Engineers A way to approach complaints about RNG, grind, etc

[Starender]

I believe the real problem is defined as the RNG at the Blueprint stage. It doesn't matter whether the materials are easy to get or difficult to get, you are still faced with the same RNG at the Blueprint application, and the same frustration.

Exactly.

 

[Gedemon]

There's a huge discrepancy in the amount of credits some players have.

if you make everything in the game purchasable the game becomes really difficult to balance.

"Oh this amazing item we'll charge a large amount of credits for it" But "large amount" has no meaning when some players have 10 million and others 10 billion.

Making everything purchasable means playerswith loads of credits just bypass gameplay with credits, almost in-game pay2win. It's not only a problem from a game imbalance point of view it's also bad from a gameplay point of view. ie Engineers comes out, if all materials are purchasable then folk just buy their way to all level 5 upgrades in a few days and a week later they're complaining about lack of content.

Materials puts everyone on a level playing field, you can't bypass the system, you can't just buy your way to getting all the best stuff, and "auto-completing" all the content in a few clicks.

Sorry, but RNG is worst to balance this, one may have to grind once to get a good upgrade, will get an element he's looking for at the first refresh of the mission board while another one will never get something near the level of the lucky player upgrade after a hundred tries (have you seen the range of the values for the level 5 ?), and will have to refresh the board a thousand times to get what he want, I really don't see how you can make things more unbalanced than RNG.

A reputation system based on missions becoming harder and harder to access better upgrade, that was how to do it, not the lazy implementation we have today, they should have taken 1 or 2 years more to release this gameplay, but now we have another Powerplay in game, something that can't be balanced unless you scrap it and go back to the drawing board.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

I really do like the player trade in other games. It creates actually value of commodies and adds so many cool stuff for example escorts for important cargo (even in Private/PvE), living market with changing prices and vakues for items. I would never sell a UA for 100k, I bet players would pay millions.
Can actually create whole new trade routes for players and could use events like community goals.

I am 100% for a player trade market or any kind of player interaction.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I would be in favour of a player-trade market house, or better yet, a review of the way in which materials are generated to begin with.

IMO the call for such an AH is due to the RNG nature of how you find them in the first place.

 

[Insomnia]

I think it's a good call to skip being able to buy upgrades with credits. But having markets might be great way for people to start making money. Sell your materials to the highest bidder. I'm thinking WoW here... I have no idea how EVE works.

 

[CMDR M Kozak]

People wont stop grinding.

If its not materials its credits. They can't stop them self.

... and they will still cry on forums.

 

[Insomnia]

People wont stop grinding.

If its not materials its credits. They can't stop them self.

... and they will still cry on forums.

*facepalm*

 

[Janichsan]

and the issue is?

It will eventually lead to "gold farmers" selling materials and modules for real money.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Because one of the reasons for using materials is specifically to move away from credits.

Suggesting having materials be purchasable totally misses the point.

What is the point though ? Rather than 1 currency we right now have over 100 ... you see any logic in that, as I don't.

 

[bitstorm]

What is the point though ? Rather than 1 currency we right now have over 100 ... you see any logic in that, as I don't.

Well for me, the reason I stated at top of this page.

1 vs 100 the logic clearly is to have people engage with the game rather than buying their way to their goals with credits they earned 2 years ago. You really cannot tell me 100 resource types doesn't allow Frontier to differentiate activities more (100x more?) than with 1 resource type.

I mean one actual important difference with materials vs credits, there is no upper limit on credits.

 

[Gedemon]

Well for me, the reason I stated at top of this page.

1 vs 100 the logic clearly is to have people engage with the game rather than buying their way to their goals with credits they earned 2 years ago. You really cannot tell me 100 resource types doesn't allow Frontier to differentiate activities more (100x more?) than with 1 resource type.

I mean one actual important difference with materials vs credits, there is no upper limit on credits.

There are other method to prevent people to "buy their way" to the new upgrades, IMO they've chosen the worst, one that make things even less balanced as it use randomness in all steps to create a difference between players, luck should not be a skill.

 

[bitstorm]

There are other method to prevent people to "buy their way" to the new upgrades, IMO they've chosen the worst, one that make things even less balanced as it use randomness in all steps to create a difference between players, luck should not be a skill.

I think you're conflating issues here. Randomness is absolutely nothing to do with using materials over credits.

You can use materials over credits both with and without RNG being involved.

 

[Gedemon]

I think you're conflating issues here. Randomness is absolutely nothing to do with using materials over credits.

You can use materials over credits both with and without RNG being involved.

Yes, but I've not seen anything about removing the RNG involved in finding them, did you ?