Elite Dangerous - Powerplay 2.0 Merit Changes

[mtfatboy3006]

I don't know if it's significantly faster overall, and it might well not be; but it's definitely sidestepping limits on rare purchases that were set for presumably some reason. And hey, if it's not actually faster or really that beneficial to use an FC for rare goods transport, then no real harm in flagging FC'd rares, yeah?

The reason for purchase limits isn't sidestepped at all. The limits are there (have been forever) to prevent the station from running out so that other players have access to those rares as well. As long as you have to leave the station, offload your cargo, and return for more, the limit has done its job. In which case there's no reason to manufacture a handicap on carriers for those who do wish to utilize them for that purpose. As for using nimbler ships to fill the carrier and a larger ship to load it, supercruise is the same speed for all vessels. Yes, you can use a larger transport to make the final delivery in fewer loads, but the point is, since you're still filling the carrier in the same quantities per load that you could be returning to the station, you aren't making massive gains on time. Not enough that "players with carriers" caused the rares nerf by turning in many times more quantities per week than anyone without a carrier could hope to. That's just not the case. If the distances between rares and points of sale were in the order of a carrier jump, then it would be different, but 150 LY just isn't that bad. I'm telling you, I have a carrier, and didn't bother. The rares I delivered I delivered with a long jumping cargo ship for much less hassle in about the same time.

The drastic difference is when there's a CG, and you're running a 7-jump loop near the delivery point just to scrape together two thirds of your 200T capacity with CG commodities at inflated prices, and I'm across the bubble filling my Cutter every stop at a station with a nearly endless supply at rock bottom prices, dropping off at my carrier, and going back, and eventually delivering several times the quantities that you could manage in the same span.

That advantage, and the advantage of being able to impact power influence by dumping one's goods at the last minute (for the same amount of merits) are advantages legitimately earned through the gameplay of buying and maintaining a carrier, and not balance problems. It's merely game progression.

 

[Kuma]

I’m trying to understand the reasoning behind the calls to impose restrictions on Fleet Carriers, but I still find it difficult to grasp. Is there something inherently wrong with fully utilizing the tools and options provided within the game to complete objectives? If Fleet Carriers are seen as very advantageous, wouldn’t it simply make sense to purchase and use one?

For example, would it make sense to impose penalties on ships like the Mandalay or Type-8 because they are only obtainable with ARX? Or on the Imperial Cutter because it requires a high Navy rank? Should we penalize the Anaconda for having a far greater cargo capacity than the Adder?

I wonder why Fleet Carriers are being singled out for these discussions when similar considerations aren’t being applied elsewhere. I’m genuinely curious—what is the issue here?

 

[yianniv]

With the trading thing and having to sell 1 ton at a time.. I've never heard of a game that punished a player so severely for having access to better stuff.
I did some testing where selling one ton at a time gave me 52 merits for a really good item. Selling two at a time gave me 76. That is a 14% decrease in merits because I sold two instead of one. I don't fully understand the need for such a massive dip. Some people are saying you get around 12% of the original merit gain from a full load vs singles. Can we recommend fixing this?

Patience has its merits. There's nothing to fix.

 

[sacred aardvark]

impose penalties on ships like the Mandalay or Type-8 because they are only obtainable with ARX?

In case you've missed it. The Type-8 is available for credits now that it's out of "early access" (though you do need to have odyssey afaik), and the mandalay will be available for credits in... I want to say 3(?) months... when it exits the EA phase.

 

[St0rmFury]

I haul rares in my ship to level up my Traveller badge on inara

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

In case you've missed it. The Type-8 is available for credits now that it's out of "early access" (though you do need to have odyssey afaik), and the mandalay will be available for credits in... I want to say 3(?) months... when it exits the EA phase.

Is it yet ? Tomorrow, no ?

 

[Kuma]

In case you've missed it. The Type-8 is available for credits now that it's out of "early access" (though you do need to have odyssey afaik), and the mandalay will be available for credits in... I want to say 3(?) months... when it exits the EA phase.

Amazing news! This is an instant buy for me!

 

[CMDR Daiyus]

Amazing news! This is an instant buy for me!

It'll be out for credits tomorrow. We're close, but not there yet.

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

I'm still annoyed by the extra month.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Is there something inherently wrong with fully utilizing the tools and options provided within the game to complete objectives?

For any individual involved - provided it's not a result of an actual bug like the data duplication - no, of course not. There should at least be some short-term benefit to someone finding a good option!

The problem is more for game balance more widely.
- all ways of merit earning should be roughly balanced against each other at the top end: it shouldn't be "rares or nothing" if you just want to make lots of merits quickly - though in any particular system, one might be better than another today because of what stations there are, or what mining opportunities, or what BGS states, etc.
- if you have an activity where the "normal" way of doing it is very slow compared with the "quick" way of doing it, that creates a balance problem for the activity.

So for example from the escape pods activity instead:
- blowing up passenger ships at an Anarchy tourist beacon is a much quicker (and consequence-free) way to get escape pods than hunting round a few signal sources at once
- so "balance to the top end" says that escape pods should be worth very little individually, because you can obtain them hundreds at a time
- but almost no systems have Anarchy government and a tourist beacon, so that means that in almost all cases escape pods aren't worth the effort of picking up

For escape pods to be possible to balance with the rest, therefore, that super-fast activity needs to be prevented/slowed down/something so that it's not so out of line. Or alternatively that sort of number of escape pods needs to be available much more generally rather than every salvage signal source just having 5 or so.

So the same with rares: if they balance rares to the rate a carrier can achieve and that's 3 times better than with a normal ship (which doesn't seem at all implausible looking at the tripling of the mean delivery in rare goods CGs after carriers were introduced), the per-tonne payout ends up potentially so small that rares are perfectly competitive if you use a carrier well but essentially worthless if you don't.

 

[Rubbernuke]

all ways of merit earning should be roughly balanced against each other

Yes, and no- legal methods should be balanced between each other- criminal acts should be at least twice as effective as legal ones mainly to drive instability in PP2 and the game more widely. The BGS, PP2 and the game needs more negative inputs into the sims.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Yes, and no- legal methods should be balanced between each other- criminal acts should be at least twice as effective as legal ones mainly to drive instability in PP2 and the game more widely. The BGS, PP2 and the game needs more negative inputs into the sims.

Yes, absolutely. I don't mean a simple "whatever you do you get 10k merits per hour" balance but something which fits into the wider context of activities, incentives, combinations, etc - certainly illegal activities should pay more on average, Undermining activities should pay more on average, activities with a high credit-earning potential as well can give fewer merits (because you can recycle those credits back into other merit-earners), and so on.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Yes, absolutely. I don't mean a simple "whatever you do you get 10k merits per hour" balance but something which fits into the wider context of activities, incentives, combinations, etc - certainly illegal activities should pay more on average, Undermining activities should pay more on average, activities with a high credit-earning potential as well can give fewer merits (because you can recycle those credits back into other merit-earners), and so on.

What I think FD need to balance is that attack is more rewarding than defence, given that large Powers now have many more points of weakness as they grow.

Being big should paint a bigger target on you

 

[Tifu]

Yes, and no- legal methods should be balanced between each other- criminal acts should be at least twice as effective as legal ones mainly to drive instability in PP2 and the game more widely. The BGS, PP2 and the game needs more negative inputs into the sims.

As long as criminal acts have real consequences (if you're caught that is) then I'm ok with this. High risk, high gain.

 

[Rubbernuke]

As long as criminal acts have real consequences (if you're caught that is) then I'm ok with this. High risk, high gain.

That part (the consequences) are already in

 

[Doctor Dread]

Yes, and no- legal methods should be balanced between each other- criminal acts should be at least twice as effective as legal ones mainly to drive instability in PP2 and the game more widely. The BGS, PP2 and the game needs more negative inputs into the sims.

No, the game does not need more negative inputs.

It is merely a whish from a very small group, to justify their in-game behavior.

 

[Rubbernuke]

No, the game does not need more negative inputs.

It is merely a whish from a very small group, to justify their in-game behavior.

Yes it does, because PvE crime is pointless when legal methods with no downsides easily outpace it.

 

[spayce_wyzard]

Patience has its merits. There's nothing to fix.

I'm not saying to increase the merits, that is my own miscommunication, I'm just saying it needs to make sense. And It would be good to know if fdev viewed this as an exploit. I would hate to see work undone if they deemed it misuse or exploitative and began removing merits.

 

[Daniel Cloudsifter]

As long as criminal acts have real consequences (if you're caught that is) then I'm ok with this. High risk, high gain.

That part (the consequences) are already in

Yeah, and either the reward for doing those actions need to be greatly increased or the penalty reduced. Doing the tasks (downloading software, uploading malware, finding PP items) in Odyssey settlements is fun to do... to a point. But it's just not worth it. At least 30 seconds for every download, 60 seconds for each upload, all the bounties/fines/notoriety dealing with inhabitants (or extra time spent stealthing around them), and (most importantly) the hammering you take with that settlement's faction (unless anarchy) for all those crimes. Don't think that's a problem? It is when the faction in question is the owner of the bases in the enemy system AND the controlling faction in the friendly system you're trying to build up. Bleh.

I've switched to mining and hit rank 102. I'll keep doing weekly tasks (unless they are broken, like "hack adverts" in a system that has none), some mining (for reinforcement), and maybe some of this other stuff. It's irritating that the more "fun" the activity can be (hacking adverts, messing with settlements) the more negative impacts there are. So you're left with bounty hunting or mining (yawn). I may toy around with tracking down enemy power NPCs and blowing them up, but I'm sure the merits won't be worth the time involved.

Wasn't the point of PP 2.0 to be able to influence the powers while you play the game? I guess the Devs can't shake the mentality of reward grind, not reward fun. sigh

 

[Darkfyre99]

No, the game does not need more negative inputs.

It is merely a whish from a very small group, to justify their in-game behavior.

I believe it does, myself, I’m working on undermining a fortified system at the moment, and between the credit sink created by undermining, and the penalties applied to a this border system, my efforts produce about a third of the results that fortification does.

This’ll create a static environment, which is something I, for one, don’t want to see a repeat of.