Please remove the display of CQC rank from my panel

[NeilF]

Adding CQC to main game wouldn't work and there is no reason to do that.
People wouldn't play it in the main game if it is not vs bots.

I think CQC as is it terms of gameplay is perfect and balanced. It's way more balanced PvP that the main game has, you basically rely on experience and skill. Ships are about the same.
What CQC players want is in-lobby chat/communication and fixing some minor bugs.

So a significant amount of development effort went into creating a stand alone game. And you see this as a positive outcome when only a (vaste) minority of players enjoy it. Meanwhile you see no merit in if that development effort had instead added in actual new mechanics into the core game which far far more players would then have made use of?

Consider for a moment, had the mechanics of CQC basically been implemented into the core game. Now consider if a CG leveraged them for some outcome? What would receive more traffic? Players exiting ED and then launching a stand alone game (as currently). Or instead, choosing to take part in this proposed CG and then holo-me'ing into a figher etc etc.

Now add bots and what do we gain? Now add more varied combat scenarios like escorting a convoy from A to B in an asteroid field, while some fighters are attempting to protect them, and other destroy them... Now add Thargoid scout ships and you doign tours of duty from a capital vessel fighting them...

What CQC is, is a significant development effort into a dead end. Had it instead been more wisely ploughed into some actual progress in the core game, it could still be being used today and leveraged and built upon in more and more interesting ways.

For me CQC is just another example of growing list of odd design choices throwing significant development effort at questionable outcomes.


ps: Remember that lovely capital ship promo-video? Had the CQC development effort been pushed into the core game, then that sort of experience could have been all the more possible now in the form of missions or CGs for example. As it is? That video remains little more than a reminder of the type of gameplay many people kick started the project for, but are still waiting for...

 

[Deleted member 38366]

I'd like to have the Option of kicking it out as well.

The Arcade Rank never belonged there, this place is reserved for the three Pilots Federation Ranks.
But those few that play/like it shall have the Option to keep it displayed just as well.

Easy fix, all problems solved, all flavors served.

 

[babelfisch]

+1!

 

[Kathryn Kando]

+1 For most it just steals room from the right panel that could be used so much better.

Having said that, I'd like CQC to be transferred as part of the main game with installations you can land on and start some gladiator fights from there - as a gamble where you can actually win or loose lots of credits. Spectators should be allowed who can place bets.

 

[Eidolon]

Yep, having the rank display as optional would seem to be the best solution.

Have a rep Falconfly!

 

[PiLhEaD]

.....What CQC is, is a significant development effort into a dead end.... For me CQC is just another example of growing list of odd design choices throwing significant development effort at questionable outcomes......

Seconded, with some regret. I have a similar concern for the upcoming trailed 'chums' function.... or whatever their next multiplayer experiment is called... err I meant 'squadrons'.

My suspicion is that they felt stung by the early criticism that ED wasn't a 'proper MMO', and they have been trying to address this since, whilst from the uptake of e.g. multicrew, the player base broadly seems ambivalent. It's like FDEV have forgotten that Elite (by necessity) has always been at heart a single Commander in a ship experience,.

I feel churlish for criticisising them for trying, so here's an idea. Set up a number of SRV racing tracks and implement daily, weekly, monthly and all time leaderboards. Then replace the CQC rank with a 'hooning about' rank.

 

[NeilF]

Seconded, with some regret. I have a similar concern for the upcoming trailed 'chums' function.... or whatever their next multiplayer experiment is called... err I meant 'squadrons'.

Squadrons - Indeed, if for example carriers are simply mobile docking platforms with no attempt to actually use them to really add to mechanics, then I think half the planet will hear me groaning.

Ages ago, I suggested some basic mining improvements, including stateful hot spots (Christ I hope quarter 4 sees this added!). On hearing about carriers there seems to be at least a way of utilising them to at least make a claim on such a location, and then also possibly actually utilise them at least as a means to store mined materials, and possibly even us then to sell them to traders. ie: Actually use carriers to add and bind and elevate different gameplay elements - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...eful-resource-hot-spots?p=6054187#post6054187

So a group of players can find a rich spot of platinum in a ring, and mine it till it's gone (forever). While doing this they could store the mined platium on their carrier, and either transport if from there to stations themselves, or put it up for sale, and NPCs and other CMDRs could come along and buy it and sell it back at stations.


So yes, if carriers end up as little more than mobile refuelling ships, that would seem a real shame. But not surprising I guess given the past couple of years ethos

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Take a post-it and patch it over the cqc rank display. #urwelcome

 

[Frank]

Haha.. there should be one.. I mined 500 tones purely to unlock Engineers... before that my mining was.. 0
Imagine forum discussion about best mining builds to grind mining Elite rank lol

It is accessible... Main menu and click 'ARENA' for god's sake lol

Frontier gave people a reason to try mining. Maybe they could find some way of writing a mission that requires pilots to shoot a number of opponents within Arena? Of course the timescale for such missions should be generous, and no penalty if you're unable to complete the mission because there was nobody to play against.

 

[vegemite]

yes

 

[Ian Doncaster]

So a significant amount of development effort went into creating a stand alone game. And you see this as a positive outcome when only a (vaste) minority of players enjoy it. Meanwhile you see no merit in if that development effort had instead added in actual new mechanics into the core game which far far more players would then have made use of?

Except the structures and the fighters have since appeared in the main game. So it's not like it hasn't had side benefits there. Quite possibly the work needed to reliably instance 8 people for a match helped main game instancing ... it's always hard to see where that sort of cross-benefit comes in.

And you see this as a positive outcome when only a (vaste) minority of players enjoy it.

You could say that about so many features, though - how many people went to the Thargoid CGs? A few hundred? Clearly that's all been a waste of their time developing when they could have been adding ... something else?

CGs, in the early days, had a few hundred participants - maybe a few thousand for a popular one. There's an early terraforming CG with 88 (eighty-eight) participants total ... it still passed, clearly they weren't expecting it to be popular. The Hutton Mug CG got a couple of thousand despite widespread community support. The Bast CG - that famous last-chance effort to save the galaxy - had just 765 participants. (And these numbers are inflated because back then you counted as a participant on signup, not on contribution)

Those aren't big numbers - the unofficial CQC discord server, for comparison, has just over 2,000 members - did Frontier respond to that by scrapping CGs or regretting having ever thought of the idea? No - they made them easier to find on the galaxy map and mission boards, they encouraged player groups to submit their own and raise the stakes, they developed new types of CGs and other enhancements to the feature, they introduced more CGs with a definite visible result beyond the money, and so on. As a result - despite people's continued (and justifiable!) criticism of the weaknesses in the CG mechanic, they're nevertheless more popular than they've ever been.
(Sure, there are more players around now than there used to be. But 10,000+ contributing to a CG every week? That wouldn't have happened if they hadn't kept developing and enhancing the feature)

 

[NeilF]

Frontier gave people a reason to try mining. Maybe they could find some way of writing a mission that requires pilots to shoot a number of opponents within Arena? Of course the timescale for such missions should be generous, and no penalty if you're unable to complete the mission because there was nobody to play against.

Or, had the gameplay been put in the core game, there could be missions to do tours of duty for example 20mins protecting a platform from enemy fighters.

 

[Heater]

Maybe just Maybe FD will finally listen and remove it from the main game...
but not holding my breath.

 

[anikaiful]

Just make the rank visuals (<-- note the plural) optional. For me CQC ranking is about as (ir)relevant as a traffic report of some random foreign city. Played it's beta back in the day - haven't touched ever since.

 

[Para Handy]

Except the structures and the fighters have since appeared in the main game. .............

The fighters characteristics and weapons are different though. The structures are just eye-candy, very little point to them apart from a couple with "scannable" Data Points.

 

[Vindris]

Yep, having the rank display as optional would seem to be the best solution.

Have a rep Falconfly!

That's what I said in the first post. Are people not getting that?

 

[Ziljan]

Why would you want to remove the only rank that actually requires player skill to achieve?

Utter nonsense. It's the only rank I'm actually proud of since the other 3 are just participation trophies.

Leave it where it is please.

 

[PiLhEaD]

Why would you want to remove the only rank that actually requires player skill to achieve?..

For me, it's because it is not part of the game in which it is displayed. It's a score from a separate game.

 

[WR3ND]

Why would you want to remove the only rank that actually requires player skill to achieve?

Utter nonsense. It's the only rank I'm actually proud of since the other 3 are just participation trophies.

Leave it where it is please.

See, there is someone. I knew it!

I still don't think it makes much sense in the game in a continuity sort of way, but it is a game after all, and this thread is a couple years too late to the party at least.

 

[Lightspeed]

See, there is someone. I knew it!

I still don't think it makes much sense in the game in a continuity sort of way, but it is a game after all, and this thread is a couple years too late to the party at least.

No, not too late at all .... it's a continuation of a request that has received zero response from FD, despite the avalanche of player support for it.

CQC failed for ... reasons .... players weren't playing it, so FD shoved it in our faces by adding it to the RH panel, thinking ... "that'll show them ... they'll want to play it now" ... hoping to shame us into using the 'game.'

Well players didn't ... and indeed discovered they couldn't even if they wanted to ... and the requests to remove it from the panel continued.

And FD has been completely deaf to this repeated and polite request. Threads like this will continue, I'm afraid, because FD (who claims to listen to the player base) is just not responding to us intelligently on this one at all !