Any way to give other players credits?

[northern]

no earn your money or the game will be full of bots and Credit(gold) sellers... I'm from MMO games and we do not need or want this in this game tbh

 

[Disharmony]

no earn your money or the game will be full of bots and Credit(gold) sellers... I'm from MMO games and we do not need or want this in this game tbh

Because being able to transfer money and therefore opening new ways to "earn" money isn't really earning? Fail to see the logic behind that. Player interaction and therefore more interesting ways to earn rather then flying the same space lanes over and over again can't possibly be good for the games growth that wouldn't make any sense at all...

Also with the way communication is setup i don't see how bots would even thrive what are they going to do automatically fly around initiating com's one pilot at a time without managing to crash?

 

[Druid]

This comes back to the basic mechanic of playing any online game. I want to play with my mates , I want to be able to enjoy the game with my mates, I want to co op with my mates . All of this is totaly missing or indeed damn near impossible because most of the time you cant even see your mates let alone game with them. Last hit gets the kill so there is no point to group play , no tradeing between mates and no giving credits .

Maybe FD should have cancelled the multiplayer game not the offline mode.

 

[Tinman]

Taken from the Trading proposal:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6299

Player to Player Trading

• Players can trade directly with each other
  • The player trade interface is available when both players are docked at the same market
  • The player trade interface is available when two players dock ships
• The player trade interface is a secure swap allowing players to transfer credits/cargo
  • Both players must accept the trade before it occurs
    • Acceptance must be redone by both parties after any change in the trade
  • Trading occurs in real-time and can be interrupted (for example by being attacked) unless taking place at a space dock
  • Either player can cancel the trade at any time up to the point both agree

 

[fourty6to3]

If the developers stick with their decision to not let players have storage of modules and commodities and transfer credits to players, Elite Dangerous is going to tank once the competition comes along with a more versatile game. Bad choice. People want to keep the things they work for and store useful items they'll use later, that's why every other MMO ever released, EVER, has a storage system and a trade system like this. I invested in the beta and I want this game to be good and survive the competition, not be regarded as "that bad Star Citizen knockoff". Come on Frontier, Wake up!

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



This is actually a very good solution...the more stuff is stored, the fee increases exponentially until it's not worth it. I could settle for that easily.

+1

I argued for this before in the thread located here:

Are ships the only assets we can own?

It was immediately compared to EVE...Sigh

 

[Arkku]

I don't get the argument that the success of Elite: Dangerous as a game hinges on having this feature. There are valid arguments against having it in, e.g., the fact that there will then be people (and/or bots) grinding in-game currency to sell for real-world currency, and it makes game accounts more tempting targets to hack. Anyhow, it's now possible by jettisoning valuable cargo in an anarchy system, as mentioned above, so they'll probably implement the direct player-to-player trading at some point, but I see no urgency. The game's not going to “tank” because you can't give money to your friends…

 

[fourty6to3]

I don't get the argument that the success of Elite: Dangerous as a game hinges on having this feature. There are valid arguments against having it in, e.g., the fact that there will then be people (and/or bots) grinding in-game currency to sell for real-world currency, and it makes game accounts more tempting targets to hack. Anyhow, it's now possible by jettisoning valuable cargo in an anarchy system, as mentioned above, so they'll probably implement the direct player-to-player trading at some point, but I see no urgency. The game's not going to “tank” because you can't give money to your friends…

That part is speculation, especially since there are safeguards against it. Dumping cargo into an anarchy system is a convoluted workaround for a watered down system that still leaves no ability for asset accumulation. Being able to store goods/modules, or even being able to manufacture them, that you worked hard for is SOP for MMO's. To think that FD were originally only going to let you own one ship at a time is further testament to that shallowness.

Trading credits/cargo between players is coming, yes, but there is much more to be desired in a PU that is as large as the Milky Way.

 

[foxpur]

Any storage space should be charged by tonnage with a daily rate for commodities that would stop people trying to stockpile commodities. other items maybe stored in the same way ships are not sure thought really cant decide about it at all.

Rep given- Excellent idea

 

[Arkku]

That part is speculation, especially since there are safeguards against it.

Technically you are right that it is speculation, but I don't know of a single MMO where it hasn't happened. It seems almost certain that it will happen, the only question is the scale of it and whether it's a problem. The only really effective technical safeguard I see would be for Frontier to make it uneconomical, e.g., by taking a large cut off player-to-player transactions and/or selling in-game currency themselves at a price that cannot effectively be matched by others. This doesn't seem very desirable to me, either… But this is speculation and I would love to be “wrong” in my speculation here.

Dumping cargo into an anarchy system is a convoluted workaround for a watered down system that still leaves no ability for asset accumulation.

I agree that it's a convoluted workaround; my point was that the inevitable existence of workarounds like this will probably lead to a proper system for player-to-player transactions eventually, but that there is also no immediate urgency for it. The most far-fetching speculation in this thread is the claim that the success of the game somehow depends on this…

Being able to store goods/modules, or even being able to manufacture them, that you worked hard for is SOP for MMO's. To think that FD were originally only going to let you own one ship at a time is further testament to that shallowness.

Perhaps, but Elite: Dangerous is quite unusual for an MMO, especially given that a significant number of players intends to play it in single-player mode. Could be that Frontier will run into a few problems that “standard” MMO's have solved long ago, but it may also be that they will come up with something better (for a certain audience) than what is standard in MMO's. Personally I have a great dislike for MMO's but I still intend to play Elite: Dangerous in multiplayer mode because so far it has proven sufficiently different… Anyhow, I care quite little about “asset accumulation” or multi-ship ownership and I don't see it as a sign of “shallowness” if Frontier doesn't consider them important, but simply different priorities, coming from a non-MMO perspective. And the implementation of multi-ship ownership goes to show that they are not unwilling to change their minds/priorities based on feedback.