C'mon, this is faintly ridiculous.

[antiriad]

Then the answer is to make more ships

Yep - I'd love more ships - I'm sure most people would. If my credit balance is sufficient to be able to buy them immediately though, it wouldn't promote longevity.

and make more things to do in ships

This I absolutely agree with

Making grinds, placing stupid barriers between us and what we want, will NOT ensure longevity.

For my part, I'm certainly not asking for "grinds or stupid barriers". I've merely stated that I preferred the progression I had before the credit income rate was massively inflated - when getting to the top tier ships was something that took time and effort to accomplish. However, it seems that the current state of the game has attracted more players, and that's a good thing. Also, I certainly also enjoy being able to buy and outfit any ship on a whim, so I completely understand where you're coming from there. The increase in earning potential was not accompanied by a similar increase in risk/loss potential - I'm not suggesting that should have been "losing everything", but one would have expected the risk to increase at least a little, whereas it has remained static.

 

[Revenant69]

The only wealth that actually matters in this game can't be bought but must instead be earned the hard way: combat flying skill against highly proficient human antagonists. Aside from that context this game is just a cheesy, not very well executed PvE time sink.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

Yep - I'd love more ships - I'm sure most people would. If my credit balance is sufficient to be able to buy them immediately though, it wouldn't promote longevity.


This I absolutely agree with


For my part, I'm certainly not asking for "grinds or stupid barriers". I've merely stated that I preferred the progression I had before the credit income rate was massively inflated - when getting to the top tier ships was something that took time and effort to accomplish. However, it seems that the current state of the game has attracted more players, and that's a good thing. Also, I certainly also enjoy being able to buy and outfit any ship on a whim, so I completely understand where you're coming from there. The increase in earning potential was not accompanied by a similar increase in risk/loss potential - I'm not suggesting that should have been "losing everything", but one would have expected the risk to increase at least a little, whereas it has remained static.

You're just going to set up a have vs have not mentality, especially with new players. They will experience a game that's punishingly difficult to learn, on top of a huge uphill grind to achieve new ships and upgrades. To say nothing of the impending Engineering grind that they KNOW is right around the corner at some point.

While the established veteran playerbase will have sufficient resources, ships, and (most importantly) all the Engineering in the world to easily achieve whatever goals they set out for themselves.

Bravo, you just turned ED into Eve Online.

 

[antiriad]

You're just going to set up a have vs have not mentality, especially with new players. They will experience a game that's punishingly difficult to learn, on top of a huge uphill grind to achieve new ships and upgrades.

While the established veteran playerbase will have sufficient resources, ships, and (most importantly) all the Engineering in the world to easily achieve whatever goals they set out for themselves.

Bravo, you just turned ED into Eve Online.

I'm not sure how this relates to my post that you quoted? I believe I stated that the credit boost drawing new players to the game (and keeping them there) is a good thing.

Regarding EVE Online, I remember looking at that game many years ago, long before Elite Dangerous was even announced. On researching the game, I discovered that in that game one does not have "direct" control to their ships, but commands them via a "point and click" method. Correct me if I'm wrong - I've never played it for that reason. I play Elite Dangerous because I have direct control of my ships - I like FLYING space ships. THAT is the most fundamental different between Elite and EVE, not anything to do with the economy or progression.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

I'm not sure how this relates to my post that you quoted? I believe I stated that the credit boost drawing new players to the game (and keeping them there) is a good thing.

Yes you say it's a good thing, then lament that it's the case. So I'm not exactly sure where you're going. You feel credits are too easy and that's ruined "progression" right? I mean you directly said that, so my post most definitely relates to the point you are making.

 

[antiriad]

Yes you say it's a good thing, then lament that it's the case. So I'm not exactly sure where you're going. You feel credits are too easy and that's ruined "progression" right? I mean you directly said that, so my post most definitely relates to the point you are making.

No I didn't say that. I said I preferred it as it was before, but accept that the change may well be good for the health of the game.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I fundamentally disagree with everything you are saying. The Anaconda was THE ship I wanted to explore and adventure with. It was my goal. I got it, and it's greatly increased my enjoyment of the game. If I get bored and stop playing, it will be because FDEV didn't' add sufficient content and things to do to keep me interested. It won't be because I didn't sufficiently suffer through months and months of a credit grind to get it.

Bored? Ha! I still have to experience a fully Grade 5 beefed up Corvette. Or a tricked out Cutter with a billion HP shield. To say nothing of a Fleet Carrier eventually maybe. I mean, you gotta be kidding me that I was "given" an Anaconda and now it's all downhill from here. What the heck?

I really wish burned-out players didn't come here and tell us the reason is because the devs didn't put enough artificial roadblocks in their path to stop them from getting burned out. And unless they do, others will suffer the same fate. That's called "projecting" and it's getting tiresome.

You are either content to explore and adventure in a legit 1:1 map of the Milky Way - in the ships of your choosing - or you are not. It it what it is.

I too find it far less satisfying getting into a new ship or trying out a new piece of gear when I am able to get it in a handful of hrs. I get that it does not concern you and that is fine... But your insistence that there are not players in the game where the journey to a ship is at least as important if not more than the destination of getting the ship shows a total blinkered view.

IF FD wanted ED to show her knickers as it were in a 100 hrs or so that is fine. Loads of games do that and like you said it does attract a certain gamer type. I just wish FD had been clearer that that was their goal......
I am far from burned out btw..... ED is a game I will come back to for as long as the lights are on. I just enjoy it less now than I used to and one of the reasons why is the 4thbwall breaking balance that has us delivering crap and getting paid not only more than the value of the crap you are delivering..... But also sometimes more than the value of the ship you are delivering it in as well.

Or I can pop down to a planet, scan a beacon with no challenge or risk at all and get paid millions of credits for 10 mins work. And yet some say that is a sign of a robust economy.....

 

[Morbad]

This is fundamentally false and it's tainting your entire perception of the game.

I'm quite sure that for someone like you, it may be the case. But it's simply too hyperbolic to take seriously as speaking for every CMDR out there.

Also I wasn't handed anything. We can have a constructive debate about the pace at which one advances, sure, but hyperbole like this doesn't help your case. It's just inflammatory rhetoric imo.

I don't feel like I was being hyperbolic.

Even the lowliest CMDR gets free ships for life, a magic ejection seat that beams them to safety every time they mess up, and preferential legal treatment that makes South African Apartheid look like a model of egalitarianism...and that is barely even hyperbole!

I'm certain your CMDR was handed a whole lot, because my CMDR was handed a whole lot. He was coddled by every conceivable mechanism, back when the game was radically more difficult than it is now.

Define fail?

Lack of success? Being able to wind up meaningfully worse off due to a mistake?

Even at it's most difficult, Elite: Dangerous had safety nets aplenty and never really lived up to that 'cutthroat galaxy' that's still in it's description. It's so far divorced from that now that it makes a mockery of the original vision for the game.

Yeah, you loose everything you still get a free-winder and not an alley to get drunk alone in for the rest of your short life. IT'S A GAME MORBAD.

If you have so much as five percent of the value of your ship, you lose next to nothing. A handful of meaningless credits, maybe some cargo or exploration data, perhaps failing a few missions. The game has plenty of explanations and warnings...one has to be quite deliberately reckless, or willfully ignorant, to not be able to cover the insurance excess...and then you get the free Sidewinder and access to a slew of activities of trivial difficulty that will rapidly replenish your CMDR's funds. Losing one's only ship without enough to cover rebuy is an extremely rare event that still doesn't amount to a meaningful setback in the current game.

Unless you have HUGE teams continually cranking content, you aren't gonna create enough material to last years. Stop trying: Make EXTREMELY GOOD content that you know is finite, but of the highest quality.

I could have sunk 10k hours into ED 1.4, but new content, any content, sells. Quality is less of a concern, because polish generates less hype and attention than novelty.

I play Elite Dangerous because I have direct control of my ships - I like FLYING space ships.

I backed and am still playing Elite: Dangerous primarily because of the flight model and because I was looking for a successor to Jumpgate (a player driven MMO). I ruled out many other games in the process, including EVE, because they were lacking in aspects I considered fundamental enough to be dealbreakers.

 

[Hoshizoku]

Reading this thread all i can think about is this:

Also the Thread Title suits it now even more.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

I too find it far less satisfying getting into a new ship or trying out a new piece of gear when I am able to get it in a handful of hrs. I get that it does not concern you and that is fine... But your insistence that there are not players in the game where the journey to a ship is at least as important if not more than the destination of getting the ship shows a total blinkered view.

IF FD wanted ED to show her knickers as it were in a 100 hrs or so that is fine. Loads of games do that and like you said it does attract a certain gamer type. I just wish FD had been clearer that that was their goal......
I am far from burned out btw..... ED is a game I will come back to for as long as the lights are on. I just enjoy it less now than I used to and one of the reasons why is the 4thbwall breaking balance that has us delivering crap and getting paid not only more than the value of the crap you are delivering..... But also sometimes more than the value of the ship you are delivering it in as well.

Or I can pop down to a planet, scan a beacon with no challenge or risk at all and get paid millions of credits for 10 mins work. And yet some say that is a sign of a robust economy.....

You and Morbad won't be happy until ED is real-life simulator or something. Forget it, just not worth the time.

So after you make the economy "realistic" will you be addressing that whole 'going 300 times the speed of light' issue? I mean you know, it's just not satisfying enough that I can travel from planet to planet in minutes. It really should take me years so I can feel that emmursion.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

You and Morbad won't be happy until ED is real-life simulator or something. Forget it, just not worth the time.

So after you make the economy "realistic" will you be addressing that whole 'going 300 times the speed of light' issue? I mean you know, it's just not satisfying enough that I can travel from planet to planet in minutes. It really should take me years so I can feel that emmursion.

Oh dear. Is that how desperate you are now that you can't see the difference between actually literally realistic by today's standards Vs internal consistency within a science fiction setting and versimilitude. .......

Beaming People up is an accepted part of star trek lore..... But you would not just blindly write that into an episode of the expanse (not without some backstory to explain it) because that mechanism just thrown in there.completely undermines half of the story.

Just because something is based upon fiction does not mean it should not be plausible, and consistent within its own rules.

 

[Riverside]

You and Morbad won't be happy until ED is real-life simulator or something. Forget it, just not worth the time.

So after you make the economy "realistic" will you be addressing that whole 'going 300 times the speed of light' issue? I mean you know, it's just not satisfying enough that I can travel from planet to planet in minutes. It really should take me years so I can feel that emmursion.

I feel you are going further from any point of common understanding rather than towards one, it may be worth your while to re-read the thread to see if you can gain a more complete understanding of the points contributors are making.

There is a difference between 'realistic' and 'believable'. Realistic would require lots of handwavium to be replaced with hard science, which as you imply would kinda break the basic idea of the game

Believeable only requires that the rules of the game universe are internally consistent. Telepresence being a thing but courier missions still needing to be hand delivered is a simple example, it requires handwavium or worse; the explanation 'because it's only a game'. I would like to be able to use lateral thinking to solve problems in different ways that suit my skillset, but am often faced with situations where there is only really one solution, wars are won by killing lots of NPCs in CZs for example, not by attacking assets which has virtually no effect. IRL taking out key infrastructure (a supply line for example) would have a profound effect on the outcome of a war.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

Oh dear. Is that how desperate you are now that you can't see the difference between actually literary realistic by today's standards Vs internal consistency and versimilitude. .......

Desperate? I'm only here posting because I'm not at home. As soon as I get home, I'll actually be playing the game and having fun while you and others try and convince us the real issue isn't you, it's that the game has flaws in that it's not grindy enough. Desperate seems to be a word aligned more with you than it does me.

It also doesn't help that none of you actually provide suggestions for how to make what you want a reality. Aside from a rose-colored appeal to the past that you must know, deep down, isn't going to happen.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I feel you are going further from any point of common understanding rather than towards one, it may be worth your while to re-read the thread to see if you can gain a more complete understanding of the points contributors are making.

There is a difference between 'realistic' and 'believable'. Realistic would require lots of handwavium to be replaced with hard science, which as you imply would kinda break the basic idea of the game

Believeable only requires that the rules of the game universe are internally consistent. Telepresence being a thing but courier missions still needing to be hand delivered is a simple example, it requires handwavium or worse; the explanation 'because it's only a game'. I would like to be able to use lateral thinking to solve problems in different ways that suit my skillset, but am often faced with situations where there is only really one solution, wars are won by killing lots of NPCs in CZs for example, not by attacking assets which has virtually no effect. IRL taking out key infrastructure (a supply line for example) would have a profound effect on the outcome of a war.

Lol telepresence..... I remember the time.when I thought FD had only implemented that as a temporary stop gap until we had space legs.

That ship has sailed (flown) but at least FD relented on fast travel. Instant ship transfer would have been even worse imo.

 

[Morbad]

You and Morbad won't be happy until ED is real-life simulator or something.

ED was always intended to be an eventual CMDR-life simulator.

So after you make the economy "realistic" will you be addressing that whole 'going 300 times the speed of light' issue? I mean you know, it's just not satisfying enough that I can travel from planet to planet in minutes. It really should take me years so I can feel that emmursion.

These are disingenuous assertions.

Nothing about verisimilitude or immersion demands adherence to our reality, just that the fictional reality of the setting in questions has some internal consistency.

Real-reality is a good baseline, because it's what people tend to understand (some more than others) and real-world principles should apply, unless there is good reason to change them. We need FTL travel, for gameplay purposes, and because the Elite setting is predicated on it's existence. We do not need instant gratification gameplay where setbacks are virtually impossible...indeed, these things are contrary to the accurate depiction of the setting.

I can easily suspend my disbelief about certain depictions of FTL travel, even though I am quite convinced it's a practical impossibility in reality, because different realities can work different ways. I can even overlook the sloppy depiction in ED as a necessary gameplay concession. However, I cannot suspend my disbelief about an infinite money supply coexisting with long term price controls, because this is a fundamental logical fallacy that craps all over the pretense of internal consistency. It's also not remotely necessary, nor even helpful.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

Believeable only requires that the rules of the game universe are internally consistent. Telepresence being a thing but courier missions still needing to be hand delivered is a simple example, it requires handwavium or worse; the explanation 'because it's only a game'. I would like to be able to use lateral thinking to solve problems in different ways that suit my skillset, but am often faced with situations where there is only really one solution, wars are won by killing lots of NPCs in CZs for example, not by attacking assets which has virtually no effect. IRL taking out key infrastructure (a supply line for example) would have a profound effect on the outcome of a war.

Yes except for the fact that ED doesn't charge a montly subscription, so there's a very real-world limit on the pace of content they can deliver. Yes, there are things about the game that don't make sense etc etc, believe me I notice them all the time. Simply calling them out while ignoring that writing code isn't a bottomless resource free of obligations, serves no purpose.

However in my long history of playing online games, most get ruined by people who prioritize realism and "balance" over fun gameplay. Nothing will be served by making credits frustrating to get, which is back to the entire point of the thread.

 

[Riverside]

Yes except for the fact that ED doesn't charge a montly subscription, so there's a very real-world limit on the pace of content they can deliver. Yes, there are things about the game that don't make sense etc etc, believe me I notice them all the time. Simply calling them out while ignoring that writing code isn't a bottomless resource free of obligations, serves no purpose.

However in my long history of playing online games, most get ruined by people who prioritize realism and "balance" over fun gameplay. Nothing will be served by making credits frustrating to get, which is back to the entire point of the thread.

I covered that point in a previous post.

I think that's the crux really, from FDev's perspective the ideal customer will buy the game, play for a while, satisfied with a good rate of progression, buy a few skins then stop playing, content with their achievements.

If the early progression rate is too slow or too fast people won't buy skins for either the larger ships (if progression is too slow & they give up early) or smaller ships (if progression is too fast & they skip them).

I enjoyed the challenge the game presented at launch in 2015 but I can see it was probably too hard for more casual players to get into. Whether it's too easy now I couldn't really say.

 

[Darth Ender]

some of you are smart enough to hit on the correct problem.

The problem is your activities you do in a small cheap ship starting out are exactly the same activities that huge expensive ships have available to do. There is no fundemental difference in skill or difficulty between the two.

Thus, there can be no proper balance of reward (money can never be balanced when the game mechanics involved are the same between newbies in tiny/cheap ships and veterans in huge/expensive ships). At best you get this stupid balance on scale ...due to ship size.

You top that with the activities being all risk-free (there is no risk to deep core mining) and you get shallow ...meaningless gameplay that results in everything being a grind mechanic rather than a game loop that progressively tests a player the further into the game they get.

It's not that players want to make money slower or add a bunch of artificial time sinks to have to work thru/around. It's that we want easy base level grind mechanics that make very little money and then real game loops on top that are required to make any higher rates of income that reward you based on playing skill.

Trade, exploration, mining are all stupid grind mechanics not any better than placeholders for minimally viable game loops you spit out when you want to invest 0 creative effort. Even bounty hunting is not much better ...but at least it's got a non-zero risk factor albeit still 100% opt-in hostile interactions.

 

[Mrc_NorthEast]

Most games have difficulty levels. Low, Medium, Hard being one example. I think Elite Dangerous needs that. A slider or choice of NPC/Thargoid ship and AI difficulty, easy to extremely hard. I also think ED needs a slider or choice on money making, easy money all the way to the Grinch, which means no credits for you. Simply put ED just doesn't have a way to balance how hard the game is for a new'er player at the same time balancing it for someone who has played the game for years and wants more of a challenge.

New players have small ships, usually with no engineering or at most a module or two with G1-G3. New players do not know about the latest money making meta's, unless they google them.

Players who have been around since the kickstarter for ED want a challenge... I am glad I do not have to figure it out, and write the code, but I hope FDev is up to the challenge.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Most games have difficulty levels. Low, Medium, Hard being one example. I think Elite Dangerous needs that. A slider or choice of NPC/Thargoid ship and AI difficulty, easy to extremely hard. I also think ED needs a slider or choice on money making, easy money all the way to the Grinch, which means no credits for you. Simply put ED just doesn't have a way to balance how hard the game is for a new'er player at the same time balancing it for someone who has played the game for years and wants more of a challenge.

New players have small ships, usually with no engineering or at most a module or two with G1-G3. New players do not know about the latest money making meta's, unless they google them.

Players who have been around since the kickstarter for ED want a challenge... I am glad I do not have to figure it out, and write the code, but I hope FDev is up to the challenge.

Whilst it would not solve everything I think FD should make more use of security levels. Maybe it's rose tinted specs but I remember going to an anachy system in the original elite to be potentially risky even in a decked out ship with military lasers..... I may get attacked by 6 or 7 groups of pirates of in a lawless system......

OTOH stay in safe space and it was rare indeed to be attscked. IF this was the case in ED then new players could stay in relative safety earning low amounts of money..... But bigger amounts could be earned by taking stuff to anarchy systems so you could get far better profits but with real risk to go with it.

But the people who want to get mega rich mega quick but with no risk still wouldn't like that. I would not mind making real cash so long as I had to work for it (in game)

The speed at which I am flying to elite now tho thanks to the earning inflation whilst not upping the elite ranks is a real shame however.

Imo ED has a fantastic galaxy generator in the stellar forge
I love the flight mechanics, the basic fight mechanics ,
The sound is sublime
And I like the premise as well (the lore etc)

Where it's lacking is the economy and some of the game loops.
Like I said I love the combat mechanics but it could be so much better than shoot 64 infinitley spawning pirates in a RES to earn ,20 million credits (+ bounties).

Why not have s mission to escort a cobra IV to a RES and protect it whilst it mines 50 tons then escort back and get paid a percentage of profits.

Or fly to an orbital platform and clear it out of pirates (or kill the security forces allowing pirates to get in)

At least doing that I would feel some of my earnings wod be justified. But I am going OT now.