C'mon, this is faintly ridiculous.

[Morbad]

Players are still going to get big ships and effect the BGS

One of the largest problems I see with the game's progression mechanisms is that they are largely one-way. Setbacks aren't really possible outside of fairly extreme scenarios; they should be. My CMDR should be able to suffer a reduction in his agency potential and/or be able to be forced out of a theater of operations in order to cut his losses and recuperate.

Strategy and tactics should be proportionally more influential, while grinding out transactions, or one's collection of permanent tools, less so.

I wasn't aware that clearing CZs was the fastest and heaviest way to impact the BGS. If it is? Then fine, accepted.

What's fastest or best is situational. During a war, combat missions and CZs are about all that will affect the outcome. You can't trade or universal cartographics your way to victory here. Likewise, there are other states and conflict types that cannot be efficiently resolved by blowing up NPCs.

 

[killerofstars]

One of the largest problems I see with the game's progression mechanisms is that they are largely one-way. Setbacks aren't really possible outside of fairly extreme scenarios; they should be. My CMDR should be able to suffer a reduction in his agency potential and/or be able to be forced out of a theater of operations in order to cut his losses and recuperate.

Some people love the idea of a game where you can loose everything. I've put hundreds of hours into Elite. I'm not interested in seeing that time wiped out. Our real lives are limited. We only have so much playtime and I don't mean per day, I mean, total. Sorry but my life is more valuable then repeatedly redoing the same things over and over in a video game like Sisyphus pushing a rock back up a hill. Pretty much everyone I have EVER gamed with in my life feels the same way...when the effort/time outweighs the rewards, they quit.

It's entirely possible to lose everything in Elite, but generally if you make poor decisions and that seems fair. A game where hundreds of hours are continually threatened to vanish? Again, thanks. No thanks. And I imagine based on how many destiny players (including myself) are salty over loosing all their guns, that's probably a broadly shared sentiment.

Also this doesn't really address the point you quoted, other players even with an insane regression mechanic are STILL going to acquire ships and effect the BGS. So...not sure what the point of that was other than suggesting another negative player experience mechanic.

As for CZs, sure. But the point everyone took offense to was my suggestion that a murdervette wasn't going to reshape the BGS significantly faster than other routes. And again, I don't crunch BGS numbers or care about the BGS overmuch but in my casual searches, that seems to be true.

 

[Deleted member 182079]

I don't think anybody is asking for "losing their entire progress/assets" unless they reset their account.

However, shouldn't there be a real risk to one's credit balance at least (in terms of rebuys, losses, whatever) when one takes some additional risk?

I took an Elite Pirate Lord mission yesterday.

I was in my Cobra.

I got paid about 5m credits for 5 minutes "work". I could've bought 14 more Cobras with it. Or another fully A-rated Cobra.

Any 'loss' translated into 1-2 rings on my shields. That's right - they didn't even drop, so no repair costs at all.

Do you think that's sensible balancing? Though it seems this is what "most players" want, apparently. Guess I'll have to further gimp myself and go in shieldless next time.

 

[Morbad]

Some people love the idea of a game where you can loose everything. I've put hundreds of hours into Elite. I'm not interested in seeing that time wiped out.

My CMDR losing some assets, or even me losing a CMDR (not necessarily what I'm advocating), doesn't wipe out any time. That gameplay was still experienced, still enjoyed, and if it had some kind of scarcity or risk involved, would be all the more meaningful. Failure and loss is as important a part of a character's narrative as success.

Sorry but my life is more valuable then repeatedly redoing the same things over and over in a video game like Sisyphus pushing a rock back up a hill.

The possibility of meaningful loss doesn't imply redoing the same things over and over. Indeed, if one path wasn't successful, reevaluating things before repeating the same mistakes would probably be wise.

when the effort/time outweighs the rewards, they quit.

I feel the same way, but in games like this the potential for reward is inversely proportional to the potential for risks. Something without scarcity can't have value.

It's entirely possible to lose everything in Elite, but generally if you make poor decisions and that seems fair.

It's possible to lose all of a CMDR's credit assets if they are concentrated into one vessel, then that vessel is destroyed, without enough left over to cover a rebuy. This is an extremely difficult thing to achieve, without deliberate intent, and doesn't erase any of a CMDR's less tangible assets...rank, reputation, unlocks, etc. In practice, only the most inept or reckless CMDRs lose much of anything on the rare occasion of a ship loss.

Also this doesn't really address the point you quoted, other players even with an insane regression mechanic are STILL going to acquire ships and effect the BGS.

This isn't a problem. The problem is with everyone always having the best tools possible at their disposal, resulting in absurd demographics. It hardly matters who has the best tools, as long as it's not everyone at the same time. I would imagine that in any rational system, more experienced CMDRs would suffer serious losses less often, but it could still occur.

As for CZs, sure. But the point everyone took offense to was my suggestion that a murdervette wasn't going to reshape the BGS significantly faster than other routes. And again, I don't crunch BGS numbers or care about the BGS overmuch but in my casual searches, that seems to be true.

War is a significant component of BGS manipulation and, as noted, other tools are better for other tasks. The issue I'm highlighting is that, in relatively short order, anyone can have all of the best tools at the ready, and never be at risk for losing them. A 'murdervette' or equivalent is easy to get, so is a trade T-9 or Cutter, a Python for missions to outposts, and a ship with a good jump range and fuel scoop ratio to quickly gather gobs of exploration data. Since the main opposition is NPCs, the skills required to contribute also have a very low floor. The game is a high-speed elevator to the top, and instead of there being little room at the top, there is always room for more. We have an inverted pyramid of success and it cheapens the depiction of the setting.

 

[Rat Catcher]

You haven't answered my question. You haven't explained how someone manipulating the BGS meaningfully alters your gameplay experience other than, if you're both trying to support competing factions, someone with a bigger ship might have a larger impact than you.

No. I've gotten a lot of explanations for what the BGS DOES, not how it impacts people's GAMEPLAY EXPERIENCE.

Ok...
Carcosa, Colonia...
Flipped by Phisto and a handful of other players away from another player faction back to control of The Nameless (NPC native anarchy faction)
The shipyard becomes the only place in Colonia where certain Federation ships and any Alliance ships are sold. Benefits anyone who wants the option.

SECD stages a BGS 'war' over the course of around a year to 'free' Carcosa from Anarchy (make it a dictatorship instead!) so losing these ships from the Nebula entirely...
(SECD brought many of their counterparts from the bubble to achieve the final stages, providing many extra 'bodies' to grind the BGS under direction of an 'expert' BGS player)
Is that sufficient explanation of how BGS might affect players?

 

[killerofstars]

Ok...
Carcosa, Colonia...
Flipped by Phisto and a handful of other players away from another player faction back to control of The Nameless (NPC native anarchy faction)
The shipyard becomes the only place in Colonia where certain Federation ships and any Alliance ships are sold. Benefits anyone who wants the option.

SECD stages a BGS 'war' over the course of around a year to 'free' Carcosa from Anarchy (make it a dictatorship instead!) so losing these ships from the Nebula entirely...
(SECD brought many of their counterparts from the bubble to achieve the final stages, providing many extra 'bodies' to grind the BGS under direction of an 'expert' BGS player)
Is that sufficient explanation of how BGS might affect players?

Great, thank you. That was a tangible answer. You have to fly back to the bubble to get certain ships. That's what I was looking for.

So we can evaluate that against a massive change that effects the entire player base: Colonia is meant to be a little outpost out in the middle of nowhere without every convenience otherwise it would just be the bubble 2.0. You aren't denied access to those ships, you just have to go farther to get them. Since the thrust of this post is "grind isn't bad I wish there was more grind to space out ship acquisition that seems to provide exactly that, and only to a small number of players interested in heading out to Colonia. So I would argue that's not a particularly good reason to reshape the entire rewards system.

Thank you though, for finally giving a concrete answer to my question.

 

[killerofstars]

I don't think anybody is asking for "losing their entire progress/assets" unless they reset their account.

Morbad JUST advocated for that.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Great, thank you. That was a tangible answer. You have to fly back to the bubble to get certain ships. That's what I was looking for.

So we can evaluate that against a massive change that effects the entire player base: Colonia is meant to be a little outpost out in the middle of nowhere without every convenience otherwise it would just be the bubble 2.0. You aren't denied access to those ships, you just have to go farther to get them. Since the thrust of this post is "grind isn't bad I wish there was more grind to space out ship acquisition that seems to provide exactly that, and only to a small number of players interested in heading out to Colonia. So I would argue that's not a particularly good reason to reshape the entire rewards system.

Thank you though, for finally giving a concrete answer to my question.

The manipulation by SECD was exceptionally well executed, incidentally, as several expansions had to be 'engineered' to be able to end up in Carcosa.

Colonia is slightly more than a backward outpost full of 'country bumpkins & hicks' these days, and there is engineering available there that is not in the bubble... Oh yes, that was the work of a bunch of yokels too...

As for changing the entire rewards system.... Not my decision, Frontier will do whatever they wish - and whatever they do there will be virtual tears from some!

 

[killerofstars]

War is a significant component of BGS manipulation and, as noted, other tools are better for other tasks. The issue I'm highlighting is that, in relatively short order, anyone can have all of the best tools at the ready, and never be at risk for losing them. A 'murdervette' or equivalent is easy to get, so is a trade T-9 or Cutter, a Python for missions to outposts, and a ship with a good jump range and fuel scoop ratio to quickly gather gobs of exploration data. Since the main opposition is NPCs, the skills required to contribute also have a very low floor. The game is a high-speed elevator to the top, and instead of there being little room at the top, there is always room for more. We have an inverted pyramid of success and it cheapens the depiction of the setting.

Okay, I already addressed this, but I'll put it more succulently here: People interested in manipulating the BGS are almost always going to do so with the best tools. When they DONT have the best tools, they look around and go "hmm I want those better tools." In terms of time/effort people usually choose the most economical path to do so, so why would someone grind at a BGS in an eagle when they can work towards having a larger ship that makes that process more efficient?

So slowing down the rewards will not result in people ceasing to use murder vettes and super trade condas and cutters to reshape systems. It will just off EVERYONE ELSE. And as I said, a bunch of players already HAVE those ships, so slowing down rewards isn't going to result in fewer players interacting with those systems.

Basically I see a lot of negatives with no gains for the game or player base.

If the tools aren't hard to get, well then nobody has any excuse when trying to reshape the BGS for not having the best tools themselves. And has been stated by a few other players, if your sole objective is the manipulation of economies not flying, then you REALLY should be playing EVE that supports, provides for, and encourages that kind of gameplay. That game already exists. Elite does not need to become EVE.

 

[M00ka]

Ok...
Carcosa, Colonia...
Flipped by Phisto and a handful of other players away from another player faction back to control of The Nameless (NPC native anarchy faction)
The shipyard becomes the only place in Colonia where certain Federation ships and any Alliance ships are sold. Benefits anyone who wants the option.

SECD stages a BGS 'war' over the course of around a year to 'free' Carcosa from Anarchy (make it a dictatorship instead!) so losing these ships from the Nebula entirely...
(SECD brought many of their counterparts from the bubble to achieve the final stages, providing many extra 'bodies' to grind the BGS under direction of an 'expert' BGS player)
Is that sufficient explanation of how BGS might affect players?

So that's what happened whilst during my non-playing break. Hell I thought some lone guy wandered up in his Sidewinder with KWS fitted and just ... WON

hehehehehe

 

[Rat Catcher]

So that's what happened whilst during my non-playing break. Hell I thought some lone guy wandered up in his Sidewinder with KWS fitted and just ... WON

hehehehehe

I used the 'wars' in the latter stages to finance a Fleet Carrier (amazing how much can be 'earned' by flying in a wing of 4, each sharing 40+ million massacre missions!) to secure my fleet - and a couple of Alliance ships - before the inevitable fall, we know that the wars had an unknown number of 'locals' fighting for The Nameless alongside Loren's Reapers, but against the opposition (possibly 100's brought from the bubble - but an unknown number) presented it was just a matter of time before the system fell.

 

[Aidan Brooder]

The amounts of money we make right now are quite ridiculous, I agree.

It leads to new players leaving out very interesting ships as everyone aims for the slomo whale that is the Anaconda. And then leave as they feel they have "won the game".

In my opinion it devalues ED and certainly makes it more boring for people that want to have a feeling of achievement.
But: Seems we are a minority. Or maybe we are not, but instant satisfaction is just "the thing" these days.

I gave up complaining.

 

[Morbad]

Okay, I already addressed this, but I'll put it more succulently here: People interested in manipulating the BGS are almost always going to do so with the best tools. When they DONT have the best tools, they look around and go "hmm I want those better tools." In terms of time/effort people usually choose the most economical path to do so, so why would someone grind at a BGS in an eagle when they can work towards having a larger ship that makes that process more efficient?

So slowing down the rewards will not result in people ceasing to use murder vettes and super trade condas and cutters to reshape systems. It will just off EVERYONE ELSE. And as I said, a bunch of players already HAVE those ships, so slowing down rewards isn't going to result in fewer players interacting with those systems.

Basically I see a lot of negatives with no gains for the game or player base.

If the tools aren't hard to get, well then nobody has any excuse when trying to reshape the BGS for not having the best tools themselves. And has been stated by a few other players, if your sole objective is the manipulation of economies not flying, then you REALLY should be playing EVE that supports, provides for, and encourages that kind of gameplay. That game already exists. Elite does not need to become EVE.

I don't think you've understood anything I've been saying.

I never suggested that people not use the most efficient means in pursuit of a given goal. Rather, I'm suggesting a system where risks are a thing and setbacks possible, making the sort of goals people would target and the risks they'd be willing to take would be a major factor in what was practical to apply to these goals. Over committing resources should be possible and going all in should be risky, creating opportunities for one's opponents.

Also, none of these considerations should be limited to those interested in manipulating the BGS...Indeed, a major motivation for any change I'd propose would be to make the BGS more 'background', so that it feels less like a game within and game and more like a natural reflection of characters interacting with the setting.

Assets already accrued in a system where assets can be lost will not prevent attrition from taking it's toll and eventually restoring balance. I'm much less concerned about the rate of progression (though I do generally feel the current rate is far too fast) and more about the lack of potential for setbacks removing any dynamism, and the gameplay opportunities that would go along with it.

I've also never said anything I thought would suggest my "sole objective is the manipulation of economies not flying". As I stated earlier, I want to play a first person fantasy space flight simulation, with minimal piloting abstractions, ideally in a setting that features a plausible setting (including a credible economic simulation) underpinning everything. When my goals are manipulating economies, which is quite rare, I would like to be able to do so via piloting, not instead of it. I want my CMDR's agency in such a regard to be more dependent on my piloting and less dependent on his assets or my tolerance for grind loops. The economy could and should mostly remain a backdrop, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't have far reaching implications for all sorts of gameplay, including pretty much everything related to acquiring, retaining, and maintaining, the tools required to fly.

The various background mechanisms aren't a goal in and of themselves, they are means to an end. That end is the representation of, and immersion in, a believable Elite setting.

 

[Deleted member 182079]

Morbad JUST advocated for that.

I don't think so, where?

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I had fun with 'progression' when I started a little over 3 years ago...

Certainly now getting hold of the credits to buy and equip a good medium (around 200 mill) is not the task it was then - is it worse for it? I'm of the opinion that the game has inflated earnings to adopt to new players not being prepared to take months to 'progress' ships, it just means that everyone can be a little less 'careful' and worry less about the loss of ship etc. now than then.

Money has inflated because the grind has inflated too. Back then you needed only ships to grind. Now you need to grind engineers for each ship in addition. Requirements have multiplied - player time doesn't. It's no longer necessary to choke the credit trickle to a minimum to have players not progress too quickly through "content".

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

As a new player I agree with OP.

I would prefer that maybe mats would be a bit easier/faster to gather but credits hard.

I miss that excitement of finally be able to buy "the next ship", flying it E rated and without a rebuy because the purchase made me broke, and that new ship smell!
And that was just a month ago or so.

It was some of the most immersive times I've ever had in a computer game.

Yeah. I guess engineers is FD's love child. I would have wished for something less anally fixated but here we are.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

I don't think you've understood anything I've been saying.

It's amazing how many times to so many different people you've had to say that to. Just an observation, dismiss it as you will. But maybe you aren't communicating all that well on this?

We do understand. We just do not agree. And that's ok.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

It leads to new players leaving out very interesting ships as everyone aims for the slomo whale that is the Anaconda. And then leave as they feel they have "won the game".

Please show me a single time someone quit the game just because they got a ship they wanted. I mean...come on, that's a ridiculous statement on it's face.

 

[antiriad]

Please show me a single time someone quit the game just because they got a ship they wanted. I mean...come on, that's a ridiculous statement on it's face.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/1-5-years-to-get-anaconda-1-day-to-lose-it.324391/

 

[Morbad]

It's amazing how many times to so many different people you've had to say that to.

Two people, who have been repeating the same unfounded assumptions.

Just an observation, dismiss it as you will. But maybe you aren't communicating all that well on this?

It doesn't seem to be a very accurate observation. Perhaps I haven't properly articulated my position on the points I've been addressing, but no one else seems to be particularly confused.

Is there something you'd like clarified?