Elite IS too easy

[Robert Maynard]

To add a sense of actual threat and danger, which the thread is about. Games have restrictions all the time. If you want to play casually and without defenses, you can play in the bubble. I don't see the issue with that. It's no different from needing the right gear to complete a dungeon in a fantasy game, for example.

That is what the thread is about, indeed - however the thread participants do not represent the player-base as a whole.

Some games do indeed have restrictions - this one has a different approach.

Proposing change and "telling" players what they will and will not be able to do is unlikely to gather a broad consensus in favour of any change. Not seeing an issue with something does not mean that there is no issue for everyone.

And pirates absolutely should exist (not exclusively though) in distant systems, as there they'd logically be able to establish a presence away from the dominance of governments. I'd like to see them form their own minor factions and aggressively control systems, maybe with a new system state attached to warn the player. Not all systems everywhere though! There should still be a ton of empty, vacant space.

The pirates still wouldn't exist far from populated systems then (as they themselves would constitute the population of systems).

 

[Hopix]

That is what the thread is about, indeed - however the thread participants do not represent the player-base as a whole.

Some games do indeed have restrictions - this one has a different approach.

Proposing change and "telling" players what they will and will not be able to do is unlikely to gather a broad consensus in favour of any change. Not seeing an issue with something does not mean that there is no issue for everyone.

The pirates still wouldn't exist far from populated systems then (as they themselves would constitute the population of systems).

1. Yes that's the issue isn't it. You have to make the game appeal to everyone all the time. Which... Is impossible. My opinion that Elite is too easy is just that, an opinion. Other opinions are just as valid.
2. Yeah, it'd become populated space, but it'd still add a new sense of danger.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That logic isn’t really sound. Players without horizons can still encounter engineered npcs and players. What new thing would they encounter to make them say that?

How engineered are those NPCs? Players can choose not to play among other players so players in engineered ships are largely irrelevant to this discussion on the challenge posed by the game itself and only become relevant when discussing the challenge posed by playing in (a tiny volume of the galaxy) in Open.

I was actually referring to players who already have access to Engineers and may not have used them - again, only Frontier have the stats on how many Engineers players have bothered to unlock.

also there’s seems to be pretty wide spread general agreement that changes to Make systems interaction with the player reflecting state, sec, alignment and other factors would be beneficial to the overall game.

This thread does seem to be generally supportive of some change in that regard, of course, and, as ever, it's the fine detail that needs to be discussed before agreement can be reached. What proportion of the player-base is being referred to as "widespread general agreement"? A consensus among a tiny portion doesn't mean much.

 

[Robert Maynard]

1. Yes that's the issue isn't it. You have to make the game appeal to everyone all the time. Which... Is impossible. My opinion that Elite is too easy is just that, an opinion. Other opinions are just as valid.

Indeed. We may already be in the situation where Frontier have set the challenge of the game to suit as many players as possible.

2. Yeah, it'd become populated space, but it'd still add a new sense of danger.

 

[Rubbernuke]

If Horizons was wrapped into the main game and the challenge of NPCs increased in general then complaints of players "being forced to Engineer" would begin in earnest.

Elsewhere I suggested about toning down G1 - G5 engineering to get around this issue- base Core players then would have Guardian and tech broker (and Powerplay) special gear, while Horizons would have depowered engineering that was equal to this (so while not being superior in power you have greater choice).

 

[Robert Maynard]

Elsewhere I suggested about toning down G1 - G5 engineering to get around this issue- base Core players then would have Guardian and tech broker (and Powerplay) special gear, while Horizons would have depowered engineering that was equal to this (so while not being superior in power you have greater choice).

Indeed. How the player-base as a whole would react to the results of their conscious choices and time expended on engineering being fundamentally changed overnight is another matter.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Indeed. How the player-base as a whole would react to the results of their conscious choices and time expended on engineering being fundamentally changed overnight is another matter.

Its down to FD, they listen but critically they do act when they have to- this is one of those times. The whole game hinges on balance and variety, if one part is too good it ruins everything.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

How engineered are those NPCs? Players can choose not to play among other players so players in engineered ships are largely irrelevant to this discussion on the challenge posed by the game itself and only become relevant when discussing the challenge posed by playing in (a tiny volume of the galaxy) in Open.

I was actually referring to players who already have access to Engineers and may not have used them - again, only Frontier have the stats on how many Engineers players have bothered to unlock.

This thread does seem to be generally supportive of some change in that regard, of course, and, as ever, it's the fine detail that needs to be discussed before agreement can be reached. What proportion of the player-base is being referred to as "widespread general agreement"? A consensus among a tiny portion doesn't mean much.

Consensus here in the topic of course. But given the very different play styles present that is nice to see.

But like you said, they already encounter engineered npcs. And if they choose to play with others, then obviously they encounter engineered players. I don’t see what they can run into that they already don’t that would make them say that statement, apparently you don’t either.

 

[Hopix]

Indeed. We may already be in the situation where Frontier have set the challenge of the game to suit as many players as possible.

The idea of my suggestion was that you can have the best of both worlds.

Let's say only 5% of systems surrounding the bubble have pirate/Thargoid hubs. Every 20LY or so beyond that, the chance decreases even further. So chances are as a casual explorer you won't find jack ----. Then let's say that there's a new system type: Piracy or Xenological, or whatever, to warn players before they even jump in. Then let's say that you don't get immediately killed as soon as you arrive. If you're quick you can just jump out immediately.

So, even a casual player can still explore outside the bubble. They just have to be just slightly cautious about where they are.

Meanwhile, combat-focused hardcore players can venture into pirate / Thargoid systems and enjoy dynamic and genuinely threatening combat scenarios, with better loot drops and a higher chance of valuable resource / discoveries to reward their efforts.

 

[Noddie]

Unfortunately. ED is very, very "lumpy" in terms of difficulty. It went thought a weird "Counterstrike, but it's spaceships" phase a few years ago and hasn't really recovered from that. I remember the NPCs back then you'd often shoot them a few times and then they'd just sit there and roll over-and-over as you shot at them. I thought I'd managed to knock out a thruster on them, but no it was just bugged AI. Then they got fixed and were far too dangerous (I rather liked that) so got nerfed. I think now the biggest problem is that it's easy to exploit your way to a fortune and get an Apex ship in a few days, then just go out seal-clubbing players who either aren't there yet or don't want to be flying a space barge with guns. I think it's become too easy to make money in the game, which has led to a lot of people playing with apex ships. Which unfortunately means you can't be safe without one - which invalidated "play it your way" as a concept. Getting an Anaconda should take weeks of work, not a few hours one rainy Sunday. They should be rare-and-special endgame ships, not the point where you stop grinding and play the game properly....

 

[Cheese Helmet]

The idea of my suggestion was that you can have the best of both worlds.

Let's say only 5% of systems surrounding the bubble have pirate/Thargoid hubs. Every 20LY or so beyond that, the chance decreases even further. So chances are as a casual explorer you won't find jack ----. Then let's say that there's a new system type: Piracy or Xenological, or whatever, to warn players before they even jump in. Then let's say that you don't get immediately killed as soon as you arrive. If you're quick you can evade them in supercruise and jump out.

So, even a casual player can still explore outside the bubble. They just have to be just slightly cautious about where they are.

Meanwhile, combat-focused hardcore players can venture into pirate / Thargoid systems and enjoy dynamic and genuinely threatening combat scenarios, with better loot drops and a higher chance of valuable resource / discoveries to reward their efforts.

This change alone would need to accompany changes to the broader game as well to be worth anything. Otherwise it’s business as usual.

 

[Hopix]

Unfortunately. ED is very, very "lumpy" in terms of difficulty. It went thought a weird "Counterstrike, but it's spaceships" phase a few years ago and hasn't really recovered from that. I remember the NPCs back then you'd often shoot them a few times and then they'd just sit there and roll over-and-over as you shot at them. I thought I'd managed to knock out a thruster on them, but no it was just bugged AI. Then they got fixed and were far too dangerous (I rather liked that) so got nerfed. I think now the biggest problem is that it's easy to exploit your way to a fortune and get an Apex ship in a few days, then just go out seal-clubbing players who either aren't there yet or don't want to be flying a space barge with guns. I think it's become too easy to make money in the game, which has led to a lot of people playing with apex ships. Which unfortunately means you can't be safe without one - which invalidated "play it your way" as a concept. Getting an Anaconda should take weeks of work, not a few hours one rainy Sunday.

Yep. Clearly the current state of risk vs reward is out of whack.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Consensus here in the topic of course. But given the very different play styles present that is nice to see.

Consensus in outline only - it lacks detail. It's still in the "we want changes" stage where different people have different ideas as to what would be acceptable / unacceptable changes and, as yet, lacks a detailed and agreed scope of change.

But like you said, they already encounter engineered npcs.

A level of engineering set by Frontier in the knowledge of how many players don't have access to Engineers and still require top be able to enjoy playing the game.

And if they choose to play with others, then obviously they encounter engineered players.

Oh, of course, if players choose to play among others - which means that it's an optional challenge.

I don’t see what they can run into that they already don’t that would make them say that statement, apparently you don’t either.

tldr; non-optional Engineered NPCs without much Engineering; players remain an optional extra.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The idea of my suggestion was that you can have the best of both worlds.

Let's say only 5% of systems surrounding the bubble have pirate/Thargoid hubs. Every 20LY or so beyond that, the chance decreases even further. So chances are as a casual explorer you won't find jack ----. Then let's say that there's a new system type: Piracy or Xenological, or whatever, to warn players before they even jump in. Then let's say that you don't get immediately killed as soon as you arrive. If you're quick you can just jump out immediately.

So, even a casual player can still explore outside the bubble. They just have to be just slightly cautious about where they are.

Meanwhile, combat-focused hardcore players can venture into pirate / Thargoid systems and enjoy dynamic and genuinely threatening combat scenarios, with better loot drops and a higher chance of valuable resource / discoveries to reward their efforts.

A decent proposal - that does not go enough for some though.

 

[Hopix]

A decent proposal - that does not go enough for some though.

Oh, I'd like to see bubble space get ruined by attacks from both Thargoids and opposing major factions... But I can see how that goes much too far for some players.

My suggestion is an attempt at keeping the majority happy.

 

[sewerratuk]

Indeed. How the player-base as a whole would react to the results of their conscious choices and time expended on engineering being fundamentally changed overnight is another matter.

I imagine they will react the same way as when engineering was fundamentally changed overnight. I.e. poured lots of salt on the forum until FD folded and allowed legacy modules to stay in the game

 

[Robert Maynard]

Oh, I'd like to see bubble space get ruined by attacks from both Thargoids and opposing major factions... But I can see how that goes much too far for some players.

It probably would. Very early on, players asked why stations aren't destructible by players - Frontier did the equivalent of chuckling to themselves before saying that they would not be. Same when asked why players don't drop materials.

My suggestion is an attempt at keeping the majority happy.

Indeed - it probably would, in my opinion.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Oh, I'd like to see bubble space get ruined by attacks from both Thargoids and opposing major factions... But I can see how that goes much too far for some players.

My suggestion is an attempt at keeping the majority happy.

You could do all that now using the Eagle Eye mechanic- just roll it out further. It literally tells you where attacks will happen and be / don't be there.

I'd love superpower wars, but it won't happen because thats heavily abstracted via local faction wars. The problem is the relative numbers of Fed, Imp, indy and other are never really acted on.

The new states go a little way towards introducing more anarchy as well, and again all indicated ahead of time.

If anything deep space exploration in ED should be 95% exploration and 5% WTFudge, with radom non telegraphed events, such as temporary POI based pirate bases, hidden Thargoid pockets and stellar hazards. FD treats SC as a lobby from which you pick your task, sometimes I feel that needs to be obfuscated.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Consensus in outline only - it lacks detail. It's still in the "we want changes" stage where different people have different ideas as to what would be acceptable / unacceptable changes and, as yet, lacks a detailed and agreed scope of change.

A level of engineering set by Frontier in the knowledge of how many players don't have access to Engineers and still require top be able to enjoy playing the game.

Oh, of course, if players choose to play among others - which means that it's an optional challenge.

tldr; non-optional Engineered NPCs without much Engineering; players remain an optional extra.

So no change from the current situation at all. Got it.

and of course agreement is in outline only. It’s spitballing not patch notes

 

[Robert Maynard]

I imagine they will react the same way as when engineering was fundamentally changed overnight. I.e. poured lots of salt on the forum until FD folded and allowed legacy modules to stay in the game

... or when instant ship transfer was mooted for implementation (a change from the delayed ship transfer discussed in the DDF);

... or when Carrier upkeep costs were calculated to be 147M Cr./week.