Noob Notes: Things which are total rubbish. Lost Combat Bonds

[FoxFire Ayderan]

Total Rubbish.

Can't join a faction at a conflict zone without thinking you better go through the PAIN (lets face it is not fun, not so much the time but the crappy end mechanic) of Super Cruising back to station before you lose the 2 or 3 or 6 or 12 combat bonds you've acquired. Because let's face it, your efforts are worthless if you don't turn in the physical bonds the leader presumably tossed you for each kill you helped with. (sarcasm)

Just tell me that the faction I'm fighting for gets no benefit of my effort, no influence gain, no benefit toward winning the war/civil war, without my turning in those bonds and ALL my time and effort in fighting was utterly meaningless, and I will buy a boxed copy of this game JUST to set it on fire and flush it down the crapper.

Seriously I HAVE to know, WHAT in the flying spaghetti monster's name is the purpose for making combat bonds something which can be destroyed with your ship and thus destroying your effort in helping a faction in a combat zone? I must know, because it may be one of the worst mechanics in video game history. I seriously can't conceive of any reasonable reason that is in the game.

So you can't stay on the field too long? The longer you stay on the field the bigger the risk you take in getting no credit for your efforts? What is the purpose of synthesis to create more ammo or other battle munitions in the field when you are apparently STRONGLY encouraged to painful cruise to station and back if you want credit for your fighting? The Devs were SO tickled with their Super Cruise mini-game that they wanted to make sure players were exposed to it as much as possible, so they made sure you were incentivized to leave the battle after every couple of kills to go get your credit for those kills?

P.S. Suggestion... Combat Bonds are not destroyed with your ship.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Seriously I HAVE to know, WHAT in the flying spaghetti monster's name is the purpose for making combat bonds something which can be destroyed with your ship and thus destroying your effort in helping a faction in a combat zone?

It follows the same principle as the other things that are lost when a ship is destroyed: bounty vouchers, general cargo, mined commodities, exploration data, mission cargo.

 

[FoxFire Ayderan]

It follows the same principle as the other things that are lost when a ship is destroyed: bounty vouchers, general cargo, mined commodities, exploration data, mission cargo.

I don't know what that principle is, but it does NOT make for a fun game. Maybe that's the principle? Turn away most players so the die-hards can have 400 billion solar systems to themselves.

They only things in that list which ought to be lost with your ship is cargo, and as per my other post, those things ought to be storable in the event you are going in to danger (like taking a brief moment to help out in a combat zone).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Losing accumulated combat bonds is the consequence of player choice - attempting "one more kill" when the sensible option might be to head for the station to repair and replenish.

 

[metatheurgist]

Risk makes for a fun game. Every occupation has a chance of loss. Combat - Bond/Vouchers. Traders - cargo, Explorers - data. If you never had a chance to lose something where's the thrill?

 

[FoxFire Ayderan]

Losing accumulated combat bonds is the consequence of player choice - attempting "one more kill" when the sensible option might be to head for the station to repair and replenish.

Well that's a terrible mechanic and rationale.

Only made worse by the fact that traveling back and forth to the station isn't a picnic. And as I said it's not even the time it takes (it can take time in a game like Eve Online to travel in system), it's the intricate effort involved in making sure you leave Super Cruise at the right time and speed. That's 'neat' the first dozen times you do it. Aftewards it's a royal pain. And yet way more tolerable than having to do it for absurd reasons like "I better turn in my combat bonds before I lose all credit for my efforts (be it one kill, two kills, or a dozen)".

Yeah, there are those players who'd hate to lose credit for a single combat kill, and might feel then compelled to return to station after every kill. That's not fun.

I feel the aggravation of losing 3 or 4 combat bond kills. Am I supposed to do Painful Cruises to station and back after every 3 kills? I've lost up to 8 or 9 of them because I didn't want to interrupt the actual fun I was having engaging in combat, completing a mission, and presumably getting credit for my kills, gaining influence for my faction, helping my faction win the war, etc... (which frankly I wouldn't be surprised are ALL tied to turning in combat bonds).

 

[FoxFire Ayderan]

Risk makes for a fun game. Every occupation has a chance of loss. Combat - Bond/Vouchers. Traders - cargo, Explorers - data. If you never had a chance to lose something where's the thrill?

That's what losing your ship and having to pay the insurance is for.

Do you know it would actually be MORE acceptable to people (psychologically) to have to pay just as much in loss of kill credits to replace their ships than it is to lose the actual credit earned from the kills.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Well that's a terrible mechanic and rationale.

Only made worse by the fact that traveling back and forth to the station isn't a picnic. And as I said it's not even the time it takes (it can take time in a game like Eve Online to travel in system), it's the intricate effort involved in making sure you leave Super Cruise at the right time and speed. That's 'neat' the first dozen times you do it. Aftewards it's a royal pain. And yet way more tolerable than having to do it for absurd reasons like "I better turn in my combat bonds before I lose all credit for my efforts (be it one kill, two kills, or a dozen)".

Yeah, there are those players who'd hate to lose credit for a single combat kill, and might feel then compelled to return to station after every kill. That's not fun.

I feel the aggravation of losing 3 or 4 combat bond kills. Am I supposed to do Painful Cruises to station and back after every 3 kills? I've lost up to 8 or 9 of them because I didn't want to interrupt the actual fun I was having engaging in combat, completing a mission, and presumably getting credit for my kills, gaining influence for my faction, helping my faction win the war, etc... (which frankly I wouldn't be surprised are ALL tied to turning in combat bonds).

I disagree. Consequences are needed in a game to make it interesting. No consequence normally equates to a boring game. So what will happen then is that you will stay in the CZ until you die, cash in and start again with no consequences due to the fact that it is not too difficult to make up the rebuy amount in a few minutes in a CZ.

All it is, is easy mode. No, sorry but that is not fun. It's like people who seem to think it is fun having a corvette with god like shields and hull with a load of turrets on auto fire in a CZ and letting it do its stuff while you watch TV. Easy mode does not mean fun.

 

[FoxFire Ayderan]

I disagree. Consequences are needed in a game to make it interesting. No consequence normally equates to a boring game. So what will happen then is that you will stay in the CZ until you die, cash in and start again with no consequences due to the fact that it is not too difficult to make up the rebuy amount in a few minutes in a CZ.

All it is, is easy mode. No, sorry but that is not fun. It's like people who seem to think it is fun having a corvette with god like shields and hull with a load of turrets on auto fire in a CZ and letting it do its stuff while you watch TV. Easy mode does not mean fun.

Being denied credit or recognition for your efforts is not a good or reasonable consequence. Repair bills is a reasonable consequence. Losing your ship and paying the insurance (even if it were higher) is a reasonable consequence. Having to take the time to fly back into the battle is a reasonable consequence. Running out of ammo and having to fly back to station to resupply is a reasonable consequence.

Losing your ship because you stayed in the battle when your hull was down to 15% is a reasonable consequence of being negligent in that regard. Having full health and finding yourself suddenly ganged up on, or attacked by a well equipped Elite, and losing your ship is a reasonable consequence. Also losing a dozen Combat Bonds (and who knows what else is tied to those, perhaps even progress of the faction you're fighting for) is not a reasonable consequence of that bad luck.

Having the faction you are fighting for say essentially "Well... you helped destroy 15 of our enemy's ships BUT you did blow up there after the 15th, so... no sorry you get no Credits, you get NO recognition, Our influence doesn't grow, we've made NO additional progress in our war because of your stupidity. If ONLY you hadn't been such a doofus and came back here to say Hello after that 15th kill, you'd have been golden. Now... well now you just suck."

If that's what you like, you must be a glutton for punishment. Or maybe you love love LOVE doing Super Cruise trips and mini-game SC exits, and so take one and back after every kill in a Conflict Zone.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Re-entering SC and heading to a station to redeem them is part of earning Combat Bonds - the game design chooses not to reward those who choose to lose their ship and respawn at a station rather than travel back in the normal manner.

 

[FoxFire Ayderan]

It cost me 140k credits to replace my Cobra MKIII

I'm not going to blow my ship up for a quick trip back to station to cash in my bonds that will likely amount to less. But even if someone did, so what? Is ONE less painful SC trip out of the thousands we will ultimately do so terrible?

You can't tell me that Frontier is actually intent on forcing people to take as many SC trips as they can.

In any event, the whole premise is just stupid. The faction I'm fighting for would not refuse to recognize my contributions simply because I lost my ship (a sacrifice for them) and didn't come visit them at the station before getting blown up.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

It cost me 140k credits to replace my Cobra MKIII

I'm not going to blow my ship up for a quick trip back to station to cash in my bonds that will likely amount to less. But even if someone did, so what? Is ONE less painful SC trip out of the thousands we will ultimately do so terrible?

You can't tell me that Frontier is actually intent on forcing people to take as many SC trips as they can.

In any event, the whole premise is just stupid. The faction I'm fighting for would not refuse to recognize my contributions simply because I lost my ship (a sacrifice for them) and didn't come visit them at the station before getting blown up.

Why go back to the station to repair for 140k credits when you can make millions in the time you go back to repair and the time used in supercruise. Choices and the consequences of those choices is what makes a game. Its a game mechanic that is used in every game in existance. How it is a bad mechanic is beyond me. It must mean that every game ever made is chocked full of bad mechanics and that includes the best game ever made in my eyes, which is Chess.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The faction I'm fighting for would not refuse to recognize my contributions simply because I lost my ship (a sacrifice for them) and didn't come visit them at the station before getting blown up.

They would if they required some proof (akin to gun camera footage) of the kill, in this case the Combat Bond itself - something that is lost when the ship is destroyed - before paying out.

 

[MBaldelli]

Why go back to the station to repair for 140k credits when you can make millions in the time you go back to repair and the time used in supercruise. Choices and the consequences of those choices is what makes a game. Its a game mechanic that is used in every game in existance. How it is a bad mechanic is beyond me. It must mean that every game ever made is chocked full of bad mechanics and that includes the best game ever made in my eyes, which is Chess.

As he's self-identifying as a Noob, I suspect he's reaching the point between the climb up the steep learning curve to the threshold of experience. I remember this event well in my time within the Elite: Dangerous. The amount of anger or frustration I was feeling on what I was specializing in at the time (Exploration) was creating a hell of a lot of ire within me.

I suspect that once he's crossed that threshold, things will get better for him. Who knows? Maybe out of this he'll be making better suggestions for the game.

 

[ThePunisher]

Total Rubbish.

Can't join a faction at a conflict zone without thinking you better go through the PAIN (lets face it is not fun, not so much the time but the crappy end mechanic) of Super Cruising back to station before you lose the 2 or 3 or 6 or 12 combat bonds you've acquired. Because let's face it, your efforts are worthless if you don't turn in the physical bonds the leader presumably tossed you for each kill you helped with. (sarcasm)

Just tell me that the faction I'm fighting for gets no benefit of my effort, no influence gain, no benefit toward winning the war/civil war, without my turning in those bonds and ALL my time and effort in fighting was utterly meaningless, and I will buy a boxed copy of this game JUST to set it on fire and flush it down the crapper.

Seriously I HAVE to know, WHAT in the flying spaghetti monster's name is the purpose for making combat bonds something which can be destroyed with your ship and thus destroying your effort in helping a faction in a combat zone? I must know, because it may be one of the worst mechanics in video game history. I seriously can't conceive of any reasonable reason that is in the game.

So you can't stay on the field too long? The longer you stay on the field the bigger the risk you take in getting no credit for your efforts? What is the purpose of synthesis to create more ammo or other battle munitions in the field when you are apparently STRONGLY encouraged to painful cruise to station and back if you want credit for your fighting? The Devs were SO tickled with their Super Cruise mini-game that they wanted to make sure players were exposed to it as much as possible, so they made sure you were incentivized to leave the battle after every couple of kills to go get your credit for those kills?

P.S. Suggestion... Combat Bonds are not destroyed with your ship.

Ok your missing the point of it, the main name you said is combat zones, Well it is what it says a combat zone so when you choose a side know you are in the s-h-i-t , bullets are flying s-h-i-t is breaking around you and yes it is fun but the entire thing is do i stay or do i go and turn in just in case. The point of the matter is you shouldnt be in a combat zone if your ship cant handle it not saying your bad or anything like that but point blank if you go into a combat zone you should have good shields and be able to hit hard when it counts and be able to take a beating. I mean if not then the best thing for you is to stick to the haz res zones until you get a good combat eng ship. I use my Federal Vette when i go in there which i have prismatics for my shields and about 8300 on my shields, plus im combat fitted and can stay in there for hours on end, but best of luck to you and if you need any further help just look for me in game Thomas Benjamin is my cmdr name.

 

[metatheurgist]

That's what losing your ship and having to pay the insurance is for.

Do you know it would actually be MORE acceptable to people (psychologically) to have to pay just as much in loss of kill credits to replace their ships than it is to lose the actual credit earned from the kills.

No, that's an additional risk. Makes flying a big ship even more fun. Also, the free sidewinder is free. You could farm bonds/vouchers for no risk in that.

 

[additional001]

It follows the same principle as the other things that are lost when a ship is destroyed: bounty vouchers, general cargo, mined commodities, exploration data, mission cargo.

Yeah speaking as an explorer who has lost a lot of cartographic data due to being killed. I just want to point out the hypocrisy of this principle. While we loose all this "data" we somehow manage to keep all of our synthesis materials.

We are actually playing in a sci-fi game here. In almost all forms of space science fiction there is some form of encrypted "sub space" communication. This game takes place in 33xx. It's 2017 right now and I can back up almost anything to the "cloud". In a thousand years what would we be able to do. It is ENTIRELY logical to think that this data could be encrypted and sent via sub space communication and backed up remotely.

It is NOT logical to assume that when your ship is exploded in space that you do not loose ALL physical materials on board as well as physical cargo.

So your "principle" here is illogical in real world sence and really is just a case of, "game mechanics because..."

Yet as an explorer in the game I suffer from it because others have exploited it in the past. And rather address the issue which was the player(s) who abused it, they punish me. There is a difference between suffering a consequence for an action and the actions of others.

The reason (I have heard) that explorers loose cartography data is people would fly out long ways...collecting as they go... and just self destruct and then sell the data back after buy in.

 

[MBaldelli]

We are actually playing in a sci-fi game here. In almost all forms of space science fiction there is some form of encrypted "sub space" communication. This game takes place in 33xx. It's 2017 right now and I can back up almost anything to the "cloud". In a thousand years what would we be able to do. It is ENTIRELY logical to think that this data could be encrypted and sent via sub space communication and backed up remotely.

I remember this coming up from another player that made the suggestion of setting up satellites in unexplored systems for a routine source of income. One of his suggestions was to send all his exploration data back to the Bubble for payout. There are two problems with this.

1. Who are we sending the data to? As it currently stands within the game we get reputation standing from the local/controlling faction of the station we're handing that cartographic information to. We currently can't choose a home system and therefore this would also need to be coded in. Not too bad a problem, but this can open the path to exploitation if it's set as a variable for each transmission.

2. There's devils in the details. In a hard sci-fi setting, what data we're getting from our view screens is considered digestible for human consumption. How much of that information is considered raw data? I've had some experience with some scans performed on hardware and let me tell you what you're seeing is the tip of the iceberg. How much of this data isn't seen? Gigabytes? Terabytes? Petabytes? More? And finally,

3. There's no escaping RNG. We'll be transmitting this information hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of light years. We assume it would be 100% guaranteed transmission -- but there's no escaping RNG in this case as you would have to be transmitting information in a straight line. Stars, Black Holes, Neutrons exist in the game. Failing a 100% transmission, how much are you willing to lose based on a bad transmission? I just returned from the Deep Black, earning 137+ million credits for my data turn in. Are you willing to lose 30 million of that? Half of it based on a bad transmission? Losing First Discovered by Credit? More?

I guarantee I will fight this with my last breath.

It is NOT logical to assume that when your ship is exploded in space that you do not loose ALL physical materials on board as well as physical cargo.

But it is logical to lose it on crappy RNG rolls with the Engineers? (I know this is going to be addressed, but this is 2017, not 2018). At the moment, you hope for a god roll, but you're not guaranteed to actually get one.

The reason (I have heard) that explorers loose cartography data is people would fly out long ways...collecting as they go... and just self destruct and then sell the data back after buy in.

Yep.. that's a reason. Exploitation. I would fight this too if it were circumvented.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

It cost me 140k credits to replace my Cobra MKIII

There is, basically, the problem.

A Combat Zone is the toughest combat area in the game (excluding Thargoids and PvP) - it is, after all, a war between two military-backed forces.

You are flying a ship hull which is neither a high-end general hull, nor a combat-specialised hull, and either way is pretty much entry-level when compared with most ships in the game. (It's not impossible to do a CZ in a Cobra III, but it's definitely in the "advanced challenge" category)

Dying and losing your bonds repeatedly is the game's way of telling you not to do that: go to a less dangerous combat area for now until you're more experienced and in a better ship.

 

[additional001]

I remember this coming up from another player that made the suggestion of setting up satellites in unexplored systems for a routine source of income. One of his suggestions was to send all his exploration data back to the Bubble for payout. There are two problems with this.

Yeah... No not suggesting anything like that at all.

1. Who are we sending the data to? As it currently stands within the game we get reputation standing from the local/controlling faction of the station we're handing that cartographic information to. We currently can't choose a home system and therefore this would also need to be coded in. Not too bad a problem, but this can open the path to exploitation if it's set as a variable for each transmission.

Of course it would have to be coded in... any new feature would have to be.. that's why this is a FEATURE REQUEST board... to fill in areas players feel are lacking or want to see improved. As such it would be easy enough to code in a data storage system similar to the module storage system. The data would obviously be sent to the nearest station/settlement/hub etc from your position from where you issue a manual request back up preferably from the functions tab on your on board computer. It makes no different to whom the end point's loyalties lie. This is negated by the fact the data is encrypted. Well not really but for immersion and story mode. Realistically it would just show up at the nearest station and be available to transfer (via a timer and credit game mechanic ) to wherever you want to sell it just like modules are in OUTFITTING.

2. There's devils in the details. In a hard sci-fi setting, what data we're getting from our view screens is considered digestible for human consumption. How much of that information is considered raw data? I've had some experience with some scans performed on hardware and let me tell you what you're seeing is the tip of the iceberg. How much of this data isn't seen? Gigabytes? Terabytes? Petabytes? More? And finally,

Dude what are you rambling on about. This has nothing to do with implementing a game mechanic to address the OP or my suggestion. Even in sci-fi you don't hear this. It's like if Picard was to say... send this data via sub space transmission to Starfleet Command and Data saying captain are you sure... you know that's going to take awhile to send this 3 petabytes worth of data. The only time something like this is mentioned in any sci-fi is if it plays into we are short on time scenario.

3. There's no escaping RNG. We'll be transmitting this information hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of light years. We assume it would be 100% guaranteed transmission -- but there's no escaping RNG in this case as you would have to be transmitting information in a straight line. Stars, Black Holes, Neutrons exist in the game. Failing a 100% transmission, how much are you willing to lose based on a bad transmission? I just returned from the Deep Black, earning 137+ million credits for my data turn in. Are you willing to lose 30 million of that? Half of it based on a bad transmission? Losing First Discovered by Credit? More?

I guarantee I will fight this with my last breath.

Ok I like this idea... nothing wrong with adding in the "some data gets corrupted" bit. Adds realism... I like it... sure. As it stands though... I can loose EVERYTHING in the blink of an eye by being in the wrong place at the wrong time. So would I like the option to loose some data verses all. You bet I'd take that chance! See I don't just long distance explore I mine too! Which means I have NPCs constantly dropping in on me... and always after my cargo. My data and cargo are CONSTANTLY at risk... so hell ya I would take the risk. You don't have to... it would open up an OPTION to others. Nobody's forcing you to use it.

But it is logical to lose it on crappy RNG rolls with the Engineers? (I know this is going to be addressed, but this is 2017, not 2018). At the moment, you hope for a god roll, but you're not guaranteed to actually get one.

Not valid for anything about this discussion. Completely different subject. One I hear they are addressing in the BEYOND release.

Yep.. that's a reason. Exploitation. I would fight this too if it were circumvented.

Not sure I get what you are talking about here. If players are exploiting something Frontier doesn't like then the PLAYERS doing it need to be punished... NOT by implementing game mechanics that restrict everyone's options. It's LAZY game design to do so.

Also you failed to address the fact of why are you allowed to KEEP physical things for synthesis but not data? As far as I'm concerned it's still "Game mechanics because..."