A crazy idea I had that would appease both sides of the argument.

[reo4k]

What if we kept the current open play/solo play combined hive as a legacy branch and had a new open play hive that wasn't connected to solo or private and it had balanced credit rewards between mission type whether it be combat, mining or trade?

What if those balanced rewards were significantly reduced in payout (no 20+ million combat zone missions, no 70+ million/hr passenger/trade missions)?

What if logging in and out didn't reset the missions at space stations?

What if there was no combat logging, as in if you alt+f4 or close through task manager your ship stayed in the world for 1 - 3 minutes?

What if the journey to one of the big 3 took 500+ hrs of game play and to fully gear it out took closer to 1000?

 

[Meru448]

I think that an online-only shard/instance would be a huge boon to the game & open up a lot of development possibility & encourage more multiplayer interaction & that it should be a fresh-start, new shard.

A rebalancing of the progression system should be priority #1 for the game in general, far too much time is spent feeling as though the game is just a grind, not that you are making meaningful progression towards your end goal.

Having your ship/character persist is something pretty much all MMO's do, in the case of Elite, give your ship an AI equivalent to your highest rank, i.e Deadly = Deadly / Elite = Elite so that if it is a legitimate disconnect you aren't just a sitting duck.

Mission boards need to be addressed so that it doesn't feel like you have to "stack" to make meaningful progress.

As for the journey & the amount of time it takes I think 500 hours is high for the style of game Elite Dangerous is, keeping in mind most people probably can't commit that kind of time / will find it daunting, which reduces the playerbase, which reduces the goal of more meaningful multiplayer interactions.

As it is now, Elite tells you it is a sandbox, and then tells you that you can only use a shovel.

 

[varonica]

What if we kept the current open play/solo play combined hive as a legacy branch and had a new open play hive that wasn't connected to solo or private and it had balanced credit rewards between mission type whether it be combat, mining or trade?

What if those balanced rewards were significantly reduced in payout (no 20+ million combat zone missions, no 70+ million/hr passenger/trade missions)?

What if logging in and out didn't reset the missions at space stations?

What if there was no combat logging, as in if you alt+f4 or close through task manager your ship stayed in the world for 1 - 3 minutes?

What if the journey to one of the big 3 took 500+ hrs of game play and to fully gear it out took closer to 1000?

There is no two sides to the argument, that's a false dichotomy perpetuated by the PvP crowd because they don't have a valid argument.

 

[reo4k]

There is no two sides to the argument, that's a false dichotomy perpetuated by the PvP crowd because they don't have a valid argument.

Well there are some people that think the mission rewards are too high and there are some that think they are either fine where they are or should be higher. Those are indeed 2 sides to an argument.

 

[Starwolfe]

Horrible ideas on CL and gameplay.

As if we need more grind to this game than its already has.

And if you want to ruin your gameplay experience by cheating to gain the millions to get the Big 3 and complain that there is nothing to this game, then its your own fault.

 

[Meru448]

Having an online online shard/server would be a huge boon to the game & encourage more multiplayer play/cooperation.

Rewards in general need to be rebalanced across the board

"Board Hopping" could be solved in the reward rebalance that needs to happen, offer more availabe & more diverse missions so people don't feel that mission stacking is the only viable path of progression.

Combat logging should go, have your character replaced by an AI / disappear after <x> time where x could be 30-60 seconds.

500+ hours of gameplay is a bit much for a game like Elite, I think that # would scare off the majority of the playerbase.

More endgame content is needed, not an extended journey to the endgame.

 

[AJW]

...
What if there was no combat logging, as in if you alt+f4 or close through task manager your ship stayed in the world for 1 - 3 minutes?
...

You do realise that implementing that would require a fundamental reworking of core game code, as it can't be done using the current peer-to-peer network model?

I suggest you do a little research before making such significant proposals next time.

 

[Maka Gucci]

There is no two sides to the argument, that's a false dichotomy perpetuated by the PvP crowd because they don't have a valid argument.

Wow, but it's PvPers who are supposedly childish and unreasonable? Anyway what he is talking about is Open vs Solo, there are loads of PvEers who play in Open, you just think of Open as equal to PvP for some reason.

 

[reo4k]

You do realise that implementing that would require a fundamental reworking of core game code, as it can't be done using the current peer-to-peer network model?

I suggest you do a little research before making such significant proposals next time.

The devs themselves have stated that they appreciate out of the box suggestions like this that might improve overall quality of game play.

 

[Meru448]

You do realise that implementing that would require a fundamental reworking of core game code, as it can't be done using the current peer-to-peer network model?

I suggest you do a little research before making such significant proposals next time.

Combat logging removes what little risk there is, if a "fundamental rework" is what it takes, then why not?

 

[AJW]

Combat logging removes what little risk there is, if a "fundamental rework" is what it takes, then why not?

Why not? Short answer: money (lots of it) and time (lots of it). In order to satisfy the minority of players who find it an issue.

 

[AJW]

The devs themselves have stated that they appreciate out of the box suggestions like this that might improve overall quality of game play.

If you'd bothered to look into it, or even ask whether it had been proposed before, you would know that the devs have already explained that it can't be done.

 

[reo4k]

If you'd bothered to look into it, or even ask whether it had been proposed before, you would know that the devs have already explained that it can't be done.

Yeah, wasn't really in the mood to go scour the forums for similar posts. I had a cool idea and posted it, sue me.

 

[AJW]

Yeah, wasn't really in the mood to go scour the forums for similar posts. I had a cool idea and posted it, sue me.

Nope, I'll put you on ignore instead.

 

[reo4k]

Nope, I'll put you on ignore instead.

Cool, hopefully that means you'll stop replying with elitist remarks.

 

[Meru448]

Nope, I'll put you on ignore instead.

Why bother posting at all if you are going to add literally nothing to the discussion?

 

[varonica]

Wow, but it's PvPers who are supposedly childish and unreasonable? Anyway what he is talking about is Open vs Solo, there are loads of PvEers who play in Open, you just think of Open as equal to PvP for some reason.

It's the PvP'ers who insist it's cheating to do CG's in solo or private groups, it's the pvP'ers who demand that PVE'ers be compelled to stay and be blown to bits to satisfy their game play style, so yes they are childish and unreasonable, I merely pointed out that it's not a two sided argument, in other words in any position there can in fact be MORE than two sides. And just for the record, I play exclusively in open.

or maybe you just don't understand what a false dichotomy is?

A false dichotomy is a dichotomy that is not jointly exhaustive (there are other alternatives), or that is not mutually exclusive (the alternatives overlap), or that is possibly neither.

 

[Donaldcrack]

Would play on this server with pleasure!

 

[Para Handy]

Another false argument by PvP peeps wanting other commanders to become their content.

[down]

 

[DARGAN]

...What if there was no combat logging, as in if you alt+f4 or close through task manager your ship stayed in the world for 1 - 3 minutes?

You do realise that implementing that would require a fundamental reworking of core game code, as it can't be done using the current peer-to-peer network model?

I suggest you do a little research before making such significant proposals next time.

translator

this violence !.. it's true that this suggestion is fundamentally impossible.

it also implies withdrawing the buyout insurance, you can imagine if by an unfortunate bug you end up in a sidewinder, no because there is no harm in taking off without having planned the cost of buying back his ship, it is perfectly legal.