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

[Walt Kerman]

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.

Im not sure how the argument against this does not make sense to you

Current game:

100 apples delivered in 5 batches of 20 apples does not equal 100 apples delivered at once does

You should be capable of understand an argument against that, even if you disagree, you should be able to understand the other side of the argument.

And once you adjust the threshold you now how removed the argument that even a sidewinder can do it, because now he cant. And you would also be hiding the rules from the player again, but its the chess players fault the rules keep getting hidden right?

 

[Mangal Oemie]

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.

No. It protects all BGS players somewhat from the effect of the activities of the vast majority of the community that don't play the BGS at all. It is there so there is a BGS game to play in the first place by a subset of players who like a bit of Risk in space.

 

[Cmdr-Wotherspoon]

It seems to me there is a problem: one or two players can "play" the weaknesses in the BGS implementation which gives their action undue influence to destabilise player minor faction systems, and there is no feasible way for the player minor faction to counteract this. The problem has been publicised partly to make sure that everyone is aware, so at least we're all playing by the same rules, and partly so that a better solution can be discussed and (hopefully) eventually implemented.

Not all all players are interested in the BGS, but for those of us that are, this is quite important.

 

[rekurzion]

Im not sure how the argument against this does not make sense to you

Current game:
100 apples delivered in 5 batches of 20 apples does not equal 100 apples delivered at once does

You should be capable of understand an argument against that, even if you disagree, you should be able to understand where he is coming from.

And once you adjust the threshold you now how removed the argument that even a sidewinder can do it, because now he cant. And you would also be hiding the rules from the player again, but its the chess players fault the rules keep getting hidden right?

apples and oranges my friend. i just don't see it. transactions are the currency of the bgs so of course 5 transactions is more than 1.

but then, each of those transactions are only 1. i can do one mission that equals 5 transactions and get the same result.


if the argument is the endless ability to produce negative influence, then the solution is to cap negative influence as positive influence is capped. or allow positive influence as long as there is negative influence pending.

if the argument is there are secrets, then lift the veil (without the demagoguery)

maybe change the thread title to "here is what we've learned and how to combat a pesky tactic" rather than "beware, there be dragons"

 

[Roybe]

It seems to me there is a problem: one or two players can "play" the weaknesses in the BGS implementation which gives their action undue influence to destabilise player minor faction systems, and there is no feasible way for the player minor faction to counteract this. The problem has been publicised partly to make sure that everyone is aware, so at least we're all playing by the same rules, and partly so that a better solution can be discussed and (hopefully) eventually implemented.

Not all all players are interested in the BGS, but for those of us that are, this is quite important.

Meh. Then the player faction repairs the damage after the locusts leave...and things go on.

 

[Walt Kerman]

apples and oranges my friend. i just don't see it. transactions are the currency of the bgs so of course 5 transactions is more than 1.

but then, each of those transactions are only 1. i can do one mission that equals 5 transactions and get the same result.


if the argument is the endless ability to produce negative influence, then the solution is to cap negative influence as positive influence is capped.

if the argument is there are secrets, then lift the veil (without the demagoguery)

maybe change the thread title to "here is what we've learned and how to combat a pesky tactic" rather than "beware, there be dragons"

Please go to your local store and try to buy something like this. In fact go to any store... as many as you want. Film it, try to get them to convince them 5 one dollar bills is more than a dollar (or pounds, euros, etc)

These transactions in elite contain kills, data, and credits. Reflecting the value in those transactions should make sense, even if you don't agree or want it that way for other reasons.

 

[smiths121]

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.

I really must disagree. Whilst transaction based does not completely protect the smaller group, it does reduce the gap between a larger player group and a smaller player group without eliminating effort as a variable in the competition. With effort based: Cmdr Mangal Oemie's group and my little group might as well guve up as soon as the bigger group comes into the area. There is literally no way to compete, as you can only match the effof X resource with X resource.


Squadrons sounds bad enough, I generally hope FD do not call time on the small player group with effort only (i.e. value) BGS system. I suspect whether to prefer the value/effort sytem over the transaction system depends on the size of the group you pay with.I think FD need to tread carefully with any changes, player groupd already have the ear of FD, there are a lot of smaller groups with no voice to FD outside of these here forums and reddit.

I suspect as always a compromise where value of a transaction becomes a variable is the best approach - that way FD can balace the preference for small or large groups as they see fit

Simon

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

No. It protects all BGS players somewhat from the effect of the activities of the vast majority of the community that don't play the BGS at all. It is there so there is a BGS game to play in the first place by a subset of players who like a bit of Risk in space.

I don't think that BGS players should be protected from the BGS and I don't think that the BGS should be something just for a selected few.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

I really must disagree. Whilst transaction based does not completely protect the smaller group, it does reduce the gap between a larger player group and a smaller player group without eliminating effort as a variable in the competition. …

It doesn't protect a small group at all as the larger group can do the same as the small group. It only helps against the larger group if that group doesn't have the same knowledge how the BGS works - as in not knowing that handing in bonds more often has more effect than handing all bonds at once.

More players can generate more transactions. If one player can generate 10 transaction in one hour, then 10 player can generate 100 transaction in one hour. The small group will always lose if both groups have the same knowledge how the BGS works.

What the current system does is, it reduces the influence of those players who don't care about the BGS and are just farming credits and those players who don't know how the system works.

 

[rekurzion]

Please go to your local store and try to buy something like this. In fact go to any store... as many as you want. Film it, try to get them to convince them 5 one dollar bills is more than a dollar (or pounds, euros, etc)

These transactions in elite contain kills, data, and credits. Reflecting the value in those transactions should make sense, even if you don't agree or want it that way for other reasons.

the american us dollar doesn't work on the same rules as elite dangerous. in elite dangerous the currency is transactions. and after 3.0 it really should be called transactions+

i do get value from my transactions when i put value in. by doing missions. by being allied with a superpower and a minor faction allied with that same superpower. by successfully completing missions in a row. by stacking those missions and maximizing my transactions in a way i couldn't do before with less skill and less ship.

and again, if this was all by value then it would be so much easier to tank a faction. but only if you have the ship and the money to do it

 

[Walt Kerman]

the american us dollar doesn't work on the same rules as elite dangerous. in elite dangerous the currency is transactions. and after 3.0 it really should be called transactions+

i do get value from my transactions when i put value in. by doing missions. by being allied with a superpower and a minor faction allied with that same superpower. by successfully completing missions in a row. by stacking those missions and maximizing my transactions in a way i couldn't do before with less skill and less ship.

and again, if this was all by value then it would be so much easier to tank a faction. but only if you have the ship and the money to do it

And as I said in your quote of me, those transactions represent something. Your argument is essentially "it is this way, therefore no other way makes sense to me"

 

[DNA-Decay]

Please go to your local store and try to buy something like this. In fact go to any store... as many as you want. Film it, try to get them to convince them 5 one dollar bills is more than a dollar

Oh - so you want to BUY your governance?

I don't think so.
YOU try this - You try walking into a Voting Booth and claim that your vote should outweigh mine, because you have 600 acres and timber, while I have three acres and a cow.



I've said it before - transactions are at the core of the game design.
They are not perfect but they are MORE FAIR than what you propose.

You case for completely redesigning the BGS is weak.

 

[RamirezKurita]

Oh - so you want to BUY your governance?

I don't think so.
YOU try this - You try walking into a Voting Booth and claim that your vote should outweigh mine, because you have 600 acres and timber, while I have three acres and a cow.

That's voting, which is specifically designed to reduce the influence of the rich by making every man equal, not increasing an organisation's influence and power within a region through business. In fact, if you look at international organisations and how they do voting, each member nation actually has a different number of votes that they can cast so the larger countries actually have greater voting power.

Say there's two identical construction companies, both able to build a fair amount of infrastructure in a short time and expand operations as necessary. One company gets 5 separate orders to produce single office blocks, while the other secures a lucrative deal to build an entire office district containing 20 office blocks of similar size. Which company is going to grow and gain influence more? It's 5 transactions vs 1 transaction, but that single transaction is worth 4x as much as those 5 put together.

 

[Schlack]

What exploits? There have only been 2 suggested here. 1 t trading which has been patched out and chain trading which is far less efficient than other activities. Everything else is ultragrindy min maxing not exploiting.

 

[CMDR Dreamstate]

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.

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.

Point is, you're calling everyone who learned the BGS or gathered how it worked, as either poeple who want "unfair" advantages, when it was never anything like that because it was the way the BGS was designed (and it the only decent way to make it work with all the maths), or you may aswell just call everyone cheaters.

Either way, your system would favour larger groups who have nothing but time on their hands - it would rob many small factions of their individuality and their way to influence the galaxy in some way.

You've highlighted how the BGS works to those who didn't know, and that's fine - but you're using it as a pre-text, an excuse, trying to appear like a saint to the masses, to say "the system is broken", and it isn't broken.

It works - and if people want to put effort into the BGS, no matter their size, then fine - they can do it under the current system.

Frontier should just be open about it, but at the end of the day it is up to the player.

Frontier can make tweaks under the hood, and they have done, especially when it concerned murder sprees of cops.

In an ideal world, all the effort we do is somehow logged and puts points toward something - in an ideal world, we can just sell 700 tonnes of cargo in one trip and flip a system with a 50% swing - but the system is linear, it is coded, rules have to be drawn - there has to be hard lines to prevent abuse, and there has to be rules to govern HOW everything is worked out.

Frontier's BGS is very well conducted as it is because it strikes this: balance.

Anyway, I think other posters have done a way better job describing why we should keep the current system - it works - it just doesn't suit you and you label everyone else an abuser of a "secret system" like we all part of the Freemason Guild or the Illuminati.

If that's the case, just quit your guild/sqaudron - if you haven't been kicked out of it already the BGS just isn't for you.

 

[Jane Turner]

You've highlighted how the BGS works to those who didn't know, and that's fine - but you're using it as a pre-text, an excuse, trying to appear like a saint to the masses, to say "the system is broken", and it isn't broken.

This is especially galling since there were plans afoot to release a helpful BGS video guide. Walt toook information provided to him by other groups, a fair bit of which was news to him, and rebranded it as this self-aggrandising and apparently attention seeking post and then called all the people who had provided him with the information exploiters. Hence the outpouring of anger and frustration.

Either way, your system would favour larger groups who have nothing but time on their hands - it would rob many small factions of their individuality and their way to influence the galaxy in some way.
It works - and if people want to put effort into the BGS, no matter their size, then fine - they can do it under the current system.

I don't think it's obvious what the outcome would be of a change like the one Walt is suggesting would be beyond that it is abundantly clear that it would be wildly unstable and take years to balance. Having a fair insight into the way influence changes are calculated I can't envisage a way to incorporate it without throwing the whole mechanism and starting afresh. FDev opted for transactions for very practical reasons. It means that you can compare apples to pears.

 

[Schlack]

Looking through the thread again it seems to be only a limited number of activities where some feel that effort is not adequately rewarded by the bgs. Trade. Bounties and bonds.

Bounties went through a bgs rebalance last year. One must presume that fd are happy. The majority of the bgs playerbase seemed satisfied with the outcome of the tweaks.

So that leaves us with trade and bonds. Hardly the catastrophic situation presented in the op.

 

[Walt Kerman]

Oh - so you want to BUY your governance?

I don't think so.
YOU try this - You try walking into a Voting Booth and claim that your vote should outweigh mine, because you have 600 acres and timber, while I have three acres and a cow.



I've said it before - transactions are at the core of the game design.
They are not perfect but they are MORE FAIR than what you propose.

You case for completely redesigning the BGS is weak.

No you are arguing if five people come into a room at a time they should all count as one vote.

Point is, you're calling everyone who learned the BGS or gathered how it worked, as either poeple who want "unfair" advantages, when it was never anything like that because it was the way the BGS was designed (and it the only decent way to make it work with all the maths), or you may aswell just call everyone cheaters.

Not all exploits are cheats. It depends on the view of the developer. Not all rectangles are squares.

You've highlighted how the BGS works to those who didn't know, and that's fine - but you're using it as a pre-text, an excuse, trying to appear like a saint to the masses, to say "the system is broken", and it isn't broken.

In your opinion.

Either way, your system would favour larger groups who have nothing but time on their hands - it would rob many small factions of their individuality and their way to influence the galaxy in some way.

Larger groups should be more effective naturally. I understand what you are saying, buy more effort should buy you more. In the current system larger groups are also more effective and can generate more transactions. There will be no change to how it is now. That's how it exists. More groups can generate more transactions.

Anyway, I think other posters have done a way better job describing why we should keep the current system - it works - it just doesn't suit you and you label everyone else an abuser of a "secret system" like we all part of the Freemason Guild or the Illuminati.

Dont put words in my mouth. I said everyone does it, we do it, and that its not secret anymore and hasnt been for a while. I'd recommend reading the original post.

If that's the case, just quit your guild/sqaudron - if you haven't been kicked out of it already the BGS just isn't for you.

I run my group. They approved of it. We've also had a spike in recruitment. The coalition was informed while Jane was present, my opinion is no surprise to the other group, except CI apparently.

---

This is especially galling since there were plans afoot to release a helpful BGS video guide. Walt toook information provided to him by other groups, a fair bit of which was news to him, and rebranded it as this self-aggrandising and apparently attention seeking post and then called all the people who had provided him with the information exploiters. Hence the outpouring of anger and frustration.

Hmmm, too much drama here. Everyone's doing it, there's no shame. The video, the announcement on transactional, and my opinion on the exploits shouldnt be news to you, as it was announced in the coalition channel. The only group I've ever got bgs information from was you, otherwise I asked my own BGS gurus, or tested things myself. I have indeed gotten some ideas from you, as you have also from others ( or maybe every idea of yours was original). Whether or not I use them, or everyone uses them, I believe they are still exploits. I'm not saying I don't use these exploits and I'm not saying I came up with them all myself. I am sorry you take it so personally, but as of four months ago it shouldnt be news, nor is it news to the other groups in the channel where it was announced that you have access to.

What I told you four months ago wasnt that it supposed to be a BGS guide video, it was supposed to be a video on the transactional nature of the BGS, i explicitly mentioned how it would explain how it caused single selling commodities, but I did say i would not mention selling exploration data in singles. I didn't here until others did(everyone knows anyway), but Frontier has announced before my post that they would patch this out. I posted here to give you and other groups a say, and you act like this. I didn't necessarily expect you to agree, but this is disappointing.

Just because I was gone from the game for a year, and I learned some BGS techniques from you (I've gotten information privately from no one else) doesnt mean I learned everything from you and even if I had, that doesn't mean you get to control my opinions.

If my opinion that this is an exploit is this egregious, I suggest taking it up with the coalition and keeping dirty laundry in house. You are a moderator. This is too catty for me.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Such drama.

Anyway, the exploits have been patched out and a noob beginner should just have as much a chance of achieving a sense of pride and accomplishment as a Cutter billionaire.
And the current system does that quite well. Far better than Hamster&Wheel Engineer Inc.

BGS play has a far more sustainable retention effect than pretty much the rest of the game mechanics because it promotes social, cooperative playing in groups. Take that away and all is left are people grinding their rear off or flying around bored in their OP superships.

 

[Deareim]

Looking through the thread again it seems to be only a limited number of activities where some feel that effort is not adequately rewarded by the bgs. Trade. Bounties and bonds.

Bounties went through a bgs rebalance last year. One must presume that fd are happy. The majority of the bgs playerbase seemed satisfied with the outcome of the tweaks.

So that leaves us with trade and bonds. Hardly the catastrophic situation presented in the op.

why do you separate bounties and bonds ? Isn’t for both one transaction when you redeem them ? I am curious.