Main problem I see is that gamers would need to do more g uninteresting money grind, to meet new expenses. Been there, done that, do not want to do it ever again. Nowadays I play for other reasons than grinding money.
Fuel and repairs more expensive based on ship type, engineering / manufacturer + other ideas
- Thread starter Rubbernuke
- Start date
![[VR] M4st0d0n](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/182/182772.jpg?1569064854){kind=avatar}
Why not get a part of the galaxy like that. Some kind of outpost where people would soft reset their progression in a few fine tuned system economies.
Oh wait, let's just grind colonia engineers instead.
Oh wait, let's just grind colonia engineers instead.
and 
Listens to the suggestion.
I was thinking about this kind of thing a day ago. How awesome if ship parts were grouped into brands with specialties across a spectrum of grades, with the tiniest amount of random values. Finding a one-of-a-kind module to then take to the engineer shop to tweak into something 100% unique.
Rubbernuke's suggestion might be a bit too involved but at least let's get the ship rarity to affect repair costs. As it is, an anaconda is as costly to repair as a Cutter, which for comparison would be like a Ford F150 from the early 2000's costing the same to repair as a 2018 Ferrari.
Yes, and what I'm pointing out is you'd be increasing the severity of the inconvenience without really changing the "click to heal" part of it. "Thinking about the effects of durability" SOUNDS nice, but I don't think it really equates to a deep or compelling choice. Do you find yourself packing tons of lightweight gear into combat builds as it stands?
I fully understand WHY you are proposing these changes and what you expect them to accomplish. What I am offering you is an outside PLAYER perspective: I can't buy into an immersion concept that increases the inconvenience I face when immersion stays as fragile as it is elsewhere. Fix all the outstanding immersion problems and I'm on-board. Otherwise, these changes are simply not worth it and I'd rather see wear-and-tear scrapped entirely.
Except how different are these ships, really? They all use universally-compatible modules for major subsystems - the same powerplants, the same thrusters, the same sensors, the same weapons. And if I am a famed supporter of the Empire, is it really so implausible that Imperial officials would overlook me flying a commandeered Federation ship? Except for a few outliers, most ships in the game are already "valid" choices, so all you're really addressing with this is the fluff/lore.
That's great for players who are already invested in the fluff/lore, but nothing more than an extra annoyance to anyone who isn't.
I meant players would be soft-locked out of star systems, not the BGS "system." I understand that you're changing the impact of the BGS rather than players' ability to control it.
What I'm saying is that the greater impact would simply funnel me into different subsets of star systems as it changes without really offering me anything in return. You're not really changing how generic any of those systems are; just painting them in higher-contrast colors.
Once again, great for players who are already invested in the fluff/lore but mostly just annoying for anyone else.
"deep or compelling choice"
Unless FD radically change things this will never happen. What I suggest is a small realistic change within what we have now to better link ship type/ repairs to support, with that being modified by repair cost and frequency.
Meta builds most often have lightweight life support, sensors, OC powerplants, dirty drives etc- i.e. engineering that puts strain on a ship. The problem is everyone just goes G5 and there is no factor that makes a more balanced approach be more useful overall- for example, for some G3 OC / lightweight might be the sweet spot of benefit and cost, while for true hot rod builds G5 is great but is very high maintenance. Its a bit like cars: F1 cars are G5 engineering- fastest and lightest, but not designed to drive for long everyday periods like production road cars do.
You'd then have these extra factors:
Generic T ships are robust and don't need much maintenance (and repairs are very cheap).
A new way to differentiate between types like the Asp Scout/ DBS/Cobra
Zorgon P ships are high maintenance sports cars (as they should be)
Imp / Fed / Alliance ships become less welcome in opposing spaces
Combat builds have to be well maintained, long range exploration comes at a cost
Black markets allow short cuts to owning advanced items, but can only be fixed in black market stations and are not durable. Hard Law powers (like ALD, Antal) would see less of these places, while cartel / pirate Archon would see them all over- in short is logical and provides a unifying context thats consistent across faction, ship choice and Powerplay.
So unless one part is fixed you can't fix another first? You have to start somewhere and this is as good as any place to start.
The units may be universal, but the ships they fit in are not. This is a lore reason, but that lore has sat and done nothing making all choices possible to the point of making other choices pointless. There should be an advantage to flying a common ship over one from a superpower at times. There are some but not many.
"And if I am a famed supporter of the Empire, is it really so implausible that Imperial officials would overlook me flying a commandeered Federation ship?"
Its very rare that Imperials fly Federation ships. It would not be impossible (none of my ideas prevent that) but it makes owning and running them more exotic and through ownership ingrain that Fed / Alliance / Imp division more. Again lore- but without investing in that you are decoupling parts of the game that should be flowing together.
But without background reasons whats the point? You are reducing everything down to very simplistic levels where nothing really matters and differences are minimal. Thats a tremendous waste when you have a backdrop with competing superpowers, powers, factions, groups and individuals all with allegiances and views as well as ships from a multitude of places. Everything in game should be within that context and not outside of it. And, by navigating through these minor differences you then get exposed to the higher parts of the game like the BGS, powers etc and see what your choices have been guided by.
You won't be locked out of anything. None of my ideas outside of becoming hostile to a superpower prevent you docking and getting repairs. Its just that you'd be viewed with suspicion (more scans, tricky for smuggling), greeted coldly, repairs would be more expensive. Making ED more diverse cannot be achieved with 'one big idea'- its lots of little touches and complications together that will.
Its introducing more subtle tribal separation that reflects the lore of the game better. Again its not going to cure it, but its one feature that added with many more that would give depth.
And without lore you have a bland and robotic game with no context for anything- essentially what we have now. If annoyance is having to think about your choices a little more thats sad really, since so many complaints stem from how little our choices matter.
I think most of this suggestion is too complex. Simply restoring the old (early-2015) repair and fuel costs would achieve most of the desired effect.
Some of the other ideas are appealing, but again, overly complex or just far fetched...not that any sort of thing that could be interpreted as a nerf or difficulty increase isn't far fetched from Frontier.
I never played to grind money, but money being an actual incentive and reward felt right.
Some of the other ideas are appealing, but again, overly complex or just far fetched...not that any sort of thing that could be interpreted as a nerf or difficulty increase isn't far fetched from Frontier.
I never played to grind money, but money being an actual incentive and reward felt right.
Dress it up all you like, this is literally just adding inconvenience for immersion's sake. If we can't expect to have this COUNT for something, I can't say that I find that concept particularly appealing.
Just scrap wear-and-tear (advanced maintenance repair), nerf OP profits a bit, and call it done.
Ok, but...
1. Why is everyone going G5 a problem? The only time I can see this mattering is in a PVP context, which spells trouble for your proposal because...
2. In PVP, players will simply pick whichever ships fill the new meta. You're not going to see someone bring a G3 Python up against a G5 FDL just because it requires less upkeep or offers a better cost:benefit ratio if they actually mean to compete. You're gonna see G5 ships face off against G5 ships; just now with even less variation because fewer ships can handle the G5 strain. Which AGAIN is a problem because...
3. The only time longevity/cost-effectiveness will outweigh raw performance is in a PVE context where even mid-range Engineered stats are effectively OP. You are now creating an even bigger performance gap between PVE and PVP builds, when those populations already rarely interact due to the disparity. What is the point of build diversity when players are never exposed to it?
In terms of how players will inevitably interact with it, your proposal is just adding "realism" for realism's sake. And as I said earlier, incomplete realism is effectively worthless.
Again, I understand what you're going for and I'm not questioning how suitably "realistic" your proposal would be. I really like the SPIRIT of your changes. However, I don't think you fully grasp the impact of how they would change the game.
1. You'd see fewer PVP-viable ships.
2. You'd see a bigger divide between PVE and PVP builds, and even less interaction as a result.
3. You'd see players stick to the "guide rails" of your proposal (e.g., fly Imp ships in Imp space, Fed ships in Fed space)... But for WHAT?! Why would I ever go into Fed space in an Imp ship? It's not like I can find significantly different missions or opportunities; I'm just gonna stick to systems where I keep a nice bonus and do the same things I did before.
No, it's a terrible place to start because all you're doing is adding arbitrary irritation (extra click-to heal; YAY) with no real benefit except to RPers. Why would I, as someone who enjoys flying a ship around but isn't really invested in the lore, support something that makes my life harder while offering nothing in return?
I wouldn't. Fix the multitude of other, RELATED problems first (e.g., overpowered earning potential, sloppy spawning mechanics, stilted mission objectives, etc.) FIRST, build a CONSISTENT veneer of realism, and THEN polish it off with something like this. The gameplay benefits reaped from those prior improvements would more than make up for the added inconvenience from higher repair costs, and the CONSISTENCY would help get me more invested in the RP aspect.
WITHOUT those prior changes I'm just going to be annoyed and less eager to play.
You're not getting it. Yes, I KNOW that I could still dock at opposing stations and get repairs. I know that I COULD still venture deep into enemy territory. That's why I said "soft-locked."
However, the fact remains that this is a GAME, so you have to ask how players will actually respond to your changes. WHY would I dock at an opposing station? WHY would I venture deep into enemy territory? Those systems are effectively identical to the ones in allied territory, so WHY would I bother putting myself at risk?
If I am an RPer heavily invested in my "personal narrative," then the answer would be "because it is immersive and fun." But as a NON-RPer more interested in the base mechanics than the story all I get is fewer viable places to travel in X/Y ships. Amazing. Fantastic. JK, have a flat "no, thanks."
Yes, which is precisely why I'm saying you should fix the bland and robotic game FIRST. The lore already exists and is good enough; it's not broken. START by building a game that is solid fun with/without relying on imaginary fluff and ALL players will benefit from it.
For example, Asteroids didn't need detailed lore for people to want to play it. ARMA is a solid military shooter platform even if you completely ignore the trivial backstory. Skyrim is still a fun RPG even if you have no clue what the Oblivion Crisis was or why it mattered.
Lore certainly ENHANCES a game experience, but isn't required for it to be good in the first place.
Whoa there, not so fast.annoyance is NOT caused by needing to put effort into decision-making.
Annoyance is from needing to perform "click-to-heal" more frequently because "reasons" when I take stronger upgrades. Annoyance is dealing with worse ship performance than I had before when I choose to forgo those upgrades due to the increased heal-clicking... while my actual GAMEPLAY is just as bland and inconsequential as it was before. You're not even offering a particularly difficult choice for most players:
PVE? Weaker upgrades are more than good enough; reliability will matter more.
PVP? Peak performance matters more, or your ship won't last long enough to exploit its longevity anyway.
THAT is why I suggested starting with things like some career/mission tweaks and an Engineering rebalance. You NEED a better foundation for your proposal to actually make a non-RP difference. You NEED more superpower gameplay differences for players to bother venturing into unsafe territory. You NEED a more balanced career setup to avoid having players simply do a few mining runs and then ignore upkeep costs for the next 6 months.
I'm not outright rejecting your proposal as nonviable or criticizing its specifics/conceptual intent. I LIKE it. But I would HATE its actual impact on how E
plays without the aforementioned supporting features to back it up. I'm not an RPer. I can see myself getting into that side of things and enjoying your changes, but not before the game stops making it so obvious that it's just a game.Maybe it is for the sake of it- but it is something that should have been there to begin with (and was). If everything acts the same, whats the point? You might as well make it all CQC.
I'll have to agree to disagree making the repair cost profiles of ships (and modules as well) not different. If there is no difference then it blandly homogenizes the game even further, at least from a PvE standpoint. You have wonderfully realised ships that all act like the same box.
I've dealt with this here:
Malfunctions: increase in chance with engineering grade to reduce power creep
Pretty simple really: the higher you go, the higher the chance of failure. Back long ago, ED had more severe malfunctions (rando firing weapons etc) which made life much more interesting when the sparks started flying. These have been toned down but I miss how they would make situations much...
In effect grades are meaningless just as module classes are. You buy them and then thats it- having more advanced things should go hand in hand with intensive (i.e. more expensive) maintenance.
"In PVP, players will simply pick whichever ships fill the new meta."
And what if that meta is in cheaper, more primitive ships that require more skill due to these changes? Is that better than simply going G5 FdL?
You're not going to see someone bring a G3 Python up against a G5 FDL just because it requires less upkeep or offers a better cost:benefit ratio if they actually mean to compete."
If an FdL or Mamba is a playboy machine its got to come with the costs to maintain it- the same for G5 modules (that may or may not work). You fight in them you risk them and pay for the edge they give.
This comes down to how much disparity in cost there is between combat ships, all rounders and specialised merchants.
And why is that bad? In my view at least much of the game has edged towards a state where there are no barriers to anything. Money is too plentiful so we make the things the game revolves around (ships) more complicated to run.
Would you? Any ship can PvP- it comes down to how much you are willing to spend. If it reduces the amount of FdLs and increases 'lower' ships in PvP then thats great.
Again it depends- if combat vessels are more expensive people might be less reckless, or have more action between ships with even capabilities (i.e. rather than combat v trader, you have all rounder v trader or all rounder v all rounder).
You are not having guide rails- you have a mild (and very mild) lore flavour (and solid BGS reasons so far lacking) to mixing superpower ships and superpowers.
You don't have to be invested in the lore to understand how it (factions, superpowers, powers, PMFs etc) shape the places you fly around in. You cannot separate the two in ED- the only palce that does that is CQC.
Why? Because the BGS (the bit that you occupy) is in a certain state with x and y going on. Thats not being invested in RP, thats just knowing how the game works.
You are arguing against having the BGS in this case, and having different ships. I'm not an RP guy- what I want is for the galaxy to react to me and react back, influencing the choices you make with your ship in a continuous cycle. What you describe is reducing that abstraction further and keeping it uniform- reasons are reasons, just because it 'is' in game does not make it an RP reason.
You are mistaken, ED is about that galaxy and your place in it and how you survive and grow. Currently there is tenuous connections between the lore and what we play -my suggestions are the start of making what we fly and do actually fit into the world. You are essentially asking to have things 'because' with no foundation in a game that has a foundation the size of a galaxy- you can still choose to ignore it- for the most part and most ships you'd never notice the difference until you stepped into a superpower ship- and even then you'd need to be in a rival superpowers areas to notice. Part of my suggestion is to fit our ships into that space better, the other is to make owning high end ships actually a challenge rather than an inevitability.
Reasons being more advanced / different ships and complicated modules. Surely fixing a Sidewinder is less demanding than fixing a Clipper? Plus, I haven't actually explored how fast that decay is- decay currently is very slow, even twice as fast its not exactly a 'click fest'. But its something to remmeber because it has knock on effects to the rest of your ship.
And if that loss of integrity is a problem in your play as a consequence of picking overcharged items, then you have to avoid them or mitigate the problem.
With PvE it will depend on what you are doing and what ship you fly doing it. A smuggler will have to either choose a base ship or make ones tailored to where they smuggle.
Not all PvP is 1:1. What about Powerplay PvP? Combined arms BGS / PP attacks that cross faction / superpower / PP lines? That link with G5 malfunctions also fits into this. G5 becomes a liability in rare cases- and since a lot of players moan R5 takes away the skill of fighting, it naturally makes lower tiers more favourable (unless you take that risk).
"You NEED more superpower gameplay differences for players to bother venturing into unsafe territory."
Not like the BGS, missions, Powerplay, PMFs etc? The basics are already there and already provide complex interactions.
"You NEED a more balanced career setup to avoid having players simply do a few mining runs and then ignore upkeep costs for the next 6 months."
How players manage how they do things is up to them. I never go mining because I'm busy killing, leading to a cashflow problem where I have 3 billion in bounties and 400 mil in credits. For me having a ship thats reliable and easy to repair long term makes sense as I cross factions and powers.
I'm not outright rejecting your proposal as nonviable or criticizing its specifics/conceptual intent. I LIKE it. But I would HATE its actual impact on how E
I'm not an RP player either- I just want what I do in game to actually make use of the giant varied backdrop its not using, and make ships actually different beyond what hardpoints they have.
Well those engineering changes would be more realistic. Engineering as far as I understand would be like tuning up your car or motorbike. You could get huge performance bonus over stock system, but you also get huge reduction in working age of engine and constant repair needing issues. More you tune, more problems you get. Though to be really accurate, those very high end custom jobs would also be mated to single specimen, so changing them even for car with same maker and model is not trivial.
- I actually agree that it should have been in from the beginning, but it wasn't. I'm not willing to accept a burden I didn't have before unless it actually serves a meaningful purpose, and by my standards adding variable maintenance costs doesn't really change how a ship "acts." It still flies the same as it did before, and there's not even any difference in how you have to repair it - it's still just clicking a UI button once.
- Hell, make repair costs as different as you want. That wouldn't change how often I'd need to go repair, and while it would cost more we both openly acknowledge that player earning potential still far outpaces the upkeep. I was talking about scrapping the wear and tear (that vestigial thing buried under Advanced Maintenance). My major concerns with your proposal are a) how often I have to repeat a trivial chore (clicking a menu button to counter degradation) and b) how the increased costs of that degradation would affect careers in terms of profitability.
For example, combat already carries with it a higher risk of incurring repair costs while being one of the least profitable activities. Mining, on the other hand, is incredibly low risk yet one of the most profitable activities. While it makes perfect sense from a realism perspective that combat would have higher upkeep costs, it makes zero sense from a gameplay perspective to further nerf the profitability of combat without touching mining. You're just funneling players into funding their combat advancements through mining.
I'm not saying that players wouldn't have the option of sticking to combat, but having options is not really the same thing as having viable choices.
I've dealt with this here:
Malfunctions: increase in chance with engineering grade to reduce power creep
Pretty simple really: the higher you go, the higher the chance of failure. Back long ago, ED had more severe malfunctions (rando firing weapons etc) which made life much more interesting when the sparks started flying. These have been toned down but I miss how they would make situations much...forums.frontier.co.uk
In effect grades are meaningless just as module classes are. You buy them and then thats it- having more advanced things should go hand in hand with intensive (i.e. more expensive) maintenance.
- One of my biggest concerns about your proposal is that it could be implemented in isolation, and splitting all your codependent ideas into separate threads with zero indexing or cross-referencing certainly isn't helping with that concern. I'm not going to monitor the forum specifically for other related ideas you might post, and I'm not going to hedge my bets on the devs both reading all your posts and agreeing with them.
- Furthermore, you didn't actually answer my question with that thread or in the appended quip. Why is all players using G5 upgrades a problem? I understand you don't like it. I understand your realism-based arguments for changing it. But why, in terms of its effects on gameplay, is it a problem? What detrimental effect does it have? More importantly, how would shunting some builds into using G3 prints instead help?
That's a really big "what if" that is completely incongruent with how metas work, and completely undermined (no pun intended) by your refusal to start with other foundational changes like adjusting player income. Your follow up question is also exactly the point I was already making:
What difference does it make if the meta manifests as a Python or Krait or FDL, or even a Viper III? All you're doing is trading one set of ships for another; why is one less desirable than the other? What do you gain by simply reshuffling the status quo? Without adjustments to player earning potential there's no way cheaper ships would hold a candle to more expensive higher-performance counterparts. The cost you save in maintenance would be lost at the rebuy screen... whether it takes 5 visits or 10.
And that's a PROBLEM:
- If the cost disparity is small enough that raw performance still out-performs longevity in terms of PVE, you have changed nothing. Players will still fly the same ships with the same upgrades, because their earnings can absorb any increased cost without issue.
- If the cost disparity is big enough that longevity out-performs raw performance, you now have PVE ships that lag behind PVP ships even more severely in terms of winning potential. Sure, there will be some player matchups where skill brings the underdog out on top, but those cases will be the exception and not the rule.
- If raw performance out-performs longevity in some cases but not others, you have simply exchanged the "go-to" options in some categories for different ones. You still haven't been able to explain why this is needed or preferable to what we have now.
Because you haven't changed anything you're setting out to change. You're not adding any effectual barriers, just adding arbitrary annoyance. You haven't made money any less plentiful, and if you try to set up costs to counter our current income potential you're simply removing viable alternatives to high-earning activities. That's why I said you'd need to adjust careers.
In a game where money is (in your own words) "too plentiful," how can you reasonably imagine "how much you are willing to spend" making a noticeable impact? And again, why would it be great to see fewer FDLs? Let's imagine for a second that your plan magically succeeds and the FDL is no longer part of the combat meta because 'lower' ships are more viable options. Great. Now the situation is reversed and whichever ship unseated the FDL becomes common while the FDL becomes rare. Why is that better?
Full disclosure, I don't even like the FDL. I hate asymmetric cockpits, so I've never bought one and have no intention to. Point being I'm not arguing this to protect my own interests or anything; I just can't fathom why you are so intent on switching it out for something else.
This absolutely will not happen, precisely because you haven't touched player income or Engineering balance. Players will earn tons of money outside of combat, buy fantastic PVP setups they can more than comfortably afford, and then go looking for PVP. Even worse, any PVE builds under attack will have shed any G5 prints they had before due to your reliability changes and be even easier meat than they are currently.
What? How is a 20x (10x base + doubled) repair cost a "very mild" lore flavour to mixing superpower ships and superpowers? It is a guide rail. The simplest response is to simply NOT fly Imperial ships outside of Imperial space, NOT fly Federal ships outside Federal space, and NOT fly Alliance ships outside of Alliance space. As I pointed out, there is no gameplay reason to consider a different response. Players can access the same kinds of activities in any superpower's territory as they can in the others, including independent space.
And - faction ships aside - what can you get from the Federation that you can't get from the Empire or Alliance? If I'm flying a Clipper, what reason would I have to fly it into opposing territory rather than simply switching to a different ship?
You're clearly missing my point here, or you would realize that CQC further underscores the point I was making in terms of "separating" the lore from the mechanics. CQC is, to my understanding (never bothered looking for a match), fun. If it is separated from the BGS, then that fun is derived from the underlying "active" mechanics (i.e., flying a ship) rather than anything related to the passive "lore" (i.e., differences between minor factions, system states, superpowers, etc.). ALL players necessarily appreciate the "active" mechanics - they wouldn't be playing Elite if they didn't - whereas not all players necessarily appreciate the "passive" ones (with me being an example; not really caring about any of that except to the extent that it limits my goals).
Therefore, I think it would be better to start with improvements to the "active" mechanics (flying ships, running missions, following the various career paths, etc.) and build the "passive" improvements off of those... especially when the "passive" improvements (logical variations in repair costs, logistic concerns with specific upgrades, etc.) create bigger burdens on players.
You clearly know how the game works, so you should know better than to suggest players wouldn't be able to find whichever specific system state they're looking for outside of hostile territory. You're also sidestepping the thrust of my counterpoint, which is that players have no reason outside of RP purposes to fly faction ships into hostile territory. I'll try to illustrate it more clearly:
Let's say I'm looking for an Outbreak system for whatever reason. Oh no, the only Outbreak nearby is in Imperial territory and I happen to be flying a FDS. Am I going to
a) Fly my FDS into Imperial territory even at the risk of massively increased repair costs should something go wrong, or
b) Ditch my FDS in Federal space and fly a neutral/Imperial ship instead?
What reason would I have for sticking to the FDS? What would ever make it the more appealing option? From an RP/immersion perspective that's really easy to answer, but from any other perspective you have now created a guide rail. Sure, it makes "sense" to go incognito by switching to a neutral ship and that is a compelling reason for anyone invested in the make-believe lore of the game. Sure, it's not hard for me to simply switch to a different ship.
But what's the point? You haven't added anything interesting through this change; just an extra hoop to jump through in order to scratch a logical itch. That's why I said you need to differentiate the superpowers better in terms of gameplay: unless players have a reason to fly faction ships into enemy territory instead of minimizing risk by switching vessels, the only thing you have accomplished is adding soft prohibitions - guide rails - to where players choose to fly specific ships.
You're missing the forest for the trees with regards to this "RP" distinction. Okay, so you identify differently. My bad; I didn't really have a more suitable term for your set of priorities. The key concept here is that I have a very different set of priorities from yours, which dramatically influences how I will respond to your "reasons." You already have a galaxy that "reacts" to you - as you said yourself influencing the BGS is easy. You already have to react back - as you said yourself players need to look for different system states which gives them a reason to travel between systems.
What you want (based on your proposal and previous statements, anyway) is for that action/reaction/re-reaction to be more complex and logically "realistic." This is, ultimately, something that would be compelling to RPers/players concerned with immersion/whatever else you want to call it.
I personally don't give a rat's behind about the BGS, and I pay absolutely minimal attention to the superpowers/powers/cookie-cutter-generic-minor-factions. They don't interest me, in large part because they are so inconsequential and interchangeable. Repair/maintenance cost variations derived from lore-based logic would be utterly uncompelling to me and nothing more than an irritation... without other critical improvements to make those mechanics more interesting. I CAN see myself getting invested, but your proposal definitely wouldn't accomplish that on its own (at which point it becomes a purely negative change from my point of view).
No, I am only "mistaken" in terms of your personal priorities and how they shape your appreciation for the games you play. I am objectively, demonstrably correct in terms of how "lore" and "game mechanics" interact. Tic-tac-toe has no lore to speak of yet still offers entertainment to kids. People can enjoy the strategic complexities of chess without paying serious attention to what the pieces themselves represent. Halo can still be fun even if you have no idea what the different Covenant species are called... or even without knowing that the Covenant are in fact aliens as opposed to mutants, demons, generic monsters, etc.
Yes, the context (lore) and story certainly enhance the game experience. However, lore and story are not at all necessary to build a "fun" game.
You're misinterpreting what I mean by "reasons." For the umpteenth and final time, I understand your "reasons." However from my perspective they are worthless reasons. That you haven't actually explored the decay rate is irrelevant; it's either small enough to not matter (meaning it changed nothing) or it's big enough to matter (at which point I have one less ship I consider viable, and I just pick something else). If you consider for a moment that I'm not particularly bothered by the irrationality of failing to make a distinction in repair costs between a Sidewinder and Clipper, you should hopefully be able to see that your proposal is a purely negative change for me.
Which, in practice is an exceedingly simple, binary choice (problem? yes/no. yes= never use; no= use freely). I'm sorry, but I am unimpressed and unenthusiastic about making that choice. Why?
Because as I previously pointed out, in the context of PVE there is no serious need for overcharged items. Even moderate upgrades that ostensibly wouldn't impact reliability too much (e.g, G1 dirty or G5 clean drives) are already more than sufficient. They're OP, even. So why would I bother with overcharging my items to a risky degree? In the context of PVP, players are going to gravitate to the absolute maximum feasible performance without transitioning into liability. If one ship can't sustain G5 upgrades but another can, the one that can become the new meta and the vast majority of PVP players use it.
... Which, again, is why I raised Engineering and profit rebalancing as prerequisites to making your proposal effective.
So, aside from potentially flying a different ship:
a) Why would a player bother with smuggling, unless it appeals to their "personal narrative?"
b) What would flying a different ship change about how the player actually smuggles, beyond scratching the logical itch of picking a "smuggling ship?" Isn't it still just flying a ship through mail slots at high speed or deploying chaff or fiddling with Silent/Cool Running?
Why is that better than just nerfing overpowered upgrades, and why would it need to be packaged with repair costs (which invariably apply outside of combat)?
- The BGS offers the same sorts of opportunities practically everywhere. No need to cross faction lines.
- The same types of missions are available practically everywhere. No need to cross faction lines.
- Powerplay is already pretty niche, and there's no reason why players shouldn't just use non-faction ships for effectively equal performance at no extra risk.
- PMFs are distinctly a lore-based issue. They only matter significantly to those IN them or opposed/allied with them, and are otherwise entirely interchangeable with other cookie-cutter, dime-a-dozen minor factions anywhere else in the galaxy.
- I recognize that these mechanics exist, and while they provide "complex" interactions they are all fluff-based differences meaning effectively zilch players like me. Which would be why I suggested improving on them to make them more mechanically enticing as a preliminary step.
And quite obviously, that makes your proposal incredibly impactful and potentially interesting for you. But surely you can recognize that you are unlikely to be representative of how the average player would interface with these mechanics, can't you? For me, your proposal would be extra irritation and more limited choices while adding absolutely nothing positive worth mentioning. Yay; the game is slightly more "immersive" and realistic. I'm still faced with immersion breaks and unrealistic details pretty much everywhere else, so I don't really care.
For the average player, mining will absolutely trivialize the decision factors you are adding unless you do something about it.
I know what you want, and for the record I'm not really disagreeing with you. I've been offering you considerations for how to make your proposal more successful at meeting its stated goals for a broader variety of players, not throwing up roadblocks in a call to bury it without room for compromise. IF you can pay attention to my concerns (impacts on gameplay, detrimental effects of other imbalances in the game on the meaning of the choices you are introducing, etc.), then I am fully on-board with where you want to go with this proposal. If you CAN'T/WON'T, then I am fully opposed to it as-is because it will make the game thoroughly less enjoyable for me.
To be perfectly clear, I'm not making any pretenses as to how important or authoritative I am as a random player. I know there's no way this proposal would be accepted/rejected solely on my approval/disapproval. We're all supposed to be equal here, but that's the point; in considering your proposal the devs NEED to look beyond what you personally would gain from implementing it.
Your proposal adds plenty of flavor and logical satisfaction for players already interested/invested in the BGS/lore/game world fluff. However, it only adds arbitrary limitations and annoyingly simplistic rote upkeep for players who aren't. If you polish up and flesh out the BGS/lore/game world fluff first, your proposal should entice more players to get invested and therefore become more broadly appealing.
EDIT: Replaced one instance of "ignore" with "never use" for clarity.
Last edited:
Clicked post accidentally/ Back soon
But it does change the ship- it changes how much extra money it takes to run the thing. An FdL should be a money pit, a Krait Phantom much, much cheaper. Why? Because the Krait is a common workhorse and the FdL a sportscar.
This would not be a clickfest. Currently it takes at least a couple of sessions to wear down and a prolonged time to get serious. Even doubled or tripled it would not be intrusive. But, I would not be against getting rid of advanced maintenance if it made at least one repair option more cohesive.
"You're just funneling players into funding their combat advancements through mining"
Which is no different to now really, just you spend more rather than next to nothing. To me its all a means towards an end objective (and not the means to get there). But, if mining came down and combat went up I would not complain.
For that I apologise, I had the idea for that thread after thinking about what people said here and elsewhere- it seemed relevant to this thread so I posted it. Plus I can't write a bible for ED all in one go, as much as I'd like to. But I'd be writing an entire book and devote weeks of doing it all at once if I tried.
G5 is simply the new A- everyone gets them and they fly about as if thats the new normal when the higher and advanced you go the more drain it is on your finances. There is no drawback to having G5, with downsides that are easily ignored- its inevitable. I want to see G5 pushing the limits but also being a significant drag to enjoy that level of ability.
If cost (repairs) and reliability (functioning) were an issue for the higher grades the meta in theory would fall below G5, making it an exotic outlier that requires time and judgement to use. Even if people still used FdLs that FdL is harder to keep 100% pristine the more potent it is.
Like anything you'd have to set it in motion to know- and that again I had this idea and wrote it down. I'm not refusing to write anything extra, I'm writing what I've thought about- if thats in the wrong order then please write your own.
Again it depends on what those costs are. If they are too low, they are pointless. But, if there are more reasons and differences between ships, you might begin to see a greater variety used.
One compromise might be that the hull acts as a modifier to the sum cost of everything in it- so an A grade Krait is markedly cheaper to repair than an A grade FdL.
What I am trying to do is blur the lines in certain places: like Krait Phantom, 2, Python, Mamba, Fdl etc. If the FdL is more expensive it makes 'lower' ships slightly more advantageous to run in comparison.
And when I have those ideas I'll let you know. Until then, this is what my brain thought of one morning.
It depends on how much things cost to start mattering.
Because there is no good reason not to fly an FdL. Its literally the ship with all the gifts. Its supposed to be the rich mans plaything, rare etc. Now it is because of its in game cost and upkeep, while other ships are used more because they are cheaper (or until they make enough money to keep one).
And what if those PvE pilots have the same level of money? And PvP players also need to PvE as well.
And yet if you have the money you can- plus, whats preventing a player from flying back to a superpower port, or making a superpower aligned base port for themselves? To me that is gameplay potential because you are linking necessity to the BGS. And if repairs are that high for specialized ships, then it sets up neutral manufacturers.
Its making the BGS background count and make a small difference to your activity.
And to be honest I think you are wanting to ignore half the game, which is your choice. But to keep ships (our main avatars) in game isolated from the BGS is leaving a giant disconnect that detracts from their uniqueness based on the shifting background. The BGS drives everything- you can't escape it. You have superpowers who make ships, it is reasonable that a Chinese J-20 is going to be viewed with suspicion in London just as if an F-22 landed in Moscow.
I look forward to your proposals.
Both of these are valid outcomes, but also:
c) Plan ahead and see what other faction bases there are in system.
d) Equip a AMFU as backup (since this can do repairs on the cheap)
e) assess your criminal status and be more vigilant when flying about (because Imperial patrols might scan you or BH).
Because you like it and don't care?
You need the game to supply reasons to make choices. The BGS gives reasons that influence your choices- in this case if you are not expecting trouble you can assume you can make it back to a neutral port (or look for one in system). If you don't need to keep a low profile, use what you like.
Call me subnormal, but when I go on my murder sprees I actually look at the systems I'm attacking, I look for neutral faction stations, security levels. There is nothing stopping you equipping an AMFU, checking the map more- just generally being more aware of where you are. That on its own makes one place unique to another. This change does not alter physically flying those ships into these areas and having an exit strategy or forming a plan if it goes wrong.
"What you want (based on your proposal and previous statements, anyway) is for that action/reaction/re-reaction to be more complex and logically "realistic." This is, ultimately, something that would be compelling to RPers/players concerned with immersion/whatever else you want to call it."
Then we will have to disagree because our views are diametric here. Currently there is no reason outside of RP and mild PP bonuses to have aligned stations. This idea then gives a reason to align, or at least have one base the way you like it- but its one solution to this hypothetical situation. AMFU, careful flying, ship choice, prior planning all count as well. But what it is doing is increasing the amount of things you have to consider. To you its a rail, to me its not, its just another variable thats totally avoidable if you want and plan for it.
"I CAN see myself getting invested, but your proposal definitely wouldn't accomplish that on its own (at which point it becomes a purely negative change from my point of view)"
Which is fair, however I'm trying to frame changes in a realistic way- i.e. small abstraction changes that although less ambitious are much more feasible.
This is why I mentioned CQC earlier- this is the game you really want, ships with no baggage. In the full game ships should have strings attached that sometimes tangle and trip you up. You want less, I want more.
But it gives context, otherwise you might as well name them A B and C.
"However from my perspective they are worthless reasons."
Fair enough, I disagree though.
"prerequisites to making your proposal effective"
If thats the case, then assume they are, just not written.
Its fun, a very potent BGS tactic and can make money.
It would dovetail into the conspicuousness value, and my desire to have longer drop zones so that security has more of a chance to find you. This would be an additional factor that would be needed to be considered in a wanted passenger mission.
Reducing would work too, but if higher grades are more expensive then everyday fighting is more / can be expensive.
And on the fringes? When you do then you have to think about the consequences more.
And when they are not? Again, small unique consideration for that situation.
Here is an issue actually- ships like the Cutter do not have easy equivalents in Fed or Alliance terms, so high repairs would be unavoidable which I admit is a problem to some.
"They only matter significantly to those IN them or opposed/allied with them"
And why is that bad? There are huge numbers of them- this suggestion would give a prime, in game reason to push for alignment with a defined in game benefit beyond flavour text. It would give PMFs like AEDC a benefit for being Alliance and creatign Alliance territory.
To you they mean little, but to a lot of others they mean much more.
And suggestions are by their nature based on opinions. I accept that parts of ED are inconsistent, to me that does not preclude making some parts consistent regardless, even if its one small aspect out of what I propose.
Again it depends if suddenly things become much more expensive- wishful thinking but thats what this place is for. More advanced things require more time and attention to keep. In the end its FD that decide what thy want: a game where upkeep plays a significant role in your play, or they get rid of it entirely. Right now it sits in a place which is disappointing to both sides.
And I have nothing at all against what you say. If FD looked at this and it made them think about careers too, then job done- its helped.
I'm all for improving careers, just I have not any ideas for them. From my point of view the BGS needs to have as many hooks into the game as possible, otherwise it will always be something that is seen to be irrelevant.
Completely irrelevant to the point I was making. No offense intended; I'm just not going to continue spending time going in circles over these reasoning discrepancies.
Clickfest or no, it would still be worse than it is currently, which is a flat no from me unless additional steps are taken to make sure it actually counts for something first. That said, I wholeheartedly agree with streamlining the repair/maintenance process... and done right it could eliminate a huge part of my grievances with your proposal:
- Clicking "Repair" automatically repairs all hull/module damage AND performs any needed wear-and-tearmaintenance.
- If the player can afford repair but not maintenance, clicking "Repair" skips maintenance.
- "Advanced Maintenance" still lets players repair/maintain components individually if needed/desired.
- Accumulated maintenance cost displays alongside repair cost, even if no repairs are needed.
I mean, that was kind of my point from the beginning. On its own your proposal would actually be an indirect nerf to combat profits, which are already at a disadvantage. In turn, this would simply reinforce the supremacy of mining. However, if you take the time to improve on career balancing first, you ensure combat stays viable factoring in the increased upkeep costs and prevent mining from trivializing increased expenses in one fell swoop.
No apology needed, and so we're clear I'm not expecting you to have all the answers at once. I'm not saying you shouldn't post ideas as they come to you, either. But if you can link that thread in a response to me you can link that thread (and other related ideas like it) in you OP in a way that makes it clear to readers there are multiple ideas floating around contributing to one another in some respect.
Understood, but as mentioned previously the flaw in that theory stems from competition invariably gravitating toward peak performance except when it becomes literally impossible to sustain. If you try to accomplish that without rebalancing careers, you break the game because mining becomes the only viable money-earning activity due to outperforming things like combat and exploration to such an absurd degree. I'd also caution that this reasoning seems overly biased with regards to combat.
For example, let's look at Exploration. Given the choice between shaving off maybe 1 jump per 10 by modding lightweight and potentially needing to return for serious repairs, why would anyone ever use lightweight mods for exploration again? The AMFU can mitigate that partially, but it can't help with regards to Power Plant failures and would still require explorers to spend time gathering materials. At that point any time gained from fewer jumps would be less than meaningless.
I'm not asking you to write the prerequisite concepts;
-error-
in my very first post I acknowledged that I didn't even have all the answers myself.
-factually incorrect; I misremembered. claim retracted but not erased for transparency-
I'm asking you to consider that they'd be needed to help address some of the issues I was pointing out instead of hand-waving them as inconsequential based on irrelevant reasoning.
Completely irrelevant to my question.
Completely irrelevant to the point I was making, though this is definitely a good idea and something I support.
Blurring the lines between ships makes them more homogeneous, not more varied. Isn't that counter-productive with regard to your stated intent? If your goal is to introduce better combat competitors to the FDL then the only good ways to do that are nerfing the FDL's combat capabilities and/or buffing its competitors'. In an RTS your strategy would work just fine because the player could produce more of the cheaper ship to make up for the statistical gap. In Elite, though, you can only fly 1 ship at a time... which makes cost a purely binary (viable/not viable) consideration.
All I'm asking you to do in this case is recognize and acknowledge that this issue is a problem and needs to be addressed for your proposal to work as-intended.
At which point any costs big enough to matter break the game because of the huge income disparity between careers.
This doesn't actually address the question I asked you. I fully understand your lore reasoning; what I was asking about was your gameplay reasoning.
However, I'm going to poke some holes in your concept here in the hopes that they help you see where I'm coming from with regards to this separation between lore and gameplay:
- Even if every single player flew an FDL 100% of the time, the FDL would still be "rare" as far as the lore is concerned. There are many systems throughout the Bubble with populations numbering in the billions, so players actually make up an incredibly small proportion of humanity in the game world. With player income being as overinflated as it is, it makes perfect sense for so many of them to be flying a rich person's plaything. They are, after all, likely to be quite rich.
- While it's definitely odd that FDLs appear so frequently in the hands of pirates who for all intents and purposes should be incredibly cash-poor and unable to support a high-maintenance ship (guess my children are going hungry tonight...), changing player costs does nothing to address that discrepancy.
- In the case of solo players, it's not even applicable. They are the only player in their game world; there is no such thing as the FDL being too common except with regards to NPCs (which, as noted, would not change as a result of your tweaks).
Irrelevant; the ability to afford a PVP build has no bearing on a player's desire for it. It only acts as a potential barrier to entry, which I would consider a pretty bad idea. The issue at hand is a heavier power disparity between PVE- and PVP-focused builds, which would further discourage players from risking PVE-PVP encounters. Cost cannot possibly counteract that, especially when both sides can simply retreat into fully segregated modes of play.
Irrelevant to the point I was making.
Completely irrelevant to my question.
You're still misunderstanding my position pretty badly, because I'm not looking to isolate ships from the BGS. I currently mostly ignore the BGS because - remember, from my perspective - there are no satisfying, worthwhile, or meaningful ways to interact with it. That's why I consider gameplay improvements to the BGS a prerequisite to drawing purely arbitary (perfectly logical, but still arbitrary) lines in the sand with regards to where I can safely fly specific ships.
I came up empty before, but I've thought of an example concept which might help you understand what I'm getting at:
Let's say there's a new mission available ONLY in Alliance/Federal systems where the objective is raiding an Imperial slaver convoy in Imperial space. This mission would REQUIRE flying an Alliance/Federal or neutral ship, and its primary rewards would be INF/Credits or Imperial Engineering materials. Flying a faction-aligned ship boosts the rewards you get, but dying in one boots you to an Imperial penal system at increased rebuy cost.
BAM, I now have a gameplay reason for getting invested in differences between BGS superpowers and your lore-based costing tweaks enhance that experience rather than simply adding arbitrary limitations to a bland system I'd rather ignore. Giving me reasons to make choices that I can find interesting (related to gameplay) and you'll accomplish a lot more than simply adding cost-based shackles to me ever could. You would foster interest rather than resentment.
Already gave 'em to you in multiple places:
- Nerf/buff as-needed to better equalize the various career activities in terms of profit.
- Add some flexibility to the limitations by letting reputation influence costs somewhat.
- Add better gameplay differentiation to the superpowers to make picking a side actually count for something.
- Rebalance modules and Engineering to help shrink the currently-huge statistical gaps so that it's easier to introduce a variety of viable choices.
"If we're gonna do this... let's please make sure it amounts to more than clicking into the "Advanced Maintenance" sub-menu more often and occasionally going on mining runs to cover operating costs"
Completely misses the point of what I said.
Then I don't need your proposal for that, do I?
Completely irrelevant to the point I was making.
I wouldn't call you sub- anything, but this response fully ignores the context of what I just said. It doesn't matter how you specifically would respond. The issue is how other players who think differently would be likely to, precisely because your playstyle is rather eccentric. There's nothing wrong with adding changes tailored to your priorities, but you need to at least consider how they would affect the game as a whole outside those priorities.
The nature of the disagreement is irrelevant in this case; the fact that there is a disagreement is what matters. If you're going to insist that trampling over the diametric viewpoint is valid, you should at least be able to offer a non-circular reason as to why.
CQC is absolutely not what I am looking for, though, because it lacks many of the mechanics present in the base game (PVE, non-combat careers, etc.) I find worthwhile. While those activities are most certainly related to the lore/BGS, they don't actually require me to pay serious attention to it in terms of factional differences, territories, etc.
No way; that's an incredibly unsafe assumption and completely glosses over the root-cause of my concern: that this proposal could be accepted and implemented as-is, without addressing the issues I raised.
Skipping as more instances of comments/questions flying pretty far afield of what I was saying, and I think pretty much all of these are covered under the umbrella of what I said previously in this post. I'm not meaning to dodge any critically important counter-points, though, so if there's anything you specifically want me to respond to call it out and I will.
Agreed 100%, and I'm not criticizing you for having opinions or diverging from my own. This is more of the existence of a disagreement mattering more than the exact nature of it. I've already outlined precisely why in this instance addressing specific inconsistencies without touching others would cause problems for me, personally.
Fair, but when there are steps you can take to make it beneficial to both sides I think it should be beyond question that greater overall happiness trumps expediency.
This was not at all clear to me from your responses, which centered on semantic differences, and statements like "it's as good a place to start as any" made it seem like you were intent on forging ahead while steamrolling over my concerns because they would take longer to implement. I'd also appreciate it if you could add some of the key take-aways from this discussion as an appendix to the OP, because in many cases readers don't bother with much beyond the first post.
Fantastic, and I apologize for not being clear enough about the fact I wasn't trying to saddle you with the responsibility of having ideas. I think the mission example I gave earlier does a good job of illustrating how those lore hooks could tie neatly into gameplay hooks to deliver an altogether more relevant and interesting experience.
Last edited:
Nice.
The problem is that the VO genie is out of the bottle. If FD reduce the payouts there is pandemonium. If everything else is raised you get inflation, with only fleet carriers being the thing to sink money into since ships are cheap (since everything else is peanuts). One theory is that this is what FD want- more ships means more opportunities for kits and paint sales which is depressing if true, because it reduces a lot of the game down to flying display cases and away from what I personally wanted.
Its hard not to disagree with that- FD have made too many 'outliers' in ED (FdL, Anaconda, VO mining) and have not been prepared to cull them, forcing everything else to change to compensate.
The only modules that would have chances of issues would be specific system or engine based ones (long range FSD, OC PP, G5 weapons (some), sensors etc. What these glitches would (in my head at least be) is something that is a loose shoelace; some of the time they are something you try to ignore and in isolation do not make a difference. But, sometimes they happen at the worst possible time and make an ordinary situation much more involved- for example a -20% power reduction for a split second or two would catch those with poor module power priorities.
I can't really speak for exploration that much- but from my Palin unlocking run I had an AMFU and the stopping off was (for me) a nice casual reason to stop.
I apolgise if thats how its come across, its not what I intended.
It depends on your viewpoint. To me, I'd like to go back to the days where ships strengths and weaknesses wrap around each other, and that for those people who have one ship (which I did a while ago) that long term cost begins to matter if you play restricted hours. But as you say this locks into careers / roles- if I was a bounty hunter with limited income an FdL would be easier to earn money in but costlier to run, while a BH Krait Phantom would be much cheaper to run but be slower to earn money. If thats the way you play it makes for more of a 'journey' (sounds pretentious- apologies).
I fully understand this- ED has so many balancing issues its hard to know where to start, or if they are aware of the scale of the problem.
This sums up my gameplay reasoning for extra costs:
"But as you say this locks into careers / roles- if I was a bounty hunter with limited income an FdL would be easier to earn money in but costlier to run, while a BH Krait Phantom would be much cheaper to run but be slower to earn money. If thats the way you play it makes for more of a 'journey'". But as for lore:
ED is a game based on an abstracted simulation rather than being a direct one. Numbers are relative, along with NPCs based on capabilities of ships rather than lore alone.
1: True- but the reason why I proposed this change is for game loop reasons. So many players have them is because keeping ships is cheap, i.e. of 'us' players the population should have fewer ships due to the cost of keeping them all running- in short money restricts access. It does not break the lore reasoning, but is more consistent if you have to make more of an effort to run it once kitted out.
2: Its not meant to, or that its assumed these pirates are very good, or that the ships they fly are the most potent for that NPC role (i.e. its easier to make AI better in better ships). The latter is most likely true, simply underdevelopment of scenarios has led to overuse of the FdL making them appear so often.
3: From a lore perspective thats true, but thats what I'm not arguing about. Saying the lore justifies low costs is self defeating- the game economy should prevent huge player fleets unless they put in the time (which is difficult if money is too easy to get one way or the other and needs balancing up/ down in certain places).
Would it though? Gankers for example fly offensive ships all the time. If these were much more expensive then that would put them at a disadvantage since non combat pays the bills (or we assume 'productive combat' is upped)? They would then have to play the game to get money to keep on doing what they do, or choose a cheaper ship with reduced potential to fit the time. As an idea, if combat is generally more expensive then there would be less of it generally between players except for areas and features that did pay / exempt- one thing that I did think about which might serve a purpose for PvP is Powerplay, where if you are pledged all fees are wavered in home territory. This solves the issue of Fed / Cutter problems too.
The other lurking issue I suppose is rebuy costs- can the same rules I suggest here apply to them? If combat fitted ships were much more expensive rebuy wise, would combat be done more often in less capable and less expensive ships (taking the sting out of ganks / mistakes in Solo) a little, while you have to have the cash (or moderate what you buy- i..e billion credit warships are rare unless you are loaded) for expensive top range kill boats?
Again, in the end it depends on what FD are pitching for. Is ED:
An Elite game, where progression is not rapid and you have more day to day issues (so a proportion of your time is spent keeping a small group of ships viable)
A game more about buying with little overheads, so most of your time is about gaining more ships
Since FD don't have a clear vision its hard to pin down suggestions since we all expect different things.
And thats a great idea for a mission, but I'd ask why do I need to fly such a ship other than to frame a certain power (i.e. Imp on Imp) or send a message? To me thats just as illogical as your dislike of my idea because its forcing you to do something arbitrarily- Imp guns work just as Fed ones do. In lore (I know
) the superpowers are in a state of cold war (which is slightly less these days) but they still dislike each other- hence, if you fly certain ships into certain places the BGS reacts to your presence like it does, so you get a general effect thats persistent for as long as you choose it to be (your ship). However, both positions are not exclusive to each other, both can exist quite happily (i.e. being aligned generates these missions, while the BGS segregation is apparent).Nice ideas, I hope FD do them.
I get that too, the reason why I posted this idea in part was that FD have three superpowers with specific ships and a giant BGS that almost fits the pieces together. However what I've learnt is that due to FD casting their net so wide (and built the game as they went along) they have papered over a lot of problems not thinking long term about how playstyles interact (or not).
And I get that playstyle too, its just to me I find it at odds with the whole reason the BGS exists. To me the BGS is still to superficial at an everyday level (i.e. the level below missions that are generated by it). I suppose its like someone valuing an atlas over a travel brochure- I view the boundaries and countries (superpowers) as vital while others see the fun bits in them (missions).
I'm flattered that you think so, but going by what QA read (you can see what they look at most often) its not this place. Its for people like me who rant a lot and let off steam.
And thats cool, the one thing I like is a robust look at things as its a great opportunity to drill down into ideas properly and find flaws.
Indeed, although from Powerplay I've been conditioned to work with simple cheap ideas as thats as much as I expect FD are willing to do. If FD take the opposite approach in 2020 and really flesh things out then I'm happy regardless, I just think habits are hard to break.
Sure, I'll post some quotes as they are useful and link here.
No worries. I was a bit jaded yesterday as I typed out a massive detailed response only for the site to lose it and I had to walk away for a bit. And all ideas matter, I just hope FD have a book of them all so they can take them out, pin them up and see how they fit together. Although I imagine it happens like this:
Sorry for the delay; I had stuff keeping me busy.
Back on topic, in pretty much any case where this applies I'm still solidly in-favor of just ripping the band-aid off and getting it over with. Sure, you have a bit of pandemonium... but provided the changes are made at least semi-competently things should settle down before too long.
Fair enough, but you'd have to be very clear with regards to exactly what goes wrong and when. Without some sort of fault message, indicator, or warning less-informed players would have no real way to learn a) what the heck happened and b) how to prevent/mitigate it moving forward. I'm not suggesting that the game should hand-hold/spoon-feed them best practices, but there should at least be a reliable way to differentiate these hiccups from bugs or other bigger problems.
No worries! Glad we got that cleared up.
In other words, FDL is more of an assassination (short-haul, high-payout) ship, whereas something like Krait is a career (long-haul, lower payout) ship? I'm not quite clear on what you mean by strength and weaknesses wrapping around each other, but I think I understand what you're getting at with regards to more gradual progression. IMO it would be nice to see players start out working as "employees" to established operations like local police/military, merchants, etc. and gradually build up independence (ultimately having the opportunity to start their own enterprises). Fleet Carriers sound like they could fill a somewhat similar role, but I'm thinking more in terms of something aimed directly at individual players rather than Squadrons specifically.
Honestly I think this a bit of an epidemic in the industry at the moment, and a terrible drawback to soliciting player feedback. It's ultimately impossible to please absolutely everybody, so the dev's NEED to have a solid, clearly-defined notion of what the game is supposed to be. Pretty much any game in ongoing development (though Elite is a less-severe example of this) inevitably gets sucked into a tug-of-war between conflicting interests and ends up worse-off because of it. I miss the days where games shipping as finished was the norm.
And thats a great idea for a mission, but I'd ask why do I need to fly such a ship other than to frame a certain power (i.e. Imp on Imp) or send a message? To me thats just as illogical as your dislike of my idea because its forcing you to do something arbitrarily- Imp guns work just as Fed ones do. In lore (I know
Fair enough, and that logical pitfall obviously comes from me not paying detailed attention to the lore. "Cold war" doesn't really offer many hooks for gameplay, so perhaps an update to the lore would be in order?
Thank you kindly, and I can definitely understand the frustration of having websites eat your posts. I'm really glad we could reach a clearer understanding of opposing viewpoints, and I'd be happy to see Elite start moving along an immersive, logically-consistent tack. Not much point if the main reason everyone has tons of credits is that they're not useful for anything but buying new ships, after all.
To be honest FD have a great opportunity coming up in 2020 to do that- but, they have to have the stones to do it and be prepared to annoy people. For example my pet annoyance (in logic terms) is zero mass modules. Now most explorers have them, so they can't be changed apparently. The same goes for the Anacondas magic hull and the FdLs heat and powerplant. If these popular outliers were sorted out (along with a credit/ career balance) ED would be much, much better for it. Its totally their own fault for not thinking things through and rectifying these little things right at the start, letting them become embedded in the game to the point where changing them is much harder. In short I'm not against harsh changes at all, any change that makes decisions more important is good IMO.
It would. In my head the engineering screen would have it very clear going to G5 is pushing your kit past a reliable threshold, and spell out the mishaps you might get. In practice the malfunctions could be preceeded by audio or visual cues (before the warning messages) to tell them apart. But in reality it would be like being hit by a pulse disruptor / scramble spectrum effect for that module.
I think this is again part of EDs problem, in that its a game thats confused and a victim of an old school genre suffering in the modern world. Traditionally Elite has been about a set progression where you slowly build your ship and experience- ED was like this at one point as well. But, due to design or lack of foresight that model has been broken by impatient gamers (or an expectation of them) so progression is flat (i.e. rather than being linear you can do anything and get any ship almost instantly, almost point to point). To me as a time poor player, I would value having to think about time / money more (and thus what ship suits me better), but to another thats too restricting. Its this conflict that FD need to resolve IMO if the game is to have an identity.
Like I said above (and I agree totally with what you say) ED by trying to please everyone is slowly losing itself- I can understand if v3 (i.e. what we have now) was the starting product because space games at the time were a dead genre (and thus popularity was needed for profit)- but it seems its in reverse: ED started as a hard core game and got softer over time.
I don't know really. ED is like the universe. Starts out with an exciting bang and ends in some entropic heat death.
The problem with the lore is that FD never really made it overt enough to pervade the game to an effective level. Its all there right now, but because it was clumsily delivered it just fades a bit. IMO at least there is a layer of NPCs / in game messages/ map features that is missing needed to deliver this. Right now its on the player to go 'huh, I wonder why that is' and work backwards because this surface 'layer' is too generic. What I'd like to see is the minute you drop in all traffic, NPC chatter, challenges etc to be flavoured and different.
It did annoy me when I lost it all! But at the same time I wanted to give as full an answer as possible since you took the time to write that all out, and to me anything less would be disrespecting your time.
Taxes mainly starting players and casuals. Does pretty little for accumulated wealth owners.