Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 70

Thread: I don't think 2.4 will fix Quince

  1. #16
    Originally Posted by NascentChemist View Post (Source)
    While part of me doesn't like seeing Novice cutters and Master corvettes, I can't blame the new players that use the exploit. I've used Niu Hsing and Wu Giunnagi to grind navy ranks. Doing that and making money enough to buy the ship? That's a heady proposition.
    Of course it is! Why else would someone put themselves through that virtual video torture. In fact, in my latest career, I may do it for some money to fit out a Conda. Why trade and run missions for a solid month when I can do it for a day or three?
    Of course everyone wants a big, fast ship that does everything. And some here expect folks in this day and age to grind this out in months of "normal" gameplay? Ridiculous. It's a game not some weird career and alternative lifestyle. ED may not be the whole world for some people.

    Money and ships allow you to experience most facets of the game and universe. Let Cmdr's play the game how they want and get it out of their system. Then they'll go back to whatever ship they have the most fun in.

  2. #17
    Originally Posted by NascentChemist View Post (Source)
    I think you may be onto something at the end. I definitely don't like seeing Master-ranked players flying my precious 'vette. I know it's irrational, but I still get a twinge of petulance.

    ...

  3. #18
    I guess the important thing to me regarding rank-grinding systems is that no one claims to have organically earned their Cutter or Corvette in the current mission system. They either earned it when the ships first debuted and the rank grind was easier, or they grinded in a system that didn't make them rich. In that context, Quince doesn't matter much to me. (Of course, I still want to see if my torpedo boat T-9 can take them)

  4. #19
    Originally Posted by DukeIronHand View Post (Source)
    Quarter billion an hour? King (or Admiral if you like) in a afternoon?
    I have a few friends which used Quince to keep up.
    Reloading the mission board, they could easily pick two 3mio missions and then logged around until they got up to 20 scan missions from multiple factions worth 200k to 3mio each. The trip and scan after that took only a few minutes.

    One also tried to get the Cutter this way, but even there it take many hours to get to Duke from one of the lower ranks. No "King" and no "afternoon".

  5. #20
    Originally Posted by NascentChemist View Post (Source)
    I guess the important thing to me regarding rank-grinding systems is that no one claims to have organically earned their Cutter or Corvette in the current mission system. They either earned it when the ships first debuted and the rank grind was easier, or they grinded in a system that didn't make them rich. In that context, Quince doesn't matter much to me.
    I agree.
    Having done my rank-grinding (multiple times) with the new mission system I cannot possibly imagine how long high rank would take playing the game 4-10 hours a week "normally." It's almost a stupid thought and a proposition for suckers.
    Wish I had that kind of time on my hands!

  6. #21
    Originally Posted by lemny View Post (Source)
    One also tried to get the Cutter this way, but even there it take many hours to get to Duke from one of the lower ranks. No "King" and no "afternoon".
    I believe you.
    I did Quince (Wu Guangi?) for a little over 3 weeks - with my limited play time and starting from no Imperial rank.
    Waited 2 years to try a Clipper. Always wanted one.
    Finally made Baron, saw how quick I was progressing to the Cutter, and said "forget it" and left. Did make some good money though.
    So I got the Clipper I always wanted and sold it about 2 days later. By the time you get the rank the Clipper is poor compared to the Python and Anaconda. Quite the let down!

  7. #22
    Originally Posted by DukeIronHand View Post (Source)
    So I got the Clipper I always wanted and sold it about 2 days later. By the time you get the rank the Clipper is poor compared to the Python and Anaconda. Quite the let down!
    That was exact my experience too. The Clipper is the best freighter in the game, but in comparison to the anaconda, I had next to no fun fighting with it. handling is much like T9, only faster forward. And I can't believe they left to white cockpit since the beginning. Can't see anything while the sun shines.

  8. #23
    Originally Posted by lemny View Post (Source)
    Oh I thought this would also go for the surface scan missions. I don't get why FD excludes them in this fix.
    Surface scans if you read them now work if you scan any antanea so no idea why they would make it so it's now only one specific
    the stacking also shouldn't be changed as it's a system for rep grinding as others exist too.

    I dont like that they're changing the combat missions tho....if you're killing the same folks it should count. Maybe the station needs to talk amongst one another and have different interests of us pilots (just saying don't blame the messenger)

  9. #24
    Originally Posted by DukeIronHand View Post (Source)
    Of course it is! Why else would someone put themselves through that virtual video torture. In fact, in my latest career, I may do it for some money to fit out a Conda. Why trade and run missions for a solid month when I can do it for a day or three?
    Of course everyone wants a big, fast ship that does everything. And some here expect folks in this day and age to grind this out in months of "normal" gameplay? Ridiculous. It's a game not some weird career and alternative lifestyle. ED may not be the whole world for some people.

    Money and ships allow you to experience most facets of the game and universe. Let Cmdr's play the game how they want and get it out of their system. Then they'll go back to whatever ship they have the most fun in.
    insert applause

    Im still blown away with some comments in other threads not wanting people to have access to some better way of ranking up or making more credits.

    Considering my Cutter still requires another 800mil and most things are now A rated.
    I have no problem with anyone grinding in any way that the game offers and it's not accurate to call it an exploit.

    I do comprehend the opinions of those who feel moving from diff sessions is not to their liking but that's largely due to selfish opinions that relate to PvP oriented experiences and Power Play or weekly events. If anything the missions changes should pay out a lot more credits and offer higher rep gains under certain conditions made open to anyone if they are going to limit what stacks. The behavior is due to the many hours of repeating dry boring content.

    Its not like you can find anything new to do that offers more rep or credits and these options exist by design not due to manipulating the game.

  10. #25
    I believe that this discussion (and every resembling discussion) tend to mix two unrelated topics.

    1. The desire to fly "top tier" ships after a reasonable play time - the game's pacing.
    I would be willing to discuss this. While I personally have a completely different stance (I prefer long term goals and would love a more stretched-out "ship career"; I would love, if we all would spend more time in smaller ships in our beginning and only slowly progress to medium and large ships), I can at least understand the desire and the arguments for it. A discussion about this topic would be a discussion about game design and what is a good game experience. A worthwhile discussion for sure!

    2. The use of exploits in order achieve a faster game progression.
    Some people who would argue for a faster access to top tier ships above, tend to use and defend game exploits in order to achieve this. The problem is: an exploit is an exploit is an exploit! Exploits destroy games. They make it impossible for the devs to balance timing, game mechanics and rules. They need to be ironed out! Defending them means, that there is no real interest in creating (via feed back) a good game, but only the desire for personal benefits.

    Rather than arguing whether or not an exploits should stay in the game because it is "the only way to get stuff done", the discussion should revolve around the real issue: the game pace.

  11. #26
    Originally Posted by Deggial View Post (Source)
    I believe that this discussion (and every resembling discussion) tend to mix two unrelated topics.

    1. The desire to fly "top tier" ships after a reasonable play time - the game's pacing.
    I would be willing to discuss this. While I personally have a completely different stance (I prefer long term goals and would love a more stretched-out "ship career"; I would love, if we all would spend more time in smaller ships in our beginning and only slowly progress to medium and large ships), I can at least understand the desire and the arguments for it. A discussion about this topic would be a discussion about game design and what is a good game experience. A worthwhile discussion for sure!

    2. The use of exploits in order achieve a faster game progression.
    Some people who would argue for a faster access to top tier ships above, tend to use and defend game exploits in order to achieve this. The problem is: an exploit is an exploit is an exploit! Exploits destroy games. They make it impossible for the devs to balance timing, game mechanics and rules. They need to be ironed out! Defending them means, that there is no real interest in creating (via feed back) a good game, but only the desire for personal benefits.

    Rather than arguing whether or not an exploits should stay in the game because it is "the only way to get stuff done", the discussion should revolve around the real issue: the game pace.
    I agree for the most part. Far too many discussions here never go anywhere because one side is discussing what "ought" and the other is focused on what "is."

    One of my biggest hopes for Season 3 is a navy career that allows Rear Admirals/Dukes to participate without removing their rank or losing their ships.

  12. #27
    Originally Posted by Deggial View Post (Source)
    I believe that this discussion (and every resembling discussion) tend to mix two unrelated topics.

    1. The desire to fly "top tier" ships after a reasonable play time - the game's pacing.
    I would be willing to discuss this. While I personally have a completely different stance (I prefer long term goals and would love a more stretched-out "ship career"; I would love, if we all would spend more time in smaller ships in our beginning and only slowly progress to medium and large ships), I can at least understand the desire and the arguments for it. A discussion about this topic would be a discussion about game design and what is a good game experience. A worthwhile discussion for sure!

    2. The use of exploits in order achieve a faster game progression.
    Some people who would argue for a faster access to top tier ships above, tend to use and defend game exploits in order to achieve this. The problem is: an exploit is an exploit is an exploit! Exploits destroy games. They make it impossible for the devs to balance timing, game mechanics and rules. They need to be ironed out! Defending them means, that there is no real interest in creating (via feed back) a good game, but only the desire for personal benefits.

    Rather than arguing whether or not an exploits should stay in the game because it is "the only way to get stuff done", the discussion should revolve around the real issue: the game pace.
    I agree with Deggial (+1).

    My personal view is the exploits need to be removed and then we look at the game pacing in a proper meaningful way. At current we can't even work out and adjust with the ridiculous values that are literally 10X the next highest earner. The current new account to Anaconda in 20hrs is far from ok.

    I do believe that the ranking system is currently terrible and should at minimum be made tons easier until they have the time to develop something properly instead of: "Do 50,000 data missions".. It's the only thing I've ever gone to board switching. Never needed to for engineer mats, for credits or anything else except ranking. Anyway, when that new something exists FD can offer to reset anyones rank who wants to experience the new system as it should be.

  13. #28
    Originally Posted by DukeIronHand View Post (Source)
    Quarter billion an hour? King (or Admiral if you like) in a afternoon?

    I hear this often and have grinded once at every spot ever mentioned in this forums. And you know what?
    I have never made "a quarter billion an hour" or ranked high for all the grinding. Ensign for Feds and Baron for the Imps.
    Never got a big ship because of it. Did it for days. Boring so I leave. Haven't look back yet.
    If someone wants to do that grind for a pixel ship well god bless.
    Who cares? I'll tell you.
    The ones who already did it and don't want anyone else to have it.
    This game is most life-like.
    The problem is you cant have a c&p system based on bounties and fines if money is free.

  14. #29
    Originally Posted by sleutelbos View Post (Source)
    The problem is you cant have a c&p system based on bounties and fines if money is free.
    I suppose you are right on its face and it's a valid point as I understand C&P proposals. What about the "Karma" system though? Or is it all the same thing?
    As a Solo/PG player I have paid zero attention to the C&P posts, threads, and debates.

    EDIT: As a further thought if the "fun factor" for players is throttled back too much I would imagine you will lose many "casual" players. They ain't gonna grind for months - in a mind numbingly repetitive fashion - to try some gameplay feature or ship. No way.

  15. #30
    Originally Posted by DeathStroke View Post (Source)
    It won't fix quince, because quince isn't broken...
    Worst or funniest post in the forums history!!!!

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast