Hmmm. Well I didn't see a post from her assuming that is also her forum name.
The BGS and Exploration Data: Is it time to do something?
- Thread starter DukeIronHand
- Start date
My guess would be that it's because they needed a balance between processing costs, player involvement, assigning values to actions so that "every little helps" and ensuring that one player in possession of appropriate knowledge can outplay ten mouthbreathers.
Well, to be fair, the issue didn't become apparent for nearly three years. That's the entire development cycle of many other games.
But total value is as problematic as total transactions - ten players who know what they're doing can completely drown out the actions of one player who knows what they're doing. Switching to a value-based model for this wouldn't address the issue, but would exacerbate other issues such as what income actually means in the game. Credits are meaningless right now. I think FD are probably secretly communists.
That's what the thread is about...
You generally post constructive and useful stuff, so...
By the same token, why do anything in any game ever written?
Have at it. Just not in this thread. please.
Which means we're due for a patch from FD. Need something new to banter on about!Pretty sure we've had ALL the threads already
I fully appreciate the transactional nature and the agree with the principal. However, exploration is one area where there is no justification for it. Cmdr in a cobra can contribute exactly the same as Billy big globes in a conda, so it really should just be based on total scans/systems/value/whatever
Powerplay at some point need to be addressed, specifically the BGS overlap. I’m an imperial player pushing for as many independent communists as you are, because it lowers our fort triggers. I’d be happier if the Empire actually had any CCC factions, but it doesn’t really and that’s broken.
But this thread seems to be focused on the exploration issue and murder, primarily between two player factions. One who would use murder to take a particular permit system and the other who can use exploration to basically keep it indefinitely.
What’s missing here is missions, when did completing missions for a faction become mostly irrelevant to the BGS? The answer is probably to lower the caps on how much one player with exploration or murder can influence the BGS per day. That would make turning in those INF+++ missions more valuable.
Nah, the conflict has been resolved. I'd say this is mostly an actual discussion.
Missions aren't exactly irrelevant either. They just have a very large gap from one type to another. Some missions types are easily stacked and give good influence, whereas others are a pain to do, can only be completed 1 at a time and barely worth the effort. No more perfect example than the liberate hostage missions for that.
Some types need to have their effect increased at the very least.
Also, missions are vastly better when it comes to fine tuning a system. Exploration and murder might be strong, but they are extremely linear when it comes to who you can apply them to.
Last edited:
That's not a realistic scenario. Maps is useful for maintaining control, you can't use it to take over a station as the gains goes to the owner.
Well, an all time favourite of many starter groups is to murder a system till it's under their control, then immediately expand with exploration and then repeat.
Even though it works for starters, it has some issues, both short term and long term. Short term is that such a method usually involves a couple useless wars till they have the system and that having no feel for the bgs usually involves dropping more data than needed, generally lots of wasted time and effort. Long term depends on how central your systems are and the traffic they get, but just expanding, grabbing the main station and moving forward will usually come to bite you and turn to a tangled mess around the 15+ systems mark.
They are strong tools, but they don't magically place groups in the big leagues.
Even though it works for starters, it has some issues, both short term and long term. Short term is that such a method usually involves a couple useless wars till they have the system and that having no feel for the bgs usually involves dropping more data than needed, generally lots of wasted time and effort. Long term depends on how central your systems are and the traffic they get, but just expanding, grabbing the main station and moving forward will usually come to bite you and turn to a tangled mess around the 15+ systems mark.
They are strong tools, but they don't magically place groups in the big leagues.
As Apos said, this conflict is over. I'd say this is a bit of aftermath where the experience of what we both had to do leads us to re-raise the issue. The conflict was epic. But it also forced us into some of the most awful gameplay at times, which isn't necessary. We would love the opportunity to debate this with FD in detail, to see where we can help make BGS play more engaging.
Yeah, I haven’t been paying attention to that fight. The Winters Fed-rats are always keeping us busy here in Aisling space. I do hope they clean up the worst of the BGS though, which is the point of the whole thread.
I do think it’s funny, when I first started learning the BGS, I listened to an old dev youtube video on it. They mentioned the AEDC at least twice!