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

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Being a fan of realism in games (realism in the context of the game's universe, before any one starts with "How is Elite realistic when it happens in 3304?" bull), I support the OP.

Why would a single guy in a Sidewinder able to affect political influence of a massive corporation just because he's sold 1 ton of cargo on their station? Compared to 100 Commanders selling 500 tonnes each.

Value base makes total sense and yes, it does put lone wolfs and small groups at disadvantage, but that's realism. And I'm a fan of realism in games. Sim > Arcade, that's just my opinion of course.

We already have so many disadvantages within other aspects of the game regarding the BGS.

They really need to start separating ALL of the game. From single player to multiplayer.

The Multiplayer part of this game sucks. Because you can achieve anything you want against anyone else as a solo player and still feel as big as a group of 500.

Please frontier. Fix Multiplayer. All of it.

Personal progression and story lines are fine.

But the Multiplayer part of this game is in serious trouble.

Would be nice if those ships were in OPEN so you can kill them and minimise their missions completion rate, but as long as this trash exists with all modes are equal nonesence, min maxing can happen in PG / Solo without running into any risk of resistance.

100% agree, people should be able to stop others here. Especially if people are on our turf.

 

[the100thmonkey]

We already have so many disadvantages within other aspects of the game regarding the BGS.

They really need to start separating ALL of the game. From single player to multiplayer.

The Multiplayer part of this game sucks. Because you can achieve anything you want against anyone else as a solo player and still feel as big as a group of 500.

Please frontier. Fix Multiplayer. All of it.

Personal progression and story lines are fine.

But the Multiplayer part of this game is in serious trouble.



100% agree, people should be able to stop others here. Especially if people are on our turf.

Your next avatar should be of a one-trick pony.

 

[Jane Turner]

its complicated and there are competing theories.

My current understanding is that there is a hard positive action faction cap per system based on population size. This is complicated by other factions influence moves and relative influence positions.

That's what we believe and have a calculator which pretty well predicts inputs to outcomes.

One very important consideration if FDev were to abandon the current transaction based BGS model - which I have to say is working pretty well and stably for quite some time now, and opt instead for a value based one, is how to balance exploration, bounty hunting, combat bonds and trading inc BM trading. Currently its fairly simple. 1 murder = 1 bounty drop = 1 bond drop = 2 trades = 2 data drops etc.... firstly there would have to be a massive balancing exercise to make sure that all possible levers were sensible Is 100k easier to obtain by bounty hunting, combat bonds, exploration or trade? How do you balance the value of ship lost to murder v bounties? Once you get this right of There could of course, there can be no more tinkering with payouts. FD can currently increase payouts for explotation/BH without having to rebalance other pay outs.

We've had internal debates abut the way the BGS works and gradually come round to the point of view that if pretty sensible. Reputation and influence are separated the former being 100% value based and the latter 100% transactional. This has been known for a long time by all the serious BGS groups.

 

[The Chairmaker]

The current BGs works, not perfectly, but the fact so many people play it, is proof IMO that it is a viable mechanic.

There will always be ways of gaming the system, rather than playing the game regardless of system implemented.

For me its therefore merely about tweaking things as and when needed.

I would consider a modified transaction based system that has weightings based on the ship doing the transacting, so for example delivering 4 tonnes of trade in a sidewinder gives +1 whereas delivering 4 tonnes in a type 9 counts for nothing, It would need to deliver lest say 200 tonnes to get the +1

Something similar would follow with combat in that you would need to hand in far more combat bonds in a corvette than a viper to get a +1.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

Your next avatar should be of a one-trick pony.

I dont like ponys.

 

[YinYin]

Might there not be a good reason to have a transaction-based influence calculation? (This is a question for the devs rather than one that players can realistically comment on)

We can absolutely come up with good reasons ourselves and they've all already been mentioned here:

• it shortens the gap between small and large ships without entirely closing it
  a large ship is better, but a small ship can still make a dent
• it separates the credit oriented players from power oriented players
  to influence a system you have to fight against less noise from players acting without intent to change influence levels
• it decouples credits from influence
  allowing to continuously balance one without affecting the other

All of these are pretty damn important in my book and going to value-only throws them all out of the window.


The various threshold solutions already are a combination of both transaction and value based systems.
This is good, because tweaking the threshold allows to tweak the optimal activity loop.
Neither doing tons of tiny loops for maximum effect nor grinding out for days before turning things in is good.
A threshold can encourage a healthy loop length in between.

The only problem that remains is communicating this to the players.
Right now these things are only considered exploits, because the game doesn't teach them.
They are exploits because there are commanders who know and commanders who don't.


So in my opinion the best solution would be informing players about each individual threshold.

How and where? Through the faction representative of course!
They already have a standard text about how you can help out via bounty vouchers, data and trading when they have no missions on offer.
This could include information about their currently relevant thresholds for different activities.
And there are tons of opportunities to make this flexible as well, making the "meta" different for every situation.

An example I posted on reddit:

A faction at war could perhaps require more small or large ships for their efforts at any given time - and thus increase or decrease their current value threshold to make a difference for them.
A smaller threshold favours smaller optimised ships, since staying out long in a slow lumbering big one won't help.
A higher threshold favours bigger optimised ships, since making multiple trips due to running out of ammo faster in a small one won't help.

This value could go up and down depending on the population and actually involved commanders to shift optimal tactics over time. You'll have to keep up to date with what is currently best.
(whether you swap your ship or not, the optimal moment to turn your bonds in will change)

Similar concept for trading. It's little help meeting all the demands of one high value commodity, if they don't get all the other resources required to process it. It just takes up storage space until other required demands are matched up as well - so trading variety for influence makes perfect sense to me. The contact could inform you how much variety is currently needed.

Better make the system transparent and engaging than dumbing it down and causing many more issues.

 

[Chaparral]

I truly appreciate you BGS masters that deduce the mechanics of the software running the BGS.

For the average person playing the game however (I think I saw somewhere on the forums that 48% of people that play the game never got out of a sidey before quitting), the game experience is driven by the available missions.

I would truly appreciate it if FDEV and the BGS participants could take a step back and see how the Mission Board is experienced from a non-BGS player.

With 20,000+ systems in the bubble, the apparent mission offerings at each station appear random (yes I know they are tied to state), and a new player has no idea where to go to find something productive or accessible to do.

If there is a change to the BGS, I hope that there would be some consideration to offer a basic set of missions decoupled from the BGS (which is clearly broken), that are available at every station.

I know there will be a number of you that will say "screw you - the game is the BGS , git gud or go home", or "fly somewhere else", but a new player will not know where to fly in this space ship simulator game to find palatable or accessible missions.

I would hope that those of you in the know about the BGS would encourage FDEV to consider a "do over", and offer a basic mission menu until that happens.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

I dont like ponys.

I'm a dog, and I have always been kicked, and whipped.

Note: I do not understand the BGS, even with all the excellent descriptions of it. To be specific, I do not understand the time and effort spent on it. As a single player in solo, as long as I can do business in a system, I do not care about a meaning-free name for the controlling faction. I do care about superpower rank, and discounts. That is the only thing that the BGS play affects me.

Colonia might be different, but in the bubble, the BGS conflicts are sound and fury, that attract both fanaticism and abuse. Both are things we need less of.

 

[WorldsGreatestForumDad]

I'm a dog, and I have always been kicked, and whipped.

Note: I do not understand the BGS, even with all the excellent descriptions of it. To be specific, I do not understand the time and effort spent on it. As a single player in solo, as long as I can do business in a system, I do not care about a meaning-free name for the controlling faction. I do care about superpower rank, and discounts. That is the only thing that the BGS play affects me.

Colonia might be different, but in the bubble, the BGS conflicts are sound and fury, that attract both fanaticism and abuse. Both are things we need less of.

Yep Colonia is a bunch of Player Factions all shoved into a small place, Clamoring over territory.

A lot of people just use it as a truck stop though.

But there are lots of people out there fighting against one another. Its so unbalanced and unrewarding though. People feel like its a job putting in hours instead of having fun with the game.

Not to mention not being able to see another soul.

You arent using Solo and Private like some of those other guys are. You have no interest in effecting another player group. You're just doing your own thing.

Thank you for that.

 

[Jane Turner]

I truly appreciate you BGS masters that deduce the mechanics of the software running the BGS.

For the average person playing the game however (I think I saw somewhere on the forums that 48% of people that play the game never got out of a sidey before quitting), the game experience is driven by the available missions.

I would truly appreciate it if FDEV and the BGS participants could take a step back and see how the Mission Board is experienced from a non-BGS player.

With 20,000+ systems in the bubble, the apparent mission offerings at each station appear random (yes I know they are tied to state), and a new player has no idea where to go to find something productive or accessible to do.

If there is a change to the BGS, I hope that there would be some consideration to offer a basic set of missions decoupled from the BGS (which is clearly broken), that are available at every station.

I know there will be a number of you that will say "screw you - the game is the BGS , git gud or go home", or "fly somewhere else", but a new player will not know where to fly in this space ship simulator game to find palatable or accessible missions.

I would hope that those of you in the know about the BGS would encourage FDEV to consider a "do over", and offer a basic mission menu until that happens.

Come over the the BGS subforum where there are plenty of BGS "sages" who will answer any queries you have or have a polite argument over it!

 

[Vasious]

Doesn't every serious BGS player know its transaction based and has always been?
I happy with how it works at the moment apart from conflicts, they tend to be pretty boring as we win them before they even start!
Might be because my faction is on the edge of the bubble, no PP, very few player factions and little to no random traffic, the joys of the frontier

I thought the idea was to bring light on what would make it more fun

As someone else put it;
the min max way to play would be undock, SC, collect one bounty/bond, SC back, dock, cash in, repeat.
but that is not fun
My group wings up in wings compete to collect the most Bonds/bounties in a evening
Which is fun

Surly the system should be learning towards encouraging activities that are fun

Transactions are invisible to the player, and the change happens only on the tick

bonds/bounties are visible numbers

People like seeing numbers go up, to see distinct steps achieved going towards a goal.

That is what motivates people.

 

[Chaparral]

Come over the the BGS subforum where there are plenty of BGS "sages" who will answer any queries you have or have a polite argument over it!

That is actually the most gracious invitation to discussion I've enjoyed on these forums - sincerely thank you.

It is fair to say this game means many different things to many different people. I apologize if I implied the BGS is not a valid mode of play, my intention was to convey that it has an overwhelming impact on casual play which can render the introductory game effectively inaccessible. My impression is that the BGS'rs don't really care about that - but you give me hope.

 

[rekurzion]

I thought the idea was to bring light on what would make it more fun

As someone else put it;
the min max way to play would be undock, SC, collect one bounty/bond, SC back, dock, cash in, repeat.
but that is not fun
My group wings up in wings compete to collect the most Bonds/bounties in a evening
Which is fun

Surly the system should be learning towards encouraging activities that are fun

Transactions are invisible to the player, and the change happens only on the tick

bonds/bounties are visible numbers

People like seeing numbers go up, to see distinct steps achieved going towards a goal.

That is what motivates people.

there's no difference with transaction based either - a pilot performs an action and a number goes up (or down if that's my aim). boom, achieved goal. i don't see the argument except 'people like to see numbers go up instantly' or 'people need to see a little number giving them constant reassurance of their progress' that's impatience and really short changes people. when i've been able to keep an over extended faction in constant conflict throughout their systems as i slowly grow the opposition resulting in a war with my faction leading the charge to take over the system I can see the fruits of my labor just fine

but if that's the case then the real argument sounds like I don't believe certain players should be allowed to affect the BGS as much as I do and their impact should be muted AND my impact increased for good measure

that to me sounds like all of the wrong reasons to make a design change and extremely selfish. all i'm hearing is people who want their enemy to have less of an impact so they can have more an advantage.

***

a response in general to the topic, 'if i turn in 100 million in bounties i should be rewarded more than some <childish name calling> in a sidey who turns in 100 small bounties'

dude, then do the same thing! nothing is stopping you. there is literally nothing preventing you from competing against this 'sidey' who dares to impact your little spec of dirt in the black. but don't bang your head against a wall and tell me it hurts. no s***. so don't bang you head against the wall.

***

can someone please provide me a factual example of a sidewinder bringing down some players mighty minor faction all by their lonesome? is this really a thing?

 

[Starwolfe]

Yeah, but is it fun to do 100 separate transactions vs hanging out in a wing for an hour to get a big millions-credit cash-in?

Its one of the reasons I tend to play solo - I find more enjoyment in the BGS, but in order for me to be effective in the BGS I need to play solo, which sounds really counter-intuitive on the premise of what most Player Groups seek in the game from their PMF.

 

[Walt Kerman]

Surly the system should be learning towards encouraging activities that are fun

 

[Patau82]

I thought the idea was to bring light on what would make it more fun

As someone else put it;
the min max way to play would be undock, SC, collect one bounty/bond, SC back, dock, cash in, repeat.
but that is not fun
My group wings up in wings compete to collect the most Bonds/bounties in a evening
Which is fun

Surly the system should be learning towards encouraging activities that are fun

Transactions are invisible to the player, and the change happens only on the tick

bonds/bounties are visible numbers

People like seeing numbers go up, to see distinct steps achieved going towards a goal.

That is what motivates people.

I'm struggling a bit to find the part in the op in the OP the was about bringing light on what would make the BGS more fun to be honest?

BGS work is very much optional in my group, fun must always comes first our team is regularly reduced to 0 if there's some sciencing to be done !

luckily we've got a pretty big membership so there's a constant stream of players heading home with exploration data or looking for somewhere to raise their combat rank whilst helping out the faction
We tend to rely on force in numbers by issuing simple orders where to do missions,bounties,exploration data the things normal players tend to do and then our handful of BGS players that actually like to play and understand the bgs (the not normal players )

oh and the daily tick is one of the joys of the BGS no? but I'm probably now fully addicted to the anticipation of seeing the result of our days work so you can ignore me on this

 

[Vasious]

there's no difference with transaction based either - a pilot performs an action and a number goes up (or down if that's my aim). boom, achieved goal. i don't see the argument except 'people like to see numbers go up instantly' or 'people need to see a little number giving them constant reassurance of their progress' that's impatience and really short changes people. when i've been able to keep an over extended faction in constant conflict throughout their systems as i slowly grow the opposition resulting in a war with my faction leading the charge to take over the system I can see the fruits of my labor just fine

but if that's the case then the real argument sounds like I don't believe certain players should be allowed to affect the BGS as much as I do and their impact should be muted AND my impact increased for good measure

that to me sounds like all of the wrong reasons to make a design change and extremely selfish. all i'm hearing is people who want their enemy to have less of an impact so they can have more an advantage.

***

That wasn't my point

Two methods

Undock, SC, collect one bounty/bond, SC back, dock, cash in, repeat
or
Group up in wings compete to collect the most Bonds/bounties in a evening

Which is better game play, or will be more fun?

Which does a transaction based system promote?

What one should the BSG promote?


'people need to see a little number giving them constant reassurance of their progress' that's impatience and really short changes people.

I wasn't asking for small incremental increases
I was saying, as you collect bounties in an evenings play, you see the number in your transaction panel increase.
Making progress towards a goal is a proven psychological motivator.
The Undock, SC, collect one bounty/bond, SC back, dock, cash in, repeat has no feed back in game so there is no conscious progress towards a goal so less motivating because of that even if
and evening of Undock, SC, collect one bounty/bond, SC back, dock, cash in, repeat will result in a greater end effect on the BGS than only cashing in once in the evening it will be less satisfying, moment to moment in game.

 

[Walt Kerman]

Aside from the clickbait title (seriously, Walt, very poor show), and the fact the there's nothing in the OP that hasn't been very public knowledge for more than a year, there are a few things that suggestions so far on this thread don't address:

1. How will replacing transactions with a value-derived input actually differ from the status quo? Does anyone here seriously think that the BGS-oriented groups don't know how to grind when they have to?
2. Does anyone here seriously think that switching to a value-derived influence calculation is going to be qualitatively different, at the point of player perception, from a transaction-based sum?
3. Might there not be a good reason to have a transaction-based influence calculation? (This is a question for the devs rather than one that players can realistically comment on)
4. How many of the posters on the thread actually understand the BGS, as it is now, well enough to comment on it with any real knowledge? Many of the posts are basically saying "noob it up guys!"
5. The only activity that will be penalised by switching from a transaction-based to a value-based influence calculation is trading. RES-farming is not a challenge, even a HazRES. Switching to value for bounties without acknowledging transactions will basically push everyone into the noobRESHIRES because that's simply the most efficient way to farm bounties. Take your super-ship with turrets. Put a ton of gold in your hold. 4-0-2. Fire at will. Go AFK. Profit.
   • Long-range exploration will be utterly unaffected, while short-range exploration will basically devolve into planning your route with EDSM.
   • How else can you calculate mission effects except by arbitrarily assigning it a value? Often, the goods involved aren't actually that valuable.
6. Why shouldn't the BGS be balanced around players working in groups and in small/medium ships? What's so bad about that?

Just a few questions to push this thread in a direction that's actually interesting.

Oh not clickbait at all. Its literally what it is by definitiion - an exploit. By playing the game as it was not intended the player can be more effective by a factor of ten or more. And its only public knowledge to the BGS groups, and even then some do not know, or understand why. Thats why the post was popular and controversial on here and on reddit.

The transactional nature of the BGS has been the cause of almost all the big BGS eploits. Selling comodities one at a time? Transaction. You cannot convince me that selling commodities one at a time is how the game was meant to be played... and Frontier agrees with me simply by patching it with a limit (that can be circumvented). The problem is you have gotten too acclimated to using an exploit to your own advantage. And now that, as you admit it has been well known, you shouldnt care its being discussed, but you do care that its being called an exploit, when by definition that is what it is. Its just that a massive amount of people do it. And the only ones that benefit are those that know, vs those that do not.

 

[Mysteron]

Not sure either system is better than the other from my point of view. Both systems push BGS into the realms of "big groups of players", as they can produce more "value" or "transactions" than a group with lesser players. To be honest this is probably fair, but the BGS can sometimes seem like which group leaders are better at herding sheep than actually playing a video game.

At least with the transaction system a smaller group could out "transaction" a larger group, although this thread reduces that possibility!

So I plump for the current system as I tend to play with the small groups. Hate the egos of the large groups, too much of that at work, avoid in my own time.

Cheers
Simon

Agreed. It appears that some large mega-factions have shown a clear pattern of lobbying Frontier to adjust BGS rules in their favour in order to give them an advantage in wars against other factions, in particular when they have faced substantial and effective opposition from smaller groups. Perhaps the faction in question could make a public pledge to clarify that their efforts are truly honourable and not self serving.

 

[Patau82]

Oh not clickbait at all. Its literally what it is by definitiion - an exploit. By playing the game as it was not intended the player can be more effective by a factor of ten or more. And its only public knowledge to the BGS groups, and even then some do not know, or understand why. Thats why the post was popular and controversial on here and on reddit.

The transactional nature of the BGS has been the cause of almost all the big BGS eploits. Selling comodities one at a time? Transaction. You cannot convince me that selling commodities one at a time is how the game was meant to be played... and Frontier agrees with me simply by patching it with a limit (that can be circumvented). The problem is you have gotten too acclimated to using an exploit to your own advantage. And now that, as you admit it has been well known, you shouldnt care its being discussed, but you do care that its being called an exploit, when by definition that is what it is. Its just that a massive amount of people do it. And the only ones that benefit are those that know, vs those that do not.

Was the BGS really meant to be played in the first place or was it to simulate the effects of our actions on the galaxy?

Is it an exploit to find out it can be played and is it an exploit to find out its doesn't work the way you think it should work?