob and Jim are at war in Sol, and Bob does a mission against Jim in Alpha Centauri, why would that system gain influence at the sufferance of unrelated factions?)
- Many factions are still plagued by this bug when at war.
Besides, the overall effect of War on influence on a faction is a really good throttle against expansion of a faction going into endlessness. Most other things about the BGS revolve around making it easier for the little guy to get a foothold, harder for the big guy to hold their dominance.
^ As they currently stand being you can bleed influence from uninvolved factions.
Last edited:
Thanks for bringing it to the public, Walt. I mostly back the opinion and request of the Mercs (not that surprising, being an alumni).
I don't like the bgs being transaction based, principally because it removes alot of fun from the game.
It's far more pleasant to sit in a haz res frying dozens of enemies then collecting all the mats than grinding station-to-res flights for 1 or 2 kills at a time.
So value based yes, but have FD adjust it.
I suppose missions are still spawned and specified according to the ship you're in and/or your rank. This brings balance indeeed. If not, it should.
Being trade elite and flying a Python, 5+ deliveries in a boom state mean deliver 120 to 180 units (rough cut).
When running 'kill the pirate lord' missions, as I also am combat elite, most of times the targets are federal corvettes ranked deadly/elite.
So I need one full trip to get my 5+ from a trade run then I must go get my anaconda to run the pirate mission. Some kind of effort is required.
Relative effort should be taken into account in the value-based approach.
So to bring balance to other bgs tools (actions), as combat : FD could use an index of one's ship combat power, or a combat rank as a divider of the influence gain ?
For example, let's state a fully engineered Corvette run by a combat elite pilot has a power index of 1.00 (max), but my Python has a power index of 0.75 and I turn in 100,000 cr bounties in one transaction. They would count as 100,000 / 0.75 = 133,333 turned in a Corvette.
And the cmdr ranked competent flying a Cobra would get an index of 0.25 and be rewarded in influence as if he/she turned in 400,000 in the vette.
Of course the math should be done at the moment of the kill based on the ship you are flying, not the one used to turn the bounties in.
I don't like the bgs being transaction based, principally because it removes alot of fun from the game.
It's far more pleasant to sit in a haz res frying dozens of enemies then collecting all the mats than grinding station-to-res flights for 1 or 2 kills at a time.
So value based yes, but have FD adjust it.
I suppose missions are still spawned and specified according to the ship you're in and/or your rank. This brings balance indeeed. If not, it should.
Being trade elite and flying a Python, 5+ deliveries in a boom state mean deliver 120 to 180 units (rough cut).
When running 'kill the pirate lord' missions, as I also am combat elite, most of times the targets are federal corvettes ranked deadly/elite.
So I need one full trip to get my 5+ from a trade run then I must go get my anaconda to run the pirate mission. Some kind of effort is required.
Relative effort should be taken into account in the value-based approach.
So to bring balance to other bgs tools (actions), as combat : FD could use an index of one's ship combat power, or a combat rank as a divider of the influence gain ?
For example, let's state a fully engineered Corvette run by a combat elite pilot has a power index of 1.00 (max), but my Python has a power index of 0.75 and I turn in 100,000 cr bounties in one transaction. They would count as 100,000 / 0.75 = 133,333 turned in a Corvette.
And the cmdr ranked competent flying a Cobra would get an index of 0.25 and be rewarded in influence as if he/she turned in 400,000 in the vette.
Of course the math should be done at the moment of the kill based on the ship you are flying, not the one used to turn the bounties in.
Last edited:
_trent_
Volunteer Moderator
While I am not a fan of the transaction based BGS, switching it to value based is likely to lead to the same sort of exploitation that the Powerplay players currently complain about.
It's extremely easy to afk-farm bonds and bounties at the moment. My corvette can survive for over an hour on it's own in a HazRes or CZ without losing it's shields. As part of a wing, I could leave it 24/7 in a RES or CZ and only return once per day to hand in the accrued bounties or bonds.
I'm not saying that this means that value-based is a bad idea per-se, I'm just saying that while afk-farming methods remain easy, switching to value-based BGS has a glaring and obvious problem that would need to be addressed first.
Personally, I'd prefer to see a mixed value/transaction system.
It's extremely easy to afk-farm bonds and bounties at the moment. My corvette can survive for over an hour on it's own in a HazRes or CZ without losing it's shields. As part of a wing, I could leave it 24/7 in a RES or CZ and only return once per day to hand in the accrued bounties or bonds.
I'm not saying that this means that value-based is a bad idea per-se, I'm just saying that while afk-farming methods remain easy, switching to value-based BGS has a glaring and obvious problem that would need to be addressed first.
Personally, I'd prefer to see a mixed value/transaction system.
