Legit. Did it between my own accounts.
Can't have player to player commodity trade, how about p2p material trade?
- Thread starter Chaparral
- Start date
Have to agree. People do pay real money for in game assets in other games.
Err hadn't thought of that one. But you have to be at same location and have enough skill to scoop the cargo before the timer runs out. Makes it a bit more difficult at least.
What part is nonsense exactly?
If you can pay someone offline to dump materials to you, then you don't have to grind for materials. Feasibly then you never need to use an SRV. You'd still need to unlock the engineers, but after that you can just buy all your upgrade materials. Would it be a big problem? Probably not. If materials could be bought in bulk at the Frontier store, would you or anyone else here buy some? Perhaps, especially the G4 elements and G5 manufactured and encoded mats.
You go get a stock FdL and fight someone in an engineered one. All else being equal, tell me the engineering didn't make the difference. If you can do that, you'll have a point. You don't think guardian modules can assist you against thargoids? Guardian modules require mats. How about engineered shields, hulls, PDs, PPs, drives and utilities? None of that helps eh?
Maybe I am wrong. Maybe engineering is just cosmetic.
Collection limpets
So I know Elite isn't other mmos, but other mmos have Guild (Squadron) banks where members of the same guild deposit mats in a collective pot. Players within the guild draw on the guild bank mats for personal use. In addition, the mats may be used for the purchase of large guild hall assets (Fleet carrier). In the absence of p2p, squadron trading should be a thing. Is it exploitable? Given the limitation of squadron membership to one squadron - it would probably be less exploitable than other mmos where multiple guild memberships are possible.
Yeah and all those games that give them everything now are sitting idle in their Steam libraries while they are playing ED because it didn't give them everything now.
I think it signifies more that credits aren't the apex capital any longer, that materials are now more desirable than credits. You can buy A rated modules for the best ships and still have something you wouldn't trust to fly between stations.There's no real money involved in this anyway, so it's a moot point. If people want to buy gold now, it's easier than ever and has nothing to do with a materials trader, thanks to core mining. You can exchange 200m+ of void opals in a single transaction now. This alone shows that FD is prepare to offer better gameplay despite increased risk of exploitation, and I for one applaud them for that. Now, let's have some proper p2p game systems.
If you truly believe that then I submit that you are totally out of touch with the current nature of human beings in today's world. I can't speak for any culture but the one in the USA so I'll limit it to that. In the USA it is all about "instant gratification" and I am not talking just games. In the last 20 years or so it has become ingrained into our culture. Later, no. NOW! Yes.
I wonder about Europe - the other half of western civ being the same. I don't wonder much though - I imagine they're just the same as us.
So. No. Those steam libraries aren't sitting idle because the "...games that give players everything now" (nice try - I can't think of a single game that gives away everything NOW and I've got over 200 games in my steam library). The games sitting idle are the ones that force people to endure the mind numbing boredom of a grind in order to achieve any kind or even a kind of success.
Last edited:
If X is already happening and we don't care, and Y is a less significant variation of X, then it's kind of silly to wring hands about the possibility of Y. If we're not already fighting hard to prevent X then we don't have much of a leg to stand on freaking out about Y.
If you think that Y is significantly more important than X, it's a different story. But if that's the case you could explain why rather than calling the argument a straw man.
If your whole house is flooded you shouldn't be fixated on whether or not people will be using coasters when they set their drinks down.
Do you know that the paranoia is curable? Anyway, my current gameplay is killing thargoids. I can clear an AXCZ alone, but if the AXZC spawns a Medusa or two, I have to rearm the gauss cannons which requires a lot of materials including guardian ones. I’m burning a lot of heatsinks and occasionally flak rearms. And there are player groups that can’t fight the thargoids but their home systems are in incursion. Do you see an opportunity for meaningful player to player interaction/cooperation? Can you make a difference between the end game content and basic grind?
If my house if flooded, it's still okay for you to be concerned about whether people use coasters in your house.
What is success though?
The difference is one would be sanctioned by FD and the other is not. It's like saying "the school is selling drugs to kids now" and the response being "so, you can buy drugs on any corner or find them at most high school parties".
The second illegal issue doesn't negate the first of having it sanctioned.
I hadn't even considered this aspect of the game. Given the broken and tedious mat generating mechanics, I am starting to see that a global / p2p / Squadron mat economy may be necessary for game functionality.
The house in this analogy would be Elite Dangerous which we all share, so I don't think your rejoinder makes sense in this case. But the analogy is less important than the rest of my post which you could have responded to instead.
You're coming at this from the perspective that in-game trading is inherently bad in and of itself, then, which is not a perspective I share. I'm engaging with this topic on the basis that we all agree that there are valid and beneficial use cases for player to player trading but that we might not agree on the severity and significance of the downsides.
If there is a benefit to allowing trading, and we are ALREADY paying the cost in the form of account sales (and I guess commodity trading), it doesn't make sense to argue against it unless you can demonstrate that there is going to be some additional cost which outweighs the benefit. It really doesn't matter whether something is sanctioned or not: if it's good we should encourage it, if it's bad we should try to reduce it, and if it's a mix of both we should weigh the pros and cons, and then decide whether we are willing to accept the cost or can tip the balance to be more favorable.
To massage your analogy a little: It would be like repealing prohibition on the basis that buying and selling alcohol isn't bad to begin with, and everyone's already doing it anyway whether it's legal or not.
But you haven't solved any of the many issues player to player trading causes, that is detrimental to the game itself. You can keep on brining up specific cases where everything is fine, and trading make sense, but that is just hiding the ugly things...
How will you deal with gold sellers?
The new incentive for bots in the game to collect material?
The new influx of accounts that is bought with stolen credit cards?
Spam in chat? ban the account? oh yea, that account bought with a stolen credit card....
This is stuff you can go to just about any other MMO game out there and watch, if they allow player to player trade.... So this will create more strain on the server infrastructure, it will cause more support cases, as more people will report the spam bots in chat. Not many bots collecting material will be reported, as these will most likely run in solo only. Then we have the entire mess with accounts bought with stolen credit cards, more resources diverted back to manage that mess.
Just so that a few case where tradiong makes perfect sense to be available. And this is not a new thing, and we are still waiting for a good design to manage all those negatives... and what have they came up with? auction houses, where you are not able to trade directly player-player, and we all know that auction houses have their own fair share of issues.
One the biggest issues that these brings is huge inflation, into a game mechanics that does not have an inflation. Once again, bots are going to be deployed to spot all the valuable stuff sold for cheap, and then put out again for much higher price.
...solution to this is fixed prices, auction house have set max limit on how much you can charge, and if the limit is set to low, very few will sell this, setting it to high, there will be ALOT of complaints from players that do not have the fund to buy the stuff they need.
So I do not care how useful player-player trading can be in certain situations, all of the rest of the negative stuff is going to ruin this so we are better of without player-player trading.
Well personally I'd be good with materials being ejectable and scoopable just like commodities, rather than traded through some in-game market. I feel like this is ought to be enough of a limiter on the type of scammery that is likely to negatively impact players the most, while still providing as much of a benefit as anyone could ask for.
But I do have to ask: why don't we see constant chat Spam in the game right now? Why aren't there account sellers constantly advertising in-game? Why aren't there constant enticements to buy Void Opals, or wing mission credit shares, or whatever? And what's so different about materials trading that it would suddenly create some kind of nightmare scenario which drags the game so far into the toilet that it negates all the benefits of letting players freely exchange with one another?
Really?
That's pretty disengenuous of you. I am sorely tempted to advise you to go look disengenuous up if you don't know what it means but then - this one is fairly sure you do - know what it means that is.
Nice try though...