Any compensation incoming for non-exploiters?

[Linnunrata]

It is somewhat rather disturbing that people feel the need to be compensated for being "good".

In general (and not referring to ED here), I think it is understandable in a case where people who cheat aren't punished and you have to compete with them.

But as someone pointed out, ED isn't really a competitive game and it doesn't really matter much how much credits the other CMDRs have (outside possibly FDev having to introduce higher prices for new content).

 

[jacozilla]

Aye. The downside is that the credit glut is making the "economy" even more lopsided and you don't necessarily even need the exploit to it. If they decide to introduce say basebuilding, everything in them has to cost billions to be something you need to earn through progress. But then those billion credit price tags take ages to grind with any other profession than mining. And since a relevant portion of players now have billions (as proven by carrier spam), you can't balance the "economy" through any other means except adding more zeros to payouts...

Unless they do what this game already has (with Engineering 1.0) and many other games as way to re-balance an economy without completely resetting nor taking away from players that earned much more ---> introduce a new, additional 'currency'.

We had credits at launch and for some time as sole basis of economic progression.
Then we got Eng 1.0 with mats - all sorts of types but collectively the aggregate generic we call 'mats' is the 2nd form of currency.

Won't bet my life of course, but I would think safe bet that if base building or some other new form of player acquisition is introduced, a corresponding 3rd form of current to act as limiting reagent much like mats are for engineering will be introduced.

 

[Deleted member 182079]

I have to disagree on that, I prefer a smaller ball, as I prefer the barrel-shaped parts. What in the end made me abandon axe was the lack of apparent bridge on the bulge though the axe itself is very neat profile - looks like a mining or war ship whereas the ball is more of an explorer.

Fair enough, as I said it's a matter of taste It does seem quite popular with the player base, I did develop a habit of selecting FCs when I come across them and the ball is coming up quite often - the axe being a close second I reckon.

Aye. The downside is that the credit glut is making the "economy" even more lopsided and you don't necessarily even need the exploit to it. If they decide to introduce say basebuilding, everything in them has to cost billions to be something you need to earn through progress. But then those billion credit price tags take ages to grind with any other profession than mining. And since a relevant portion of players now have billions (as proven by carrier spam), you can't balance the "economy" through any other means except adding more zeros to payouts...

Now that we know that base building won't be a thing anytime soon, I can't think of any expensive assets that could be part of Odyssey - and it wouldn't make sense because FDev will want to attract new players, who shouldn't have to go through a credit grind to play the content they paid for. FCs were a free update for a different target audience so is a bit different.

I also think that introducing expensive assets to provide credit sinks as a result of unbalanced earnings possibilities is the wrong approach, it should be the other way around i.e. you balance the earnings first and then design the credit sink based on that. I wonder though to what extent FDev have done precisely that - the current FC prices (purchase price could be 1-2bn less, but running costs are spon on IMO) are in my opinion pretty well balanced, but remember what the initial cost was during Beta1; they must've taken current earnings potential into account at that stage, maybe partially expecting a backlash via which they could balance it better.

Personally I thought that was a pretty crude way to balance things though, a developer should know their game well enough to be able to judge by themselves what the prices/cost should be based on income and player behaviour (they have all the data at hand how people play the game).

 

[Linnunrata]

Unless they do what this game already has (with Engineering 1.0) and many other games as way to re-balance an economy without completely resetting nor taking away from players that earned much more ---> introduce a new, additional 'currency'.

Yeah, that's correct and probable solution - though I have to say pretty gamey one. It'd be vastly preferable that a single credit currency mattered, considering how goofy it is that such ordinary goods as grid resistors need to be robbed from the dead or bartered because nobody is selling them. But I guess that train left the station already.

 

[Deleted member 182079]

Seeing as ED appears to be an ongoing run of exploits from day 1 of release (from the content of this forum I have read) and this is just the latest in a long run, why worry?

The only 'concern' I'd have would be a repercussion that affects market prices even more. I used to quite enjoy a 'reasonable' credit boost in the days when a VO hotspot had mostly VO's to be found, and an hour of fun exploding could 'earn' a 100 mill or so, setting me up for the next month or two of play, or getting the ship/upgrades I wanted.

A recent trip to a VO hotspot I used to use (local market was paying 600k /t) turned up some VO's, but many more 'not hotspot' cores...

I'd like to get a FC, I have no intention of mining myself into catatonia to do so - but would be a bit miffed if Frontier's answer to 'the egg' is to 'nerf' pricing

Looking at this week's patch notes where they (vaguely) talk about rebalancing hotspot yields I'm somewhat hopeful that this will improve - LTDs in particular are pretty hard to come by even at the centre of a regular hotspot, and I hope the patch will address that. I would welcome a reduction in overlap efficiency (as noted also) as a decent price to pay for that.

 

[Linnunrata]

Yep, you are probably right on Odyssey.

they must've taken current earnings potential into account at that stage, maybe partially expecting a backlash via which they could balance it better.

I'm still left wondering if they actually wanted to avoid the current Mauve Adder carrier spam mess by making them less easy to obtain and upkeep.

 

[Rat Catcher]

For instance, I don't use broken things like packhounds....

That's odd, they appear to work perfectly when I unleash all 5 on my Beluga... (but only 2 salvos before heat is an issue - so you may be correct, heat generation needs to be nerfed immediately!)

 

[Deleted member 182079]

Yep, you are probably right on Odyssey.


I'm still left wondering if they actually wanted to avoid the current Mauve Adder carrier spam mess by making them less easy to obtain and upkeep.

It'd be quite a dysfunctional approach - if my software can't handle a set of probable scenarios (such as high load bottlenecks) then I'd rather go back to the drawing board as opposed to make my product purposefully unattractive. I'm curious whether this was one of the reasons for the delays, they couldn't figure out how to make FCs work from a technical perspective.

 

[Linnunrata]

It'd be quite a dysfunctional approach - if my software can't handle a set of probable scenarios (such as high load bottlenecks) then I'd rather go back to the drawing board as opposed to make my product purposefully unattractive. I'm curious whether this was one of the reasons for the delays, they couldn't figure out how to make FCs work from a technical perspective.

I agree, but a lot of things seem to hint to the direction that FCs were never meant to be as plentiful as they are (maybe because they were never meant to be personal, but squadron owned). Not merely technical aspects, but the very fact that system UI can't handle the carrier spam.

 

[Hairychest]

Here's my thoughts (can be ignored if you want!): -

Those that exploited is on their consciences and not mine. I have played since day of launch on PC and play for my own purposes (which is why I like the openness of ED).

I have amassed the heady heights of 600m (not billion) CR so I am a long way off buying an FC, if I wanted one. I can afford all the main ships in the game and have enough cash to kit them out.

Those that have amassed billions of CR, FDev can effectively make it worthless by making elements available in the game only obtainable by doing things, NOT buying them. That means the non-exploiters have a significant chance of joining in and those with all the credits have no advantage. It would level the field somewhat. The reward might be a ship or module or some other in-game items.

If you look at Navy ranks - you have to DO things to get the ranks to open the ships, you can't just rock up and buy a Corvette!

Just my thoughts...

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Yeah, that's correct and probable solution - though I have to say pretty gamey one. It'd be vastly preferable that a single credit currency mattered, considering how goofy it is that such ordinary goods as grid resistors need to be robbed from the dead or bartered because nobody is selling them. But I guess that train left the station already.

They already have like 130 currencies to manage.

 

[askavir]

Looking at this week's patch notes where they (vaguely) talk about rebalancing hotspot yields I'm somewhat hopeful that this will improve - LTDs in particular are pretty hard to come by even at the centre of a regular hotspot, and I hope the patch will address that. I would welcome a reduction in overlap efficiency (as noted also) as a decent price to pay for that.

I would prefer normal hotspots to be buffed, and overlapping hotspots becoming the same as regular hotspots. What's the point of having billions of hotspots around the galaxy but then having just a marginal fraction of them being the ones worth mining?

 

[Linnunrata]

I would prefer normal hotspots to be buffed, and overlapping hotspots becoming the same as regular hotspots. What's the point of having billions of hotspots around the galaxy but then having just a marginal fraction of them being the ones worth mining?

Have to disagree on that. Whereas triple LTD spots (and the very fact that only 2-3 commodities are actually worth mining) are somewhat overdone, the exploration effort to find them and player hubs they create are valuable content currency in a game that suffers from general lack of depth. Borann and carriers above Kirre's are true emerging gameplay. Making single hotspot the same as overlapping hotspots would simply be a step back towards the uniform, featureless galaxy.

 

[Deleted member 182079]

I agree, but a lot of things seem to hint to the direction that FCs were never meant to be as plentiful as they are (maybe because they were never meant to be personal, but squadron owned). Not merely technical aspects, but the very fact that system UI can't handle the carrier spam.

True. They should've probably gone with a full-on single player approach and made them non-persistent, which would likely address the majority of current networking issues. Too late now I suppose.

 

[askavir]

Have to disagree on that. Whereas triple LTD spots (and the very fact that only 2-3 commodities are actually worth mining) are somewhat overdone, the exploration effort to find them and player hubs they create are valuable content currency in a game that suffers from general lack of depth. Borann and carriers above Kirre's are true emerging gameplay. Making single hotspot the same as overlapping hotspots would simply be a step back towards the uniform, featureless galaxy.

I totally agree that the galaxy benefits from having more "unique" places, like engineer bases etc. However the game also suffers from an abundance of gimmicks, and as it stands, regular hotspots, all billions of them, are just that: gimmicks. It seems to be the game's biggest curse, most things tend to be either absurdy overdone, or nerfed to the point of being just a gimmick.

 

[askavir]

They already have like 130 currencies to manage.

An I suspect we're be seeing yet another one for Odyssey. If credits are to be used, either we'll be able to purchase every single piece of "feet-gear" in the first minute (thus rendering every single non-optimal piece of kit an instant gimmick from day one, just like non A-rated (or D) ship modules already are), or things will have ridiculous prices like a helmet costing the same as an Asp Explorer, or a pair of boots costing the same as 12 Cobra III's.

 

[Rat Catcher]

An I suspect we're be seeing yet another one for Odyssey. If credits are to be used, either we'll be able to purchase every single piece of "feet-gear" in the first minute (thus rendering every single non-optimal piece of kit an instant gimmick from day one, just like non A-rated (or D) ship modules already are), or things will have ridiculous prices like a helmet costing the same as an Asp Explorer, or a pair of boots costing the same as 12 Cobra III's.

And the super sniper rifle costing the same as 20 Fleet Carriers?

 

[askavir]

And the super sniper rifle costing the same as 20 Fleet Carriers?

That's only with the founder world discount!

 

[Linnunrata]

regular hotspots, all billions of them, are just that: gimmicks.

Not in my opinion - they are part of the procedural generation of doubles and triples - overlaps after all are just regular hotspots overlapping, created by pure chance.

If every regular hotspot was the same as overlapping ones, they'd be equally unimportant. You could mine everywhere and there would be no point to have a player run effort to chart hundreds of thousands of icy rings to find them, because you could find a regular hotspot just about everywhere.

Personally I admired the content produced at reddit EliteMiners where people ponder over ring hotspot screenshots calculating overlap maps.

 

[MishaTX]

Borann and carriers above Kirre's are true emerging gameplay.

In much the same way as an emergent outbreak of hives.