So.. Like all of the CG's since last update have been trade CG's..
What gives man?
What gives man?
Combat CG's are now nonexistant?
- Thread starter Voracity_T
- Start date
There player created not FDEV created single week events now...
Building a mega ship does not require combat...
Building a station does not require combat...
Fighting a rival mega corp to defend your system/station DOES require combat but it would STILL require a "player faction" to submit a WAR CG and get it passed as a CG and then be selected as a Player CG from the allowed CG list...
The II event fdev set up DID include a combat CG as part of the story...
IF you skipped the trade event CG and stayed in the bubble you could have taken out a combat ship to take part in the WAR`as part of the II event CG for controll of the deep space system conflict.. this conflict also payed DOUBLE per kill as part of the II event CG...
Those who did not want to do trade were free to sit out the event in the bubble and then join the conflict zone battle...
forums.frontier.co.uk
Zende won the conflict zone CG and kept controll of the systems and assets... due to people using the Large landing pad to change to a taxi ship to hand in combat bonds..
Building a mega ship does not require combat...
Building a station does not require combat...
Fighting a rival mega corp to defend your system/station DOES require combat but it would STILL require a "player faction" to submit a WAR CG and get it passed as a CG and then be selected as a Player CG from the allowed CG list...
The II event fdev set up DID include a combat CG as part of the story...
IF you skipped the trade event CG and stayed in the bubble you could have taken out a combat ship to take part in the WAR`as part of the II event CG for controll of the deep space system conflict.. this conflict also payed DOUBLE per kill as part of the II event CG...
COMPLETED CG - Zende Partners Defence Appeal
Summary System: Synuefe EN-H d11-96 Station: The Prospect (Scientific Outpost, no large pads, 2,329 Ls from main star, 783.98 Ly from Sol) Objective: Hand in Combat Bonds for Zende Partners after fighting in Conflict Zones against SegnenExchange Time limit: 29th May 3305 @ 13:00 UTC Description...
Last edited:
Used to log in every day but have not been on in weeks except to see if there is anything to do yet.
Been waiting for combat community goals, have no interest in the other types. Too each their own.
Greatly miss the old community goals system, easy to understand, easy to find, etc. Dislike the new system, usually never hear about anything happening, never know what is going on, seems boring if I can even find out something about it.
Been waiting for combat community goals, have no interest in the other types. Too each their own.
Greatly miss the old community goals system, easy to understand, easy to find, etc. Dislike the new system, usually never hear about anything happening, never know what is going on, seems boring if I can even find out something about it.
The CGs are announced the same exact ways that never changed... only the frequency of them changed...
Galnet
Galnet News | Elite Dangerous Community Site
My apologies, thought they were called interstellar initiatives now or something like that. Ty for clearing that up.
Kietrax
Volunteer Moderator
Interstellar Initiatives are the name for the longer thing, so far running for about a month. Within those IIs there are week long (or longer) Community Goals, and outside the IIs we have had a couple of player submitted CGs run as well. The overarching storyline for the II will be covered in the I area of the forum, the CGs in the CG area with links when appropriate (and when I remember to create them ...)
Yup.
In context, first II felt like a "let's do what we currently do, using a new format" which got a bunch of people going "But FD! This could be so much more"... and this time we got much more.
If the momentum stays ... these will be good things.
yet another week and no combat cg so out of the so called flood of player submitted cg requests they decided that 1 cg was enough for this week or out of the thousands of requests to choose there are no combat submissions at all makes me wonder
Yes I too wonder how many of us have submitted a combat CG, I know non of my (probably failed) submissions were combat.
Thing is... what even is a combat cg?
As far as i can tell, there's just two options, within the confines of known mechanics?
Handing in bounties?
Sure I guess? It'd be nice if there was a ramp-up of USS and scenarios in a system as opposed to "grind out this HAZ res", but it serves it's purpose I guess?
Frankly, the "hand in bonds" ones shouldnt even exist, as the measure of winning a conflict per the bgs is now more than just combat bonds... so that cg type (and the winner being based off combat bonds) is totally redundant. I mean, really, what would you rather do as an activity?
1. hand in bonds only; or
2. A combination of handing in bonds, resolve czs, complete missions, resolve scenarios, assault bases and transport weapons?
The second is the basic bgs mechanics... so the combat bond cg is a regression of that, and totally unnecessary.
Thargoids, well, you get a mix of people excited, and people who don't want to go near it for whatever soapbox they feel like.
---
That's it as far as direct combat CGs go. Keeping within current mechanics, there still isn't much variety... but what about:
So, lets bust the mould open, using known but unemployed mechanics. We know FD can:
So from here, we have a host of other options.
All these use non-CG-employed metrics which the game tracks in other activities and so are entirely feasible, yet we've never seen them.
Unfortunately, historically if FD up the cognitive thought required for a CG, or apply negative consequences (like the Authority destruction CG), people turn away, which is disappointing, so we're also kinda to blame here.
[1] unless you're a dirty sploiter
[2] unless you're a jet pilot, experienced dealing with ATR
As far as i can tell, there's just two options, within the confines of known mechanics?
- hand in bounties
- hand in combat bonds
- kill thargoids (and hand in pf bonds)
Handing in bounties?
Sure I guess? It'd be nice if there was a ramp-up of USS and scenarios in a system as opposed to "grind out this HAZ res", but it serves it's purpose I guess?
Frankly, the "hand in bonds" ones shouldnt even exist, as the measure of winning a conflict per the bgs is now more than just combat bonds... so that cg type (and the winner being based off combat bonds) is totally redundant. I mean, really, what would you rather do as an activity?
1. hand in bonds only; or
2. A combination of handing in bonds, resolve czs, complete missions, resolve scenarios, assault bases and transport weapons?
The second is the basic bgs mechanics... so the combat bond cg is a regression of that, and totally unnecessary.
Thargoids, well, you get a mix of people excited, and people who don't want to go near it for whatever soapbox they feel like.
---
That's it as far as direct combat CGs go. Keeping within current mechanics, there still isn't much variety... but what about:
- A stolen cargo CG? There's combat involved in securing cargo from trade ships. Sure, the measure would be on (stolen) cargo submissions, but you still need to fight[1]
- Actually, I can't think of much more. CG to collect Thargoid Hearts? Probably no different to a normal Thargoid hunt.
So, lets bust the mould open, using known but unemployed mechanics. We know FD can:
- Track ship types, based on differentiation "mission target" types, such as civilians, pirates, cruise liners, traders, smugglers etc.
- Can create static USS to support CGs, as seen with various CG's gone by.
So from here, we have a host of other options.
- A CG to destroy System Authority Vessels... woo, notoriety, bounties, escalating difficulty[2] from ATRs... tbh, more interesting than grinding out bounties at a HAZ res. CG would count quantity of kills (or any ship type, traders, smugglers etc).
- A CG to route capital ships: something something plot, something something large-scale invasion by a superpower capship fleet (or hey, criminals steal a bunch). Set up some capship USS/POIs and away you go.
- Infrastructure assault CG, criminal faction aims to create general chaos,,, CG is to destroy turrets/Powerplants/skimmers at oribtal/planetary installations
- CG to complete megaship defence scenarios, and a counter-CG to complete megaship assault scenarios
All these use non-CG-employed metrics which the game tracks in other activities and so are entirely feasible, yet we've never seen them.
Unfortunately, historically if FD up the cognitive thought required for a CG, or apply negative consequences (like the Authority destruction CG), people turn away, which is disappointing, so we're also kinda to blame here.
[1] unless you're a dirty sploiter
[2] unless you're a jet pilot, experienced dealing with ATR
Never been into combat, I suck at it, but I do think there should be more of it because this game is not only about my playstyle.
So, I'm thinking, what about making players fight the big mean ships? Like, a Federal Admiral has rebelled and stole a bunch of Farraguts or Megashpis and now Independent pilots are called to help the Feds to destroy/disable them all because reasons. And maybe the Imps will show up to help the rebels.
This is just an idea that I'm "talking out loud" but I think that attacks on capital ships would be fun.
So, I'm thinking, what about making players fight the big mean ships? Like, a Federal Admiral has rebelled and stole a bunch of Farraguts or Megashpis and now Independent pilots are called to help the Feds to destroy/disable them all because reasons. And maybe the Imps will show up to help the rebels.
This is just an idea that I'm "talking out loud" but I think that attacks on capital ships would be fun.
A reminder that CG are still Player created only...
So if you want COMBAT based then youll have to submit a Combat based CG using the player CG submit forum.
The Forum section is directly above this section with all the details on submitting the player create CG...
And the forum to fill in is a google doc form...
docs.google.com
So no blocking google scripts... the Current player Trade CG was submitted over 2 years ago and only run this week..
So if you want COMBAT based then youll have to submit a Combat based CG using the player CG submit forum.
The Forum section is directly above this section with all the details on submitting the player create CG...
And the forum to fill in is a google doc form...
Submit a Community Goal
This is the latest (as of 29/07/2019) form used to submit community-created Community Goals (CG). Please read and familiarise yourself to the terms and conditions on Community Goal submissions.
docs.google.com
A reminder that CG are still Player created only...
So if you want COMBAT based then youll have to submit a Combat based CG using the player CG submit forum.
The Forum section is directly above this section with all the details on submitting the player create CG...
And the forum to fill in is a google doc form...
So no blocking google scripts... the Current player Trade CG was submitted over 2 years ago and only run this week..Submit a Community Goal
This is the latest (as of 29/07/2019) form used to submit community-created Community Goals (CG). Please read and familiarise yourself to the terms and conditions on Community Goal submissions.
So I just asked in the CG submission info thread what metrics are available as far as combat CG's go. Who knows if I'll get a response or not.
The big problem is, current metrics are:
Bounty CGs = RES farm fests (and heaven help the player who submits a bounty CG in a system without RES), and;
Combat Bond CGs = CZ farm fests (and as I've mentioned a few times, Conflict CGs which measure success by # of bonds simply shouldn't exist, when the basic BGS mechanics to determine the winner are far more varied and interesting than simply grinding out bonds)
As far as I know, that's the only two metrics we have available... and when no feedback is given on rejected CGs it's impossible to tell when you're asking for a success metric which doesn't exist, or if your plot hooks were just bad. Compounded with 2-year turnover times (WT actual F?) is it really worth the effort?
While a trade CG might be "farming trade routes", you straight away get for free:
- the challenge of sourcing goods later in the CG when local sources dry up
- the trade-off of high volume (good for CG), low-profit items (bad for wallet) vs low volume (bad for CG), high-profit items (good for wallet)
- Depending on the design of the CG, goods might need long-range fits to get, and if it's a rares CG, you're limited in the raw numbers you can pull back.
- You can even do trade CGs for non-market items (though my several proposals to FD have had no dice on this front)
And yeah, sorry, I'm still balking at that 2 year turnover for this one. I thought we had it bad with 1 year, and then FD forgetting about us.
FWIW, I'm just about to submit one with a basic narrative which I'll ask to be an opposed combat CG, where the metric is # of System Authority Vessels destroyed vs # of Pirates destroyed (i.e not measures of bounties, since that doesn't work for SAV kills)
EDIT: and that's a nope right out of the gate. Form's updated since I last submitted a CG, and it's strictly limited now:
Last edited:
Combat CG is up if your whiner an you skip it don't expect another one for even longer time frame...
forums.frontier.co.uk
COMPLETED CG - Fight Against Scythe of Panem (Combat)
Summary System: Quator Station: Quator Station (Coriolis Starport, large pads available, 141 Ls from main star, 107.75 Ly from Sol) Objective: Hand in Combat Bonds after fighting for Bruthanvan Co. in Conflict Zones Time limit: 28th October 3305 @ 15:00 UTC Description An extremist group from...
Last edited:
And its over it ended today you had your chance to show support for a combat CG and its gone..
3,304 registered supporters... blown ships up.. and got some free ARX for doing so via normal CG gameplay...
3,304 registered supporters... blown ships up.. and got some free ARX for doing so via normal CG gameplay...
Everyone must have been too busy writing letters for us....
o7
o7