I don't understand your logic. So you think players who buy ships for ARKs are dishonest? They don't want to wait 3-6 months?Elite is just fun the only thing I lose is time . But I agree if a player wants a G5 murder boat they should at least have the decency to be able to engineer it , rather than let someone do the work and then say this game is boring
Player Feedback On Proposed No-Engineered-Ships Limitation Of Squadron Carriers
- Thread starter CMDR Mechan
- Start date
I still say let the noobs have the g5 murder boat, just make all sqaudron bank ships uninsurable
That's not the point. Those kids just didn't know. It will be simpler, for example, put money on such and such account and you will be accepted in such and such squadron, put more and you will be transferred 1 milliard, put more and you will be given a ride on PythonMk2.Well, it did happen, and funny part that "slaves" was a "child" cmdrs, who was like less than 12 years old IRL... that fact is quite self-explain why it happen at first place.
They got lured into FC, and taken into system where they could not jump away, forced to mine stuff for some time(few days), yet neither of those kid cmdrs realized at time, they could simply use escape pods, and avoid whole drama..
Thats why I think elite aint is game for kids (that much young), but that just my personal opinion... So my dear cmdrs, if any of you got kids(that much young) who's into elite, watch them out, what they are doing. Simple as that.
Either way, I cant see, or image how upcoming squadron system, would cause any form of "slavery" or "exploitation" of new cmdrs who aint got any clue what they are doing. Neither any of it is my concern about upcoming squadron revamp... my only concern is whenever engineered is shared, and consequences it would bring into PVP.
1. Your opponent, the squadron leader, is another player and he is human.
2. Your opponent is an engineer, he is a game character and he has no personal interest in what to give you and what not to give and for what.
New idea: allow engineered equipment 'to try out'. But only get to use them in a training/test flight ininstance.You earn nothing... 0 xp, 0 credits, kill counts of whqtever... you just get to test out the SCO and zip around a single system to try out mining in that one ring, or fighting in that one place, or crying at how slow everything turns.
Now you can see what you're missing, so enticement to unlock your own engineers. But it's still a gate to just giving new players or fresh alts a G5 ship for no work.
Now you can see what you're missing, so enticement to unlock your own engineers. But it's still a gate to just giving new players or fresh alts a G5 ship for no work.
Sorry, that was not my point.
1. As a new player I can get A-rated ship from Squadron. That an excellent alternative to buy a Jump-Start pre-buit ship for ARX. That is a huge advantage for new players to join Squadron, whoever squadron leader is.
2. Wrong. Totally. Engineer represents logic and behavior given to that particular character buy Game Designers.
No I think those who bought ships did so because Fdev gave them the opportunity. If you want early access then you buy the ship and then engineer it . I have said in many posts that I sometimes wonder if those who make the decision actually play the game?
A checklist is a pretty far cry from an engineer having logic and behavior.
Yes this is true,but you're missing the point of my message. Don't worry about it.
I'd still rather FD focussed more on people using cheat engine, which is a far bigger issue,than spoiling the fun of the majority of CMDRs who aren't gankers from sharing their engineered ships with their newer or more casual squad members for shared missions etc.
I'll probably answer it too.. In the case of a group of gankers, the lack of improved ships in the general fund will not hurt them in any way.. As practice shows, each of them is used to improving his own ship. In my opinion, the ship in the general fund should definitely be offered the way I made it for my friends and with the improvements that I put on its modules. Otherwise, I don't see any point in offering this ship to a friend because he can buy and equip the same assembly on Shinrart on his own and quickly..
Kind of a rant, sorry. Scanning through these comments I think I see the disparity here. PVE vs PVP, as usual. I don’t play in open, so I have a bias. But I wouldn’t want to ruin anything for those who do. That said…
The main reasons for disliking the idea of sharing engineered items/ships disguised as "balance":
It isn’t fair to give someone a ship that others had to grind for: The reasons I can think of that make this a valid point are open play, powerplay, community goals. These are the areas where one player’s experience affects another player’s in a direct way. I can’t think of any other reasons. If I missed any I apologize.
Don’t allow borrowed ships in open play, I guess…even though there are enough people out there with max-engineered ships by now. I don’t see this flood of new players in their shiny new squadron ships rushing out to farm the egomaniacs who play in open “for the challenge”. As far as community goals and power play are concerned, I doubt that the “edge” provided by additional pilots in engineered ships will outweigh pure effort or the fact that Aisling will always win because she has the prettiest pixels.
I had to do the ridiculous engineering grind so everyone else should too: they sell ships with engineering on them. That barrier has been broken for profit.
The underlying philosophy to my argument is: If it doesn’t affect you, let people play how they want to play and mind your own business. We are all spending our spare time at the same rate looking for the same dopamine fix.
An individualist is a man who says: "I will not run anyone's life—nor let anyone run mine. -Ayn Rand
The main reasons for disliking the idea of sharing engineered items/ships disguised as "balance":
It isn’t fair to give someone a ship that others had to grind for: The reasons I can think of that make this a valid point are open play, powerplay, community goals. These are the areas where one player’s experience affects another player’s in a direct way. I can’t think of any other reasons. If I missed any I apologize.
Don’t allow borrowed ships in open play, I guess…even though there are enough people out there with max-engineered ships by now. I don’t see this flood of new players in their shiny new squadron ships rushing out to farm the egomaniacs who play in open “for the challenge”. As far as community goals and power play are concerned, I doubt that the “edge” provided by additional pilots in engineered ships will outweigh pure effort or the fact that Aisling will always win because she has the prettiest pixels.
I had to do the ridiculous engineering grind so everyone else should too: they sell ships with engineering on them. That barrier has been broken for profit.
The underlying philosophy to my argument is: If it doesn’t affect you, let people play how they want to play and mind your own business. We are all spending our spare time at the same rate looking for the same dopamine fix.
An individualist is a man who says: "I will not run anyone's life—nor let anyone run mine. -Ayn Rand
Last edited by a moderator:
Exactly.
To be fair: it's not. One can't even store engineered module from ARX ship for yourself. By other words: only particular CMDR can use engineered ARX module on that particular ship. Or sell such module for 0 Crs.
But they can use it without the grind. That is my only point.
For me, personally, that was not a grind but achievements and I enjoyed a lot just playing ED to unlock Engineers. But you do yours. This is my point.
P.S. strictly subjectively: I've purchased every new ARX ship. Just having such ship makes 0 fun (for me). Engineer such ship from inside out as particular me likes to fly it - that what makes most of fun for particular me.
Just another game feature problem highlighting the core underlying issue with the way Engineers was implemented: creating such a massive power gap between default, vanilla, and engineered ships is a fundamental problem that is bad for balance, bad for progression, bad for experiencing the game, bad for player vs player content, and will continue to create problems for any new content.
The solution would be to raise baseline ship characteristics to be roughly where current Engineered ship levels are now, change all Engineering blueprints to be the 'interesting tweaks and customization' that was advertised during the kickstarter (keeping a comparable power level to this new baseline while introducing some new abilities - and not "I win" rock-paper-scissor gimmicks), slash the majority of the remaining grind (get the barriers to entry out of the way of enjoying the game), alter all "hitpoint inflation" modules (shield boosters, SCBs, reinforcement packages) to not be nearly so powerful & instead be balanced as another form of "interesting tweaks and customization" that alters but does not increase the combat power of a ship - and lastly, buff baseline weapon stats to finally have parity with the level of survivability "hitpoint inflation" present in the game (which would be the new baseline), so that combat is finally not an attrition slogfest.
Oh, and finally address how combat XP is purely about quantity and utterly unaffected by the power of your opponent's ship (and is weirdly also increased by doing ground combat which has nothing to do with anything regarding ships or space combat ???).
Of course, doing so would require deep understanding of the current situation of balance, with all weapons, engineering blueprints, ship modules, and the XP progression, which I do not trust or expect anyone working at Fdev to currently have. I would like to be surprised and proven wrong.
If that were achieved, the issue of Vanguard/Squadrons (why the new name?) would be rendered a moot point and there would be no problem with allowing the OP's suggestion, amongst all the other benefits of having a fair & balanced game centered around having interesting options, instead of "I win" power spikes and minor variations of it.
The solution would be to raise baseline ship characteristics to be roughly where current Engineered ship levels are now, change all Engineering blueprints to be the 'interesting tweaks and customization' that was advertised during the kickstarter (keeping a comparable power level to this new baseline while introducing some new abilities - and not "I win" rock-paper-scissor gimmicks), slash the majority of the remaining grind (get the barriers to entry out of the way of enjoying the game), alter all "hitpoint inflation" modules (shield boosters, SCBs, reinforcement packages) to not be nearly so powerful & instead be balanced as another form of "interesting tweaks and customization" that alters but does not increase the combat power of a ship - and lastly, buff baseline weapon stats to finally have parity with the level of survivability "hitpoint inflation" present in the game (which would be the new baseline), so that combat is finally not an attrition slogfest.
Oh, and finally address how combat XP is purely about quantity and utterly unaffected by the power of your opponent's ship (and is weirdly also increased by doing ground combat which has nothing to do with anything regarding ships or space combat ???).
Of course, doing so would require deep understanding of the current situation of balance, with all weapons, engineering blueprints, ship modules, and the XP progression, which I do not trust or expect anyone working at Fdev to currently have. I would like to be surprised and proven wrong.
If that were achieved, the issue of Vanguard/Squadrons (why the new name?) would be rendered a moot point and there would be no problem with allowing the OP's suggestion, amongst all the other benefits of having a fair & balanced game centered around having interesting options, instead of "I win" power spikes and minor variations of it.
The problem is that it sort of does affect others.
Each time people beg/ask for something and FDev cave to demand it slightly waters the game down.
Earning credits, gathering mats, jump ranges...and so on. What makes the game "easier" for others ends up diluting current game play, which becomes boring for a good many people.
It's a fine line that a game developer has to tread.
There's a common theme for the last decade of people wanting everything handed to them on a plate without actually playing the game.
I don't want shared engineered ships, not because I had to unlock things and therefore others should, but more because I don't want the game to become watered down with instant credits, instant mats, instant top tier ships.
I definitely understand that sentiment. However... I would ask you. When you log in today or whenever, will you know how many credits I have, how many engineered ships I have, or even that I am playing? No, probably not. We will probably never be in the same place in the game (and know it). Elite does an amazing job of providing a place where everyone can go do what they want with who they want without being funneled to the mandatory PVP zone for end game loot and content. My previously mentioned gameplay loops are the only time I could possibly affect your experience in game. Policy choices like this are another matter I suppose.
FDEV already wants to offer ship sharing/donating/giving? The dilution is already happening. Jump ranges are crazy (Mandalay), community goals were giving upwards of 50mil a run in profit, they nerfed the engineering grind (good thing I think), and they sell engineered ships. I made most of my credits and earned most of my mats grinding thousands of Robigo runs/Crashed Anacondas then trading over and down. I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
With colonization, there are stations that take nearly 300 trips with an optimized ship. My original example was that I simply wanted to be able to loan my friends a cutter from the carrier with a decent jump range so they could help me build "our" system which provides them no reward. I didn't want them to have to buy the pre-built Type-9 or go unlock and grind the engineering for the cutter unless they really loved the game.
My heart drops when I try to explain to someone the engineering process so they can simply jump a decent range in a new ship. Never mind the process to unlock the FSD booster. Suit engineering, forget about it. When you start talking about re-logging dozens of times, the cracks show through. It is embarrassing.
I don't want the game to be easier or less rewarding. The type of grind Elite requires for engineering is not rewarding btw. If someone loaned me a cutter like the one I drive for cargo, I would be inspired to go get one of my own (some won't be). Having a squadron fleet is realistic (like a military), it also allows newer and more casual players to use purpose-built ships to do content with friends, and might actually inspire a few new players to be more hardcore and go grind. At the end of the day, they go back on the carrier. In star Citizen for instance, a friend can spawn a ship in as he/she has built it, and I can go fly it. I can't store it or keep it, but I can use it. Just because someone loans me an F7A doesn't mean I won't get blown up in 0.2 seconds by a PVP ace in a Gladius. This game (Elite) is mostly about determination and "skill" in some cases. It takes real commitment to truly progress this game no matter what you fly.
I would mostly agree with you if we were having this conversation five years ago. The game is moving in a new direction with or without us. I don't think the old guard of this game should be gatekeepers. This isn't a game where you are competing with others directly unless you keep track of your Inara rating. This has always struck me as a game of stoic achievement. I would prefer we find a place where new players can log in and have fun, maybe get hooked, and the players who like to grind can go grind.
Different opinions are good. I think I have voiced mine sufficiently, this is more than I ever post. As you pointed out, it will be up to FDEV to find the balance. 07 Sir