Why? Just because you aren't allowed to own it doesn't mean the interior model won't be available in your copy of the game, just like the outside model of it is, in fact, in your copy of the game, you can look but never own............
About that double-engineered FSD reward for the CG...
- Thread starter marx
- Start date
Why? Just because you aren't allowed to own it doesn't mean the interior model won't be available in your copy of the game, just like the outside model of it is, in fact, in your copy of the game, you can look but never own............
Because being able to board it would mean being able to steal it.
And who said you would be able to steal ships? That some sort of fantasy? In ship combat, you want to board a ship and kill the CMDR and be able to steal his ship? I would suggest most of the player base would be against that idea, and even if you did manage to steal it, if FDEV did do that madness, I can't imagine why, that can be alleviated simply by everyone just switching to private group or solo, do you really think FDEV would allow you to keep another players ship permanently? You do have some strange ideas.
David Braben. I'm sure you've seen that infamous video. Not that it still holds any value today.
Even if we ignore the Cobra mk4 (which I have no issue with FDev making available to all- it's just that they've already said it will never happen), there's still the question of whether someone should be able to steal my Cutter and skip the imperial rank needed to get it and the wait for the 3 different types of powerplay modules. Players would be queuing up to steal ships like that.
In fact, why buy and engineer another ship ever again?
I've actually summed up my ideas on that in another thread. Recap as follows:
I'd handle it so that if you lose control of your ship, you get to rebuy it. Meanwhile the original ship will be hot and not available for rebuy and can't be sold or cleared. If it gets destroyed, it's gone. Can't give it back to the original owner either once he has rebought it, that way preventing duplicating of legal ships. As long as it hasn't been rebought, return to the owner should be possible, clearing it in the process. That would open the possibility to willingly had over control to another player, so he can test the ship and give it back afterwards.
Easily foiled, they board my ship I set off the self destruct, can't be cancelled so boom and they all die and I get my ship back at rebuy and take some filthy pirates out with me. That is such a bad idea I can't imagine anyone coming up with it, I don't intend to take part in unwilling on foot PvP if I can ever help it, so if it became a common thing I would be switching from Open where I currently play all the time to Solo or PG permanently.
This is just flat out silly.
And that is perfectly valid, they even did it in Star Trek, surrendered their ship but with self-destruct set. Could implement methods for a boarding party to hack and disable the self-destruct, but that should not be an easy thing to do.
I think engineering a reward system to cause others to miss out IS extremely immoral. It's a forcing hand tactic devs use to literally make it so the player base has no choice but to engage in the content they wish the players to engage in, whether they like it or not. People shouldn't be punished, as they currently are, for having to undergo Hospital treatment, where they end up missing out, but wanted to still play the game and receive new content. EVERYONE should be entitled to game products and services, NOT a select few.
From the company's perspective; The ultimate goal is to get as many customers as possible to engage with products, typically when they are released, in a limited time frame, based on interest spans. I don't have a problem with them using whatever means they can think of, as long as it doesn't cross the line of what is acceptable. Since the barons don't want the industry to be regulated, because of "freedom", we see the shady tactics making themselves right at home with no legislation to say 'hey, that's not fair to make people stress unnecessarily over what is just a game'.
Players are being forced to have to juggle multiple accounts just for what? So they don't "miss out". The shady practice is to make players miss out as a punishment. That is the immoral offender here. If the devs kept the content morally clean and user friendly, I would participate, but since it's full of unnecessary drama and stress of making me permanently "miss out" on advantages that only a top percentage will get, I'm just not going to engage in that and their main objective has shot itself in the foot, (getting me to engage in the content by trying to force my hand through psychological manipulation).
What I think they should do to avoid breaching codes of conduct of customer rights is to offer the rewards as they are designed, BUT remove the top percentage and have it given to anyone who engages at all. They could even retain the percentage algorithm, offering in-game credits ONLY.
Release the game reward asset to the rest of the player base who didn't contribute anyway, as an item in the ARX store. (since it is only being used to get players to engage en-mass at that time- in order to generate time-sensitive interest). Those who participated get it for free, hence it is REWARDED TO THEM and sell it to everyone else, who didn't put the effort that the participants DID. This does not breach rights or practices of moral code but it retains the dignity of those who did OR didn't participate equally.
This is not rocket science. There really does not need to be such punishments being dished out to customers- they scratch their heads wondering why sales stagnate? Unbelievable.
references:
FOMO - Fear of missing out; Tactic used by industry to psychologically manipulate player base into feeling stressed and ultimately punishing them by missing out, if they do not engage with new products and services/ and/or purchase such in a certain limited time window.
Regulation; Legislation applied to business markets in order to ensure safety and to protect Human and statutory rights of individuals, be them customers or members of society in general.
From the company's perspective; The ultimate goal is to get as many customers as possible to engage with products, typically when they are released, in a limited time frame, based on interest spans. I don't have a problem with them using whatever means they can think of, as long as it doesn't cross the line of what is acceptable. Since the barons don't want the industry to be regulated, because of "freedom", we see the shady tactics making themselves right at home with no legislation to say 'hey, that's not fair to make people stress unnecessarily over what is just a game'.
Players are being forced to have to juggle multiple accounts just for what? So they don't "miss out". The shady practice is to make players miss out as a punishment. That is the immoral offender here. If the devs kept the content morally clean and user friendly, I would participate, but since it's full of unnecessary drama and stress of making me permanently "miss out" on advantages that only a top percentage will get, I'm just not going to engage in that and their main objective has shot itself in the foot, (getting me to engage in the content by trying to force my hand through psychological manipulation).
What I think they should do to avoid breaching codes of conduct of customer rights is to offer the rewards as they are designed, BUT remove the top percentage and have it given to anyone who engages at all. They could even retain the percentage algorithm, offering in-game credits ONLY.
Release the game reward asset to the rest of the player base who didn't contribute anyway, as an item in the ARX store. (since it is only being used to get players to engage en-mass at that time- in order to generate time-sensitive interest). Those who participated get it for free, hence it is REWARDED TO THEM and sell it to everyone else, who didn't put the effort that the participants DID. This does not breach rights or practices of moral code but it retains the dignity of those who did OR didn't participate equally.
This is not rocket science. There really does not need to be such punishments being dished out to customers- they scratch their heads wondering why sales stagnate? Unbelievable.
references:
FOMO - Fear of missing out; Tactic used by industry to psychologically manipulate player base into feeling stressed and ultimately punishing them by missing out, if they do not engage with new products and services/ and/or purchase such in a certain limited time window.
Regulation; Legislation applied to business markets in order to ensure safety and to protect Human and statutory rights of individuals, be them customers or members of society in general.
Except it IS the same issue. But actually even worse. Players made to engage with outside third party sources for exclusive content that others can't have? That's FOMO, it's for Elite: Dangerous content, it's definitely the same issue. Being rewarded with in game assets for engaging in a time-limited window, triggering financial transactions related to advertising contracts- resulting in other customers being locked out of game content?
-Is even worse and pretty shady if you ask me.
Personally, I enjoy the Community Goals. I find it challenging to turn in enough bounties, find enough thargoid materials, or to locate and transport sufficient quantities of specific commodities. I find it exciting to really push to get those last few cargo runs in when I am right up against the CG deadline. It's fun. Have I missed out on some great CG rewards? Yes. Sometimes it's work or travelling or a family obligation but that's just life. If you can't do the work (for whatever reason) to receive the reward you simply don't get it until and if it is released by a tech broker at a later date. There is not one specific Community Goal reward item that has been given out that is absolutely essential to play the game. I do think Elite should eventually release any CG reward item through the tech brokers but to keep it fair the requirement to get the item from the tech broker should equal the same amount of effort and time other Cmdrs had to put in during the CG to receive it.
![[VR] Merkir](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/141/141091.jpg?1553527154){kind=avatar}
Totally agree. And I think 6 months is a good delay before they reach the tech brokers, or even up to 12 months. That still gives plenty of incentive/reward to the CG participants, while eventually reaching balance again. It also brings verisimilitude, since it's impossible to believe that a piece of tech wouldn't eventually be available outside the original event.