What is this B[G]S about? ;)

[Jmanis]

Secondly, you are absolutely right about our approach of "..."fight back" is to actually engage...". That is what a conflict of any kind looks like in RL, based on the physical parameters we exist in. The set-up of bgs conflicts with several "dimensions" possible is - imho - a bit too far away from that, close to being non-sense. Besides, this anonymity denies the most successful tool humanity has developed for conflicts - diplomacy.

Thing is; conflict and diplomacy between who? Remember; when two factions go to war, you don't go to war. That is; you are not part of that faction... so you can't negotiate or declare "hostile factions" on behalf of another faction. The only faction you're part of is the Pilot's Federation. The closest thing you are with respect to other factions in the game is a paramilitary organisation or other issue-motivated group, or more fundamentally, an unaffiliated mercenary. That's a fundamental of how you can work for whoever you want, have access to wherever you feel (provided you haven't annoyed that particular faction too much) and fight for either or both sides of a conflict at the drop of a pin

However, there is - imho, in a scientific, experimental way speaking - only ONE parameter that gets close to reproducable, compareable results and that is the change at the tick, presenting 2 possibilities: One has done enough or hasn't. One day you throw 10 stones into the lake and win by killing the most fish, the next day 10 are not enough. This is not a reproducable, compareable result, as too many parameters and variables are missing/not available. If ppl accept it that way, 'cause it is that way, fine. I have to accept it as well anyway, but I hope that the developers will act accordingly.

Conflict CGs have pretty much repeatedly proven how broken conflict in ED becomes when full visibility of the contributions of both sides is available. Additionally, your original problem was about wasting people's leisure time; I can see conflicts becoming a 24/7 watch for squadrons just to make sure you're that couple points ahead of your enemy at all times... essentially just becoming sniper-battles at tick-o'clock.... and then you'd see the fits of rage happen when the arbitrary cut-offs before the tick happened at different times each day. Again, this is compounding the issue that the BGS simply isn't designed

The rest, like traffic, crimes, bounties etc. can indicate certain things, but would they really provide usefull data unless monitored over a long time? If one wishes, they can fill Excel charts with these data and compare them, but that should not be, what a game demands from its players

Why not? I refer back to my original statement that:

BGS is just there to respond to player-actions in an automatic, dynamic way, not be the grounds for player group-vs-group conflict.

You still seem to have the idea that the BGS should be something which it isn't. It's the simulation of the living, breathing universe, and as FD stated in their livestream, if people play the game with the BGS at the forefront of their mind when playing the game, they've done the BGS wrong.

That doesn't mean it won't draw people to play with it at the forefront of their mind, but for the most part the ones who do enjoy it are the ones who like graph-pr0n.... because that's what the BGS is, a black box of hidden inputs and outputs specifically designed in that way so it will react unpredictably. Reverse-engineering is, IMO, a very fun activity. Yet, you don't need to know any of that to actually interact with it.

And what does it tell you in the end? If we were 20 and the traffic report showed 100, there were 80 potential enemies. So we are statistically outnumbered, but if we win the day despite of that, what does it mean? That not all 80 are fighting us? That they [80] did not do as much as us 20? The 20 did "better" transactions than the 80? Aso asf. That's educated guessing and not producing comparable results.

I'd argue it shows so much more than that.

• What's standard traffic in your area?
• What's the distribution of influence changes at the last tick?
• Has the traffic persisted?
• What's the composition of the traffic? (e.g 60 Type 9's are unlikely to be fighting in warzones, but 20 Corvettes probably would)
• If a specific faction is being supported, is there similar activity in other systems?
• Is there any activity in the region bringing traffic to that area?
• How long has it been going for? Could any committed force be fatiguing by this point?
• What day of the week is it?

These are a small amount of the variables I look into when I see a system potentially going off the rails. Especially that second-last point is one I tend to brutally exploit.... in my experience large groups always want a "smash-and-grab" then move to the next target... and the last thing they want to do is deal with constantly maintaining a group of systems for months because someone keeps chipping them down with a mission or two each day. Personally, I get an unusual sense of schadenfreude when I see a group smash in a large effort to flip a system, then a week later I spend a fraction of that effort to flip it back.

I guess bottom line is; I'm not trying to convince you to change your view or anything, but the BGS is what it is, and 99% of that is deliberately a very black box with little visibility of direct player inputs/outputs to create an at times unpredictable environment

 

[Jane Turner]

The rest, like traffic, crimes, bounties etc. can indicate certain things, but would they really provide usefull data unless monitored over a long time? If one wishes, they can fill Excel charts with these data and compare them, but that should not be, what a game demands from its players - especially if there is plenty of other enjoyable things to do in that game and the data obviously exist but are not made available.

See that IS the game for me. And I appreciate the way it gives groups who invest time and effort into cultivating and knowing intimately the part of space that they are in, an advantage over those who don't. A bit like the way investing hundreds of hours into engineering gives a player an advantage over someone like me who really can't be bothered with it all.... and doesn't have time because of all the data management I do

 

[Donald Duck]

I guess bottom line is; I'm not trying to convince you to change your view or anything, but the BGS is what it is, and 99% of that is deliberately a very black box with little visibility of direct player inputs/outputs to create an at times unpredictable environment

See that IS the game for me. And I appreciate the way it gives groups who invest time and effort into cultivating and knowing intimately the part of space that they are in, an advantage over those who don't. A bit like the way investing hundreds of hours into engineering gives a player an advantage over someone like me who really can't be bothered with it all.... and doesn't have time because of all the data management I do

Again, this is in no way aimed against you, your understanding and your handling of the matter. You are the scholars, I am a user, relfecting on our recent experience with bgs, which does not make - bottom line - a lot of sense, at least from a PMF's pov!

The BGS is what it is, no doubt about that! And if you like to monitor everything for months like others engineer, that's fine with me. It is a great help for those who don't want to invest that much do understand the riddle.

Ofc the depth of the game demands a certain degree of commitment. Just that putting above average effort into any part of the game does not justify the way it is. And since there is an ongoing discussion about bugs and changes, I'd like to add that transperancy and availabliity of more data to the controlling faction (or even limited to PMF) should be part of future changes. That's my point. Along with certain special rights for PMF.

Engineering was also changed from RNG Casino to Communist distribution, but in both cases it was clear which effort (materials, data) provides which result. First in a certain range, then absolute, with known and predictable results in the present version ofc. Same in powerplay. You need 2000 merits to fortify/undermine, so deliver them. Nothing like that in bgs and all one can do is conjecture an approximation from data fragments?

I am certainly not a bgs expert, but we can answer you all your questions above @Jmanis and we have of course concluded several things from them - accroding to the methods suggested. But what are they more than estimations or educated guessing? Fact remains, that we do not know who is attacking us, their numbers, why and where. And are therefore forced to spend a certain effort on the bgs without knowing what the result will look like. This is "Trail your own blaze - but in a way someone else can force you on" (or so), isn't it? Sure, establishing a PMF and conquering a system demands commitment to bgs, if one wants to stay in control. Just, like in power play you can fortify a system and then you know the job is done, in PMF bgs (here comes the stones into the lake part). Especially if very obvious other players are involved.

Because if the statement is correct, that the bgs is not the playground for pvp action, why are PMF vulnerable to obvious pvp action? Why are our efforts to establish a PMF, conquer a system from NPCs always at jeopardy, because some random thinks it's a good idea/funny/annoying to play the bgs in "our" system? Or someone has the idea - for whatever reason - to flip all systems around to Fed Corps (like Da Vinci Corp. does elsewhere)? Or its a direct attack, because...? Whatsoever, this is pure player vs player action. With limited, unnecessarily obstracted access to data, a "system owner" and "defender" would certainly have.

Who did what for whom where (in-game and in rl)? The data is there, just not available.

All a bit paradox and certainly not as easy to understand and follow without all your efforts. Hopefully FDev will really work on this and add at least some of the ideas and demands that are around.