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

[MBaldelli]

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.

You forget that this is an open suggestion board, allowing other players to chime in either agreeing or disagreeing with the suggestion. Sometimes these ideas are good and people will give it a resounding agreement. Or they won't and you might end up with a disagreeable debate on your hands. Keep that in mind when you bounce ideas around here. Because if you get enough "no" from the player base, the developers will be swayed to avoid it based on the noise levels against it.

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.

You mean like a probe instead? See the bit in suggestions today regarding black box information. This could easily be exploited. Not to mention intercepted.

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.

While it's true that we're dealing with some "magical" technology we don't always have the luxury in this game to take advantage of the science fantasy of Star Trek. Think Asimov, Clarke, Gentry, McDevitt (to name a few authors off the top of my head) when it comes to the approach to science-fiction in this game. While FDev has taken advantage of some of the loopholes within the Hard Sci-Fi genre (like Hyperspace/Witchspace), we're still taking how much time -- real time -- to get from Sol to Colonia even using the Neutron Highway (AKA Hurt Highway).

Not to mention just how much pride FDev takes at the painstaking detail of the Milky Way and the sciences currently in the game as it is. Sure we have some really, REALLY wonky science going on (There's a Reddit article that covers it), I believe the problems with those wonky bits are based on the limitations of the game engine more than anything else.

Ok I like this idea... nothing wrong with adding in the "some data gets corrupted" bit. Adds realism... I like it... sure.

I would fight this based exclusively on the reliance of RNG at the present time for this game. This should be a game of strategy and planning, not on silly RNG in order to make any game 'feel alive' (and for the record, I just threw up a little in my mouth having to type that). When the RNG is cut down something more reliable, then and only then will I back the thought of transmitting this information, but until then?

Nope, I'm sorry. We have three methods of playing this game that affects the sandbox we call the "Milky Way". Solo, Private Group and Open. If you want to ensure you arrive alive without ganking/griefing for that millions of credits of exploration data? Go Private Group/Solo.

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

Part of this actually does have to do with the OP's comments although it's getting mixed into something unrelated. It's called player responsibility. If the game is beating you at doing something. You're doing something wrong. If you aren't and getting killed by Player Commanders? Perhaps you need to move to Private or Solo so you can work out the problem. Is it a griefer or is it PEBCAK?

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..."

I didn't in my response, about survey data but I will here. It's an oversight; one that should be addressed. In the same way that mass-lock stops when you're 5 KM from the source of the mass-lock. Be it a Space Station, or a landable planet. Which, based on my understanding of physics makes no sense.

 

[FoxFire Ayderan]

I didn't in my response, about survey data but I will here. It's an oversight; one that should be addressed. In the same way that mass-lock stops when you're 5 KM from the source of the mass-lock. Be it a Space Station, or a landable planet. Which, based on my understanding of physics makes no sense.

So I think we can see where you're coming from then. You want a game that is REALLY hard core. You're probably a fan of Rouge-like rpgs. Permanent death of our Commanders is something maybe you'd consider a fun game mechanic?

Well I agree that losing Materials and physical things would make sense in the game. Losing data (and things like credit / recognition for combat kills) makes less sense and is far too punitive for a GAME in which people are trying to enjoy themselves. In either case these things ought to be preservable. Physical things ought to be storable so you don't need to take them in to battle with you if you'd rather not risk losing them, just as you can in the hardest Space Sim in existence, Eve Online. Data too ought to be storabe and even in a limited degree transferable.

Speaking of Eve Online, it took them a while but CCP eventually came to realize that losing earned progress wasn't a fun game mechanic. And so they eliminated the need to purchase clone upgrades lest you lose days, weeks, months of skill points. The bitter vets hated its removal. Of course they were able to put up with the mechanic and perhaps enjoyed it, and learned to ensure they always had an updated clone. That's why they are vets. However, the ones most likely to forget to upgrade, the newer players, did NOT find this an enjoyable experience and that impacted retention.

An enjoyable video game can be difficult. It can make it difficult to earn rewards and progress. An enjoyable video game doesn't strip progress away from you or refuse to recognize your earlier efforts for some later event happening. At least not in ways that make no sense, are overly punitive, are out of your control, or are chance based. For instance it makes sense to lose rep with a faction for doing things that would cause you to lose rep with them. However, you still earned that rep to begin with and then lost it by taking some definitive action that would cause its loss. It would make no sense for you to complete a mission's requirement and then only got credit or recognition for completing it when you returned to the mission giver BUT only in the event you didn't have your ship blown up along the way. (i.e. Completed missions disappeared if you hadn't turned them in prior to getting blown up).

Elite can be a difficult game (at least difficult to reach Elite) without having contrived ways to stymie your progress, strip progress away from you, or refuse to recognize your efforts for failing some contrived requirement (e.g. You need to return to the station without getting blown up first to get credit for your kills in combat).

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

If you didn't lose bonds on death, there would be no way for rivals to prevent you cashing them in.

Like everything else you lose on death, it's part of the risk.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[FoxFire Ayderan]

If you didn't lose bonds on death, there would be no way for rivals to prevent you cashing them in.

Like everything else you lose on death, it's part of the risk.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

I appreciate all the excuses but nevertheless I say it's rubbish.

Here's an easy way to figure it out. If you did NOT lose your combat bonds (aka reward and recognition for having helped a faction in a war) when your ship blew up, forcing you to leave the battlefield frequently to engage in a lovely SC experience back and forth to station so as to not lose them when you are inevitably blown up (if you're not overpowered and trying to enjoy some challenge*), would ANYone suggest that should happen in game? Unlikely And if anyone did, how much support do you think such an idea would get?

* Not accounting for the idea that you shouldn't join the fray until you can totally dominate and overwhelm the opposition and so have no risk staying on the field as long as your ammo holds out and hull integrity doesn't get too low.

 

[metatheurgist]

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.

There is no hypocrisy here (I'm not even sure that's the right word). You don't lose mats because they have to value other than what you can craft with them. This is why I'm opposed to all the calls to be able to sell them; once you can sell them, they have value and you can justify the calls to lose them on destruction. E:D tries to strike a balance between gameplay and realism, loosing things that have value is one of the gameplay decisions, just like the WW2 flight model. Losing mats is deemed a step too far because there have no value, but if we could sell them....

 

[additional001]

There is no hypocrisy here (I'm not even sure that's the right word). You don't lose mats because they have to value other than what you can craft with them. This is why I'm opposed to all the calls to be able to sell them; once you can sell them, they have value and you can justify the calls to lose them on destruction. E:D tries to strike a balance between gameplay and realism, loosing things that have value is one of the gameplay decisions, just like the WW2 flight model. Losing mats is deemed a step too far because there have no value, but if we could sell them....

I think what you mean is they have no credit value. However to simply say they do not have value is incorrect. They most certainly have value to a CMDR who needs/wants to synthesize stuff. I have no desire to want to sell them. I do think it would be nice to be able to trade them with other CMDRs... but its not something I would bother to rally support behind to get it implemented.

I do get the balance of game play and realism. That's part of my point. It is entirely realistic enough and justified in any space sci-fi fiction to see it as possible to back up data in space (ie: encryption and sub space transmissions). There simply isn't a game mechanic in place to do it; but there should be.

From what I heard you used to keep the data after a death & re-buy. The reason I heard for stopping this was people were abusing it by flying out far and self destructing and then selling the data. If this is true Frontier removed an option and placed a penalty on all players for the deeds of a few bad apples. My point is punish the abusers not the whole player base and add depth back to the game by using science fiction and a reasonable mechanic for the data that won't be exploited.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

I appreciate all the excuses but nevertheless I say it's rubbish.

Here's an easy way to figure it out. If you did NOT lose your combat bonds (aka reward and recognition for having helped a faction in a war) when your ship blew up, forcing you to leave the battlefield frequently to engage in a lovely SC experience back and forth to station so as to not lose them when you are inevitably blown up (if you're not overpowered and trying to enjoy some challenge*), would ANYone suggest that should happen in game? Unlikely And if anyone did, how much support do you think such an idea would get?

* Not accounting for the idea that you shouldn't join the fray until you can totally dominate and overwhelm the opposition and so have no risk staying on the field as long as your ammo holds out and hull integrity doesn't get too low.

Death is supposed to be a setback in ED.

Combat bonds are one of the easiest "lost on death" items to recover, along with bounty vouchers.

If anyone has it bad, it's explorers.
They can lose all their exploration data, first discoveries and tens of thousands of light-years of travel in 1 mistake. That's weeks, months, sometimes even years of gameplay, gone. Forever.

Miners have it second worst. They lose all their hard earned ores.

Combat pilots have it easy. I don't own an Uber OP death machine, but I haven't been killed in PvE in a long time. Not including being silly in purpose, or the Thargoids. Escape is usually always an option, even in a smaller ship.

Only traders have it easier. They just rebuy their ship, then buy their cargo, and carry on. Lol

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[Ian Doncaster]

From what I heard you used to keep the data after a death & re-buy.

This was never the case.

Explorers *have* gained some additional safety for their data since the beginning, though:
- the circumstances in which an NPC will interdict a returning explorer are significantly reduced.
- engineering allows an exploration ship to be much tougher for the same jump range
- within ~10kLY of Sol, plus the route to Colonia, there are regular deep-space stations which can be used to sell accumulated data and minimise the amount being risked at once.



Back in 1.0 it was mostly pretty consistent: if you died, you paid your rebuy and your ship ended up in the state it was in when you last docked. Provided that you always cashed things in immediately on docking, it was basically "you die; restore your last save at the previous station".

The one exception was that combat rank is granted immediately on kills, so if you got a kill, then died, you kept the rank increase.

In 2.0 materials got added, and in 2.1 data as well. These are treated like currency, so go straight into your account when you get them. (They *are* mostly currency since 2.1, but the in-game description means that they don't get treated that way ... and the synthesis use of them isn't currency-like)

Even then you've got the inconsistency that you can dock - and therefore have the opportunity to offload data - but if you don't, you don't get it back should you die later before you dock again and sell it.



A consistent way to manage the whole thing would be:
- Stations have credit, data and material storage.
- Combat bonds, exploration data, and data materials all count as data.
- Cargo and non-data materials all count as materials.
- Your credit balance is always accessible wherever you are.
- Your data is always accessible when docked at a station, and automatically stored from your ship to the station when you dock. (There is no need to move data from station to ship, as all uses of it are at a dock, and it can be transferred instantly between docks)
- Your materials have to be carried with you. You choose how much to load on your ship when you undock for synthesis purposes. Micro-materials automatically transfer between docks for you (for convenience) on the same ship your non-active crew use. (Cargo storage, if it exists at all, does not)
- Any materials or data onboard your ship when it is destroyed are lost.
- Combat rank gains count as data and only finalise if you dock, even if they weren't associated with a visible bond. Similarly for exploration rank gains resulting from finding materials or driving SRVs.

However, that's a lot of extra work, storage and interfaces to implement ... and doesn't in practice change very much from the current situation. It's probably not worth it just to bring the game effects into line with a consistent in-game explanation.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I appreciate all the excuses but nevertheless I say it's rubbish.

Here's an easy way to figure it out. If you did NOT lose your combat bonds (aka reward and recognition for having helped a faction in a war) when your ship blew up, forcing you to leave the battlefield frequently to engage in a lovely SC experience back and forth to station so as to not lose them when you are inevitably blown up (if you're not overpowered and trying to enjoy some challenge*), would ANYone suggest that should happen in game? Unlikely And if anyone did, how much support do you think such an idea would get?

* Not accounting for the idea that you shouldn't join the fray until you can totally dominate and overwhelm the opposition and so have no risk staying on the field as long as your ammo holds out and hull integrity doesn't get too low.

It's not an excuse. It's the reason why it isn't rubbish. You find it rubbish, most seem to prefer the risk. It's the risk that makes it fun otherwise it becomes boring.

Take away the risk, then I will say it's rubbish. But there are inconsistant issues within the game though which could do with being looked at.

 

[MBaldelli]

So I think we can see where you're coming from then. You want a game that is REALLY hard core. You're probably a fan of Rouge-like rpgs. Permanent death of our Commanders is something maybe you'd consider a fun game mechanic?

I've thought about doing the Iron-Man Challenge for this game, but unfortunately I'm really not good enough for Combat to pull it off. While I admire it of others, I'm not one that thinks it should be applied to the game. I want it hard core yes... But Hard-core Science-Fiction involving strategy and planning. Not RNG and YOLO.

Because something else that strikes me odd is how lackadaisical FDev can be about what they consider and don't consider "cut throat". For example, they turn a blind eye to Griefing and Ganking from other players because they allow Solo and Private play that shares the same sandbox as Open, but they don't allow commanders to amass products to affect a system's stability (you can only do so by playing, not amassing in a bank vault). I used to keep a list of this, but it was too much work and the more I was looking at it, the more annoyed I was getting with the tattered reasoning/logic of this game because I have the habit of most writers of seeing the whole picture; not whatever I focus on with blinders over my eyes.

Well I agree that losing Materials and physical things would make sense in the game. Losing data (and things like credit / recognition for combat kills) makes less sense and is far too punitive for a GAME in which people are trying to enjoy themselves. In either case these things ought to be preservable. Physical things ought to be storable so you don't need to take them in to battle with you if you'd rather not risk losing them, just as you can in the hardest Space Sim in existence, Eve Online. Data too ought to be storabe and even in a limited degree transferable.

If though bad decision making and human mistakes means that you're going to lose Combat Pay as the OP was complaining about, then anything that was acquired through cargo scooping the remains of the battle field should also be considered fair game for loss through bad decision making. However, as I pointed out above (the solutions for Ganking/Griefing), you crash your ship because you're flying tired -- then you are responsible for that as well.

Take your losses, brush yourself off and play more cautiously.

Elite can be a difficult game (at least difficult to reach Elite) without having contrived ways to stymie your progress, strip progress away from you, or refuse to recognize your efforts for failing some contrived requirement (e.g. You need to return to the station without getting blown up first to get credit for your kills in combat).

You have to remember, each developer is trying to incorporate challenge and fun in their own unique way. And do so based on the genre that they chose to create the game in. We've gotten used to games following specific patterns between challenging and fun based on a formula that the higher you get in levels the more challenging the targets and the higher the payouts.

Elite: Dangerous doesn't have that... And it's frustrating the habits gamers have gotten used to.

So, with what I've said let me add one more thing... @Ian Doncaster said, "...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..." Which is why I prefer playing this game in its current state.. Because it allows me to practice a tool -- my brain -- to reason out whether or not I'm ready instead of relying entirely on muscle-memory to get me through a situation.

 

[InlineSix]

Total Rubbish.

I beg to differ. The need for reaching a station in one piece after going to war is one part of the "You want to have influence? You want money? Survive!" mechanic.

Not git-gud but a fact: There is no need to be killed outside a combat zone. Never. Everything that can do a CZ has the capability to survive everything.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

I beg to differ. The need for reaching a station in one piece after going to war is one part of the "You want to have influence? You want money? Survive!" mechanic.

Not git-gud but a fact: There is no need to be killed outside a combat zone. Never. Everything that can do a CZ has the capability to survive everything.

This^^

CZs are one of the most difficult areas in ED, so if you can survive inside a CZ, you can easily survive outside one. With the exception of PvP.

If you can't survive inside an CZ, you're either not equipped to do that task, or are doing it wrong, or both. And no, you don't need an Uber engineered pure combat Corvette to survive.
I've been running around in CZs since I joined in late 2015. Currently I quite enjoy using my moderately engineered PvE Python to fight. It's fast, it's fun, and it's not OP.
I don't even use any armour, or H/MRPs. It's not needed. Just good shields and 450m/s boost.
I even have an SRV on board. And space for 120+t of cargo. Lol
And an advanced discovery scanner.
And a collection limpet controller.
It's in no way designed for prolonged combat. Lol
Had some close calls, but never lost her in combat.
Plenty of times in to a cliff though.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[Chrystoph]

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.

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.

Except that kill counts for missions are not lost when the player dies, so, like many things, such as data that is not lost for RNGneering vs exploration data, it is an inconsistently applied standard.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Except that kill counts for missions are not lost when the player dies, so, like many things, such as data that is not lost for RNGneering vs exploration data, it is an inconsistently applied standard.

True. Although, do missions not tend to have relatively high kill count requirements?

Regarding materials / data for Engineers, if they had been lost on destruction then I'd expect that the reaction to Engineers would have been even worse.

 

[MBaldelli]

Regarding materials / data for Engineers, if they had been lost on destruction then I'd expect that the reaction to Engineers would have been even worse.

Really? I would think more along the lines of no materials == no work for you. Why would they get annoyed? It's not as though we er for their services. You know like how the barter system is supposed to work (and doesn't exist in this game). We either have the materials or the requirements for the invite, or we don't.

 

[FoxFire Ayderan]

I beg to differ. The need for reaching a station in one piece after going to war is one part of the "You want to have influence? You want money? Survive!" mechanic.

Not git-gud but a fact: There is no need to be killed outside a combat zone. Never. Everything that can do a CZ has the capability to survive everything.

Why not?

It ought to be quite reasonably possible to be killed outside a CZ, even for the best, smartest, and most cautious of players. So long as the penalty isn't overly harsh (like losing weeks or months of exploration data, or recognition for your efforts like combat or bounty hunting kills).

But since death is far more likely in CZs, the answer is to block off that area of play until you've completed all your other missions and otherwise emptied your cargo hold, sold your data, cashed your bounties and bonds, so you don't lose them by going in to battle. Unfortunate since as a far flung space monkey you may be passing through a system and simply want to lend a hand to someone's war before carrying on with your journey. Heck you can't even fill your cargo hold module with something more combat related, if there is cargo in it.

Additionally you are forced to consider leaving the battle field (not something to be taken lightly given the process involved) after every kill in order to get credit for that kill, lest you get blown up and lose that and any other Combat Bonds and therefore payment and more importantly in my opinion, reputation and influence for the faction you are fighting and from all we know quite possibly also any progress in the war for that faction against their opposition.

That's just not a good game mechanic. As stated earlier, I'd rather it cost me more to replace my ship and modules than to actually lose a single kill of recognition for my efforts in combat. Again, in particular reputation gain, faction influence gain, and progress in their war. Which I can do if I want to leave the field after every kill. Not fun. I should only need to leave the field for ammunition, repairs, and calls of nature. Or for better game-play implementations like I get an emergency call from a battle commander, I'm told I'm needed at another battle site, a capital ship is under attack, I need to pick up an ammo load to return to a nearby field ammo supply which also needs to be guarded, I need to scoop and rush to safety or the ER escape pods perhaps that of important field commanders, etc..

You can add fun to a game without making it aggravating and frustrating.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

<Snip>
...Additionally you are forced to consider leaving the battle field (not something to be taken lightly given the process involved) after every kill in order to get credit for that kill.....
<Snip>

I don't think I've ever considered leaving the battlefield after every kill. Not even every 10 kills. Not even as a relatively new player back in 2015.
I usually base my decision to leave the area on my ammo count, my hull or module status, or simply because I'm bored of never ending combat.

There's not much of a "process" involved in leaving either;

• Retract Hardpoints
• Charge FSD for low wake
• Boost to escape Mass Inhibit
• Point ship at station, full throttle
• Slow down to 75% throttle at 7 seconds.
• Drop out of SC.
• Dock

If you're dying or leaving after every kill, perhaps CZs are not for you.

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead