yes - a couple of fdev's replies seem to point (as usual) to not wanting people to grind the game (not being happy with people relog farming mats and thinking the trade ratio for mat traders should be more favourable so people don't grind a single type and cross trade everything else). I'm happy they're going in that direction - will be interesting to see what the grinders think (as I bet they are the ones calling for the more favourable trade rates ...)
Rewarding for skill ... long term effects discussion
- Thread starter Ockish
- Start date
IMO, mechanics that allow smaller numbers of more skilled pilots outperform bigger number of weaker ones is welcome, becouse skill (pvp) is not related to territory control (power play and BGS) becouse of modes, if we weaken effect of PG and solo on those i m ok with status quo, else not. Why we cant have influance bonuses for winning combat zones adjusted to difficulty, instead of grind time, why we cant have high threat CZ with all ships involved on spec opps level and influance rewards tweaked to 1/3/6/10 instead of current 1/2/3 where all difficulty betwean med and hi CZ is very similar, but requires only diffrent time to complete, i would love to see similar mechanics in mission rewards and adjusting power play merits to challange levels.
I'm afraid grinders will never be satisfied. There are some fundametal misconceptions about how certain things can be obtained and people are going with some META approach they find on YT, which usually involves some terrible, repetitive grind as part of reducing time needed to obtain things. It sucks the fun out of their game, but they think this is the only way, because they never tried to actually just go with the flow and play the god damned game.
But that's only half of the problem, the other half is that they actually treat anything in the game like an obstacle put there specifically to made their life miserable. They treat the game itself as an obstacle. I just can't comprehend it.
In the other thread someone told me that he wanted to go on exploration trip in Beluga, not some other, cheaper ship, so the game is forcing him to grind for that ship and that is in clear contradiction with it's promo catchphrase about forging your own path and playing as you want.
Sure setting requirements right might be challenging, as sometimes it might feel like too much, but some (if not most) grinders want everything instantly. Any amount of work to engineer ship will be too much, because they'll be required to do something.
I understand the frustration and sentiment behind this post, but I really think you should do a bit of research into game design as a field. I'm not being facetious, I mean this 100% earnestly. "Player blaming" has been universally debunked as an excuse for unintended behaviours. "These people are playing our game wrong!" has no place as a defence of game design (in any game, video or otherwise) in 2020. If they are playing it in an unfun way, as designers, it's your job to look into why and solve it at a design level.
Not all games or all mechanics are designed to be enjoyable for everyone, but people who like Elite enough to play it regularly shouldn't be relying on their own willpower and intrinsic goals to make the game fun.
I am probably yelling into the void, but to prove it's not just some dingus on a forum thinking these thoughts here are a couple of fairly light videos that expand on this idea.
this one is timestamped at the most relevant section, also in a more bitesize and anecdotal vein
Not happy with the relogs, but i have no problem doing it if i think that i have to - i mean, it doesn't break my immersion - especially when it comes about Encoded.
Raws are no longer an issue since Crystalline Shards and Manufactured are not that bad if one does drop in some hge once in a while.
But yea, i will wait and see - what they say and what they do in game is not always the same, although i'm really thrilled with the restart of Galnet and their involvement in the game during the last couple of months.
![[PS4] Filthymick420](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/201/201444.jpg?1555738739){kind=avatar}
Hopefully the skilled players will out-number the lingerers looking for handouts when it comes time to vote on this 
The problem. Is nothing to do with credits, it to do with credits being the only progression.
I didn't care about credits when I played Mass effect
I didn't care about my lvl when I played destiny
In all the time I have played ED I haven't cared about a single npc, faction, station, etc. And. I don't think anyone has.
Even the big stuff, like the marlinists, who cares? I don't give a toffee about imperial slavery, because it's just cargo
Alien thargoids attack multiple stations, killing thousands and and put entire systems in danger - and all people care about is rep and salvage
Even powerplay, is hollow, OK I'm transporting federal propoganda, why? What does the propoganda say? Who is it targeting? What is it hoping to achieve (in the minds of the targets)?
The bubble has a population of billions and I don't care about a single one of them
Sure, that prospect place, planetary base had some story, the collapsed mines haft, the greedy corpo, great..
But where was the follon mission or Intel.
I would have quite liked to gun down the arsehile who made the decision..
Or better yet, taken him on a long sightseeing mission and then ejected him onto a barren planet well outside of the bubble,
How about a choice to either discredit the family of the victims, or destroy the profits of the company by attacking its mining ships?
Instead, I don’t care that those people died, why bother, I can't do anything about it, so all I care about is the scrap they left behind
I didn't care about credits when I played Mass effect
I didn't care about my lvl when I played destiny
In all the time I have played ED I haven't cared about a single npc, faction, station, etc. And. I don't think anyone has.
Even the big stuff, like the marlinists, who cares? I don't give a toffee about imperial slavery, because it's just cargo
Alien thargoids attack multiple stations, killing thousands and and put entire systems in danger - and all people care about is rep and salvage
Even powerplay, is hollow, OK I'm transporting federal propoganda, why? What does the propoganda say? Who is it targeting? What is it hoping to achieve (in the minds of the targets)?
The bubble has a population of billions and I don't care about a single one of them
Sure, that prospect place, planetary base had some story, the collapsed mines haft, the greedy corpo, great..
But where was the follon mission or Intel.
I would have quite liked to gun down the arsehile who made the decision..
Or better yet, taken him on a long sightseeing mission and then ejected him onto a barren planet well outside of the bubble,
How about a choice to either discredit the family of the victims, or destroy the profits of the company by attacking its mining ships?
Instead, I don’t care that those people died, why bother, I can't do anything about it, so all I care about is the scrap they left behind
First of all, I'm not game designer, so it's not my job to take feedback and use it to modify the game. I'm a customer, who bought it, understanding and accepting the premise.
I've read reviews, opinions and complaints about "the grind" and eventually thought to myself "this is the game I want to play. I want to turn it on whenever I can, possibly every day and every day earn small amount of credits, or do something that will push my imaginary space pilot career slightly forward - I want to have the game I'll be playing for years". Therefore I'm standing in direct opposition to those who would prefer to change it due to need of instant gratification - this changes the game fundamentally, as we're not talking about some small improvements, or people who "play the game wrong", we're talking about people who can't be bothered to play the game, so they whine to make it easier for them.
I have lots of issues with the game - it's too childish at times, instead of being more space simulator, some activities are arcadish - like gathering info from beacons, or activating guardian ruins, which require you to shoot obelisks until timer runs out, for some weird reason. But I'm not complaining about that, demending changes, because that's the game I bought - I don't expect people to redesign it just for me. I learn to accept it, or I'll leave the game if something is just too much.
Secondly, I'm also not sure if this "customer is always right" approach is always good for the game. Sure, it is an entertainment bussiness, so pleasing as many people as possible is in the job description, but game also needs to remain true to itslef, or otherwise we might as well have another clone of Fortnite, if devs just want to please as many people as possible.
The problem is not with the fact that there's something wrong with the game (as I said -sure you can tweak some numbers and make some requirements more accessible if it proves too demanding and reward is noth worth the effort), but I think people have certain approach that is maybe based on being able to influence things by whining, because -as you say - developers in 2020 listen to their customers.
They come to the game, see that there are 40 ships, so they want the best one. Right now. If they would be given one ship at the start and 2 ships would be added to the game every few months, they wouldn't notice a problem (if they would remain in the game for so long). But the amount of work needed to get everything there is to get is too much from their perspective, so they complain and whine. They don't have time to play to get the best things and playing with something less then META is... stupid.
The same thing with exploration. Jump range is too low in the beginning, because they know it can be increased. But that requires playing the game - doing things. They don't want to be forced to improve something gradually. The whole concept is stupid to them - people who play that game already have things now - they should too.
The whole galaxy in game - it's too big. It takes ages to get anywhere, so they want something to shorten that time - the fact that it actually doesn't matter where you are in the galaxy, the star systems are similiar and you can do anything wherever you are and it should remain an achievement - for those who want it - to reach some far places, doesn't matter - when they want to get somewhere, it should be accessible, otherwise the game is forcing them to do unfunny things.
Now let's take META approach to gathering engineering materials by relogging in some spot - I want ot make it clear: it's absolutely unnecessary. If you play the game, you will find everything you need while you play. Missions give you materials as rewards, enemies drop them, signal sources have them, asteroids, rocks and surface POI's. You can trade for what you don't have at Material Traders. And why they gather those mats in least fun way? To not play the game? Or to do exactly those things after you engineer your ship? I mean, how would devs make this more approachable without requiring you to.... god damnit... play the game?
When people complain about this stuff and someone suggest that maybe they should find some other game if they don't like this one, they are outraged, because "they like the game". Which part I wonder. I would say Main Menu probably, but I'm sure it has problems too (you need to choose mode and this game should be Open Only, f.ex).
Listening to all this whining, the best thing devs could do, if they take that feedback seriously, is to cut 99% of this game. It wouldn't make one bit of difference to those whiners, but it would make them feel happy they've mastered it whole.
That is a fair amount of text about how you think other people play Elite.
FWIW I also enjoy the game for what it is, as I'm sure the majority of posters do, otherwise they wouldn't be here in the Elite: Dangerous forums.
If by your own admission you are not versed or interested in design, are not a gatekeeper and have no suggestions to make... it's kind of a mystery to me why you'd come to the suggestions forum and be fairly heavily critical of other people's engagement with a game's mechanics. I feel like you might have misunderstood the purpose of this forum if the answer is going to be "they're just playing it wrong" each time.
I know this will risk pegging me as a mean-spirited person, but it's also pretty ironic to write such a screed whining about other people whining about a video game...
FWIW I also enjoy the game for what it is, as I'm sure the majority of posters do, otherwise they wouldn't be here in the Elite: Dangerous forums.
If by your own admission you are not versed or interested in design, are not a gatekeeper and have no suggestions to make... it's kind of a mystery to me why you'd come to the suggestions forum and be fairly heavily critical of other people's engagement with a game's mechanics. I feel like you might have misunderstood the purpose of this forum if the answer is going to be "they're just playing it wrong" each time.
I know this will risk pegging me as a mean-spirited person, but it's also pretty ironic to write such a screed whining about other people whining about a video game...
My underlying concern is frankly some of the people I game with won't play elite so I am keenly aware of their perspective. I am convinced the thing that makes them feel "the grind" is not the time and effort, but a lack of perceived options. Sure they have options, but they are not as well established and they are keen to progress.
I don't think how those people play, I know, because they complain about it all the time.
I don't think that it matters much,but I seem to remember this thread being in different forum when I posted first.
I might also ask what are you doing here, since you seem to have no suggestion? Hm? Maybe the exact same thing? Expressing opinion?
Maybe you're right. I certainly wasted my time trying to explain my point of view.
I am here because I'm interested in discussing and reading about the design of Elite. I am pretty interested in game design in general and enjoy hearing other people's thoughts on it... with the caveat that I'm (perhaps irrationally) irritated by posts that I perceive as excessively anecdotal or with little 'occupational' analysis. That said, I am also not a game designer and, as you say, it's not my job to design the game. I certainly would like to discuss it analytically though: I don't think Elite is a perfectly designed game and have posted as to why in other threads, as well as in this one although perhaps not explicitly.
You haven't engaged with the content of the post discussing design concepts further up the page, and y'know what? I sincerely don't blame you. Who's gonna watch 1+ hours of some random person's youtube recommendations? Go live your life! Regardless it's frustrating to receive a response that is pretty much 100% anecdote, strawman and projection.
I'm not really interested in wading through a bunch of strawmen when the thing I wanted to discuss, that is to say game design, has quietly been removed from the table. You're just telling me what people are doing wrong both in and out of Elite in your opinion (based on what, reddit posts? Not clear on where this is sourced. Much of this seems like baggage from an erstwhile argument I'm not seeing). What you're not telling me is what you think Elite does successfully in terms of design beyond simply providing a space.
You're not acknowledging the fundamental proposition that issues with engagement in games can be solved via design. Instead you've morphed that proposition into "everyone wants everything for free!" and "the customer is not always right!" neither of which actually bear relation to anything I said, anything in that design talk, or indeed anything anyone in this thread said... at all, to my knowledge. I specifically said in my post that not all mechanics were for everyone, which was also ignored.
Maybe I'm being unfair, but I'm not interested in a discussion about Elite in the terms you're pitching it, and the feeling may be mutual. I will reiterate that I really strongly disapprove of player-blaming as an angle to defend design in the suggestions forum, a place which I think (perhaps wrongly) is explicitly for people to discuss what they think is wrong/right with the game and hash it out. I can and have backed up why player-blaming is a dead end.
Look at the thread title
Rewarding for skill ... long term effects discussion
Isn't that what I was talking about? The fact that people want instant rewards, because they are spoiled and in the long run it's wrong for the game?
If you want to discuss game design in general it's both wrong forum and thread.
Again with emotive and accusatory language. You're conflating the idea of addressing engagement through design with directly acquiescing to complaints, as if Frontier were a beleaguered mother being forced to hand out sweets against their will, rather than a game designer in 2020 whose literal job it is to deliver their intended experience. Why is it wrong for the game, specifically? How do you get people to stop feeling disincentivised and railroaded into unintended play patterns? What can the game do to better signpost how it's supposed to be played, if so many people by your estimation are playing it wrong?
Frontier seem to be attempting to address this currently and I'm cautiously optimistic for the balance changes, although I personally think the issue lies in the limited and simplistic way Elite handles rewards/positive reinforcement in general and probably can't be solved through numerical balancing alone. But we'll see.
We're probably both here because rewarding skill appeals to us, we probably agree on a bunch of stuff. I disagree with your rhetoric. Have a nice day!
I'm frustrated, because some people seem to be interested in only part of the game - like for example PvP - treating everything else like an unnecessary obstacle.
They would want to strip the game of most of the content that I find appealing, because they don't care about it. I'm not going to be silent about it. I don't want Fdev to think that that's the majority voice.
And it's true that Elite has problems with communicating lots of it's mechanics. You would need to read manual for that (and it's probably not entirely up to date), look for information on forums and try to play for a while, before passing judgement. People do that too soon, turning to Youtube for tips, where they don't find any kind of comprehensive information, but only META that mostly incorporates exploits.
I don't agree. Skill and its use should be most rewarding in most cases - mining is an example that is being corrected so that skill (subsurface mining, core mining) will be most rewarding again. As far as time goes, the game should only prevent its useless loss. Again, with an example; in-system travel, the loss of credits (time) on destruction etc..
You are both right.
Yes it's annoying that most people don't enjoy playing Elite Dangerous - as it makes playing with irl friends shall we say problematic.
However the players currently playing the game, must be enjoying the game to some degree (it can't all be the dopamine hit and false sense of achievement grundy games give right?)
Changing it up to skill based is going to require the game to be a bit more dynamic - at the moment there is skill in the combat for sure, but I would say its also heavily knowledge based (though it eschews the standard map knowledge)
I have a feeling that a shift towards more skill based gameplay is going to be a flat spread sheet adjustment to combat payouts.
Though I would hope that the change will at least be a dynamic one, so that combat payouts are based on the delta between your ship and the enemy ship. Kill a sidewinder in your hyper engineered corvette, have 10cr. Kill a corvette in a sidewinder have 50,000,000cr
Adding fps combat to the game, is going to be a massive shunt in the skill direction. I don't care if you have better equipment, if I have more skill in using cover, knowing when to push, and positioning than you, even without having better aim than you, I'm going to win every fight.
We have to wait and see what devs actually have in mind, but the way I understood the idea, this is more or less what's going to happen.
Personally I don't think it should be made this way, because why would someone who pays you care what ship and weapons you used to eliminate the target. It would be very artificial and gamey - I think this approach would make more sense with XP earnings. But we already receive more XP for targets above our rank, although ships used play no direct part in that, except for the fact that you might not encounter Harmless NPC in a Corvette. Anyway, it could be interesting to have ships used as a factor in regards to rewards, because this might motivate use of small ships even later in the game.
Yeah. While I think all aspects of the game should be positively reinforced, I'd argue it's OK in principle not to like and engage with all mechanics in a sandbox.
Perhaps it's worth considering that in Pre-2.1 Elite it was fairly easy for people to stick to the parts of the game they enjoyed while ignoring parts they didn't. It seems understandable that players identifying as bounty hunters might've been frustrated when, as an example, Selene Jean was introduced and explicitly said "you must to mine 500 tons of ore to improve your healthpool".
Obviously combat focused players are all about increasing their healthpool... but to the tune of 500 tons of ore? This means you suddenly need to enjoy mining and bounty hunting to progress, it's no longer OK to specialise. There is certainly some logic behind encouraging people to test the game's different mechanics, many open worlds do that but not usually with this level of time investment per task.
Ultimately as we've both said, not all mechanics are equally enjoyable for all players and that's fine in my opinion. Perhaps you can see how it might be problematic to hard gate progression for a career behind engagement with another for extended periods of time. I always thought that it'd have been more in line with Elite's original proposition "blaze your own trail" not to ask players to actually blaze a very specific trail, the same way everyone else does.
However, we're getting a bit off topic. This thread is less concerned with hard gating via prescriptive tasks and more with the railroading effect caused by rewarding different tasks and activities vastly differently - this is explicitly what Fdev are trying to address currently, clearly acknowledging that it's a design issue.
So... who is actually asking for careers to be removed? This seems like a strawman to me. And why is it always combat/PvP players who're accused of this? Is it perhaps because it's predominantly that career which is gated behind others, whereas Explorers can get started immediately with a D rated Hauler? It might be a factor.
Last edited:
Yes and? That's the way it should be. You cannot possibly judge people for their taste or playstyle that is just nonsense. Some people like mining some people like exploring. I for one like pvp and combat because I think it's hands down the most fleshed out aspect of this game and is really interesting. And yes I really do think the material collecting is just pure brain damage and boredom. Increddibly lazy design.