Elite IS too easy

[Ganogati]

I think folks are using the word "harder" or "easier" as catch-alls, when everyone is sort of talking about different things.

* For me, "harder" means the choices we make matter. If I become an Imperial player, the feds wont like me much. If Thargoids are going to invade, they are going to INVADE and I might run into one from time to time. If I do Power Play, there are going to be consequences with their opponents. If I PvP, the police are going to have something to say about it. If I commit a crime, the police will also have something to say about. Right now, each of those things happen only in-so-much as they barely need to in order to accomplish the goal of saying "there are some consequences. And thargoids exist".

* For others, harder might mean more challenge in combat. It might mean that if you pick a fight with a Dangerous or even Elite NPC, that they will rock your world. That players cant just solo wing assassination missions. That if you get jumped by NPC pirates, they are going to be as dangerous as actual player pirates.

* For others harder might mean no more solo or PG, and open only

* For others harder might mean choices, which have serious consequences on your gameplay depending on what you do. Etc etc

I really think we should probably get a grasp on what "harder" means in each context to figure out whether we're all just talking past each other.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

I think folks are using the word "harder" or "easier" as catch-alls, when everyone is sort of talking about different things.

* For me, "harder" means the choices we make matter. If I become an Imperial player, the feds wont like me much. If Thargoids are going to invade, they are going to INVADE and I might run into one from time to time. If I do Power Play, there are going to be consequences with their opponents. If I PvP, the police are going to have something to say about it. If I commit a crime, the police will also have something to say about. Right now, each of those things happen only in-so-much as they barely need to in order to accomplish the goal of saying "there are some consequences. And thargoids exist".

* For others, harder might mean more challenge in combat. It might mean that if you pick a fight with a Dangerous or even Elite NPC, that they will rock your world. That players cant just solo wing assassination missions. That if you get jumped by NPC pirates, they are going to be as dangerous as actual player pirates.

* For others harder might mean no more solo or PG, and open only

* For others harder might mean choices, which have serious consequences on your gameplay depending on what you do. Etc etc

I really think we should probably get a grasp on what "harder" means in each context to figure out whether we're all just talking past each other.

Yeah that’s fair. The point I’m shooting at is essentially actions need consequences, and the variables in the game, bgs states, alignment, sec levels, thargoid attacks, power play involvement, need to be reflected in the game in a way that is apparent, and interacts directly with the player, instead of the player having to peel back the curtains to see if there’s anything there

 

[CNC drill press]

First of all, it leaves a bad taste if you cut the other parts out of my post to suit your narrative.

That was never my intention. I'd say this is forum equvalient of being... griefer. If you mean first quote, now i realized it was accidentaly merged with 2nd quote.
I didnt mean that.

1. Yes, why should I be cruising around in a war system and don't have consequences? Then pulled for inspection and the scan finds that you carry stuff (missions) and/or have a high rep with the opposing faction you should get attacked. As it's mostly small ships you should be good to escape. Plus it's your fault for not applying the filter, not the games.
2. It's already hyperdiction galore in the Pleiades last time I was there, the only difference now is you lose some time and fuel. Super boring after a few and the actual hyperdiction is really awesome made. And if you get bored go do stuff somewhere else, it's a big galaxy, even the bubble is big enough for not seeing other players for days. It can't be more boring than running min/max cargo from a to b with Netflix on the side or mining.
To give you an idea. The Gnosis was awesome. First time you couldn't escape the buggers and you had to deal with them right there. I lost a few 100mil of explo data and still loved the event.
3. No engineering needed if you don't go to the more "dangerous" systems. Also most stuff you can escape with a well build, but not engineered ship. Just the min/maxers would have an issue. Same with naughty pilot's going to "save" systems would be not a cakewalk, but you cut that part out of my post.

1. Ofc it would be on me (not using filter) but it would be boring after while, that was the point. Would be inconvenience, just like interditions while doing mission runs in sothis/ceos. Cool for first few times, then you switch ship from t10 to something more agile in SC, and then you jsut irritated for time lost on minigame that you will win anyway.

2. I assume people advocating for making elite harder are just bored. Despite its being big galaxy. Understandable but like i said in 1) you will return to starting point - "been there done that, these inspeciton in war systems are too easy"

3. So this is what you meant by "cutting other parts of post"? Jeez. I tried to refer to some "milestones", which i believed could be good indication of your core points for things you talk about. It havent included points that were, IMO, not required. If i fail then you can point it out, but save accusation for yourself. It leaves bad taste.

That being said i dont see how cutting part about hi sec systems being safer is relevant to 3). You would limit big part of bubble behind grind wall (also remember deicat is most popular system among griefers), because, in my opinion, no engineering means you are severly limit performance of you ship in the name of survability.
Example: For ocasional borann mining in open, instead of using minimaxed t9/t10 with 400 cargo and ~12 limpets i fly conda with 190t & 6-7 limpets. I tested it against wing of 2 murder hobos (g5 fdls, not pirates), quite safe, unless in selling system when they could jsut chain-interdict me untill shields will fail. Having same survivability in non eng ship would require huge sacrafices, if even possible (remember about heavy duty shield boosters)

If I recall correctly from some other posts you want high sec to mean something and no adverse player interactions should be possible in that systems. So what's the difference? Consequences for all or only the ones you don't play like you like?

Negative. I cant recall saying so. Meaby when i was pointing out someone's biased request, just like you are trying now.
Honestly I'm for adding PVE open next to "normal". But lets not discuss it in this thread.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

That was never my intention. I'd say this is forum equvalient of being... griefer. If you mean first quote, now i realized it was accidentaly merged with 2nd quote.
I didnt mean that.



1. Ofc it would be on me (not using filter) but it would be boring after while, that was the point. Would be inconvenience, just like interditions while doing mission runs in sothis/ceos. Cool for first few times, then you switch ship from t10 to something more agile in SC, and then you jsut irritated for time lost on minigame that you will win anyway.

2. I assume people advocating for making elite harder are just bored. Despite its being big galaxy. Understandable but like i said in 1) you will return to starting point - "been there done that, these inspeciton in war systems are too easy"

3. So this is what you meant by "cutting other parts of post"? Jeez. I tried to refer to some "milestones", which i believed could be good indication of your core points for things you talk about. It havent included points that were, IMO, not required. If i fail then you can point it out, but save accusation for yourself. It leaves bad taste.

That being said i dont see how cutting part about hi sec systems being safer is relevant to 3). You would limit big part of bubble behind grind wall (also remember deicat is most popular system among griefers), because, in my opinion, no engineering means you are severly limit performance of you ship in the name of survability.
Example: For ocasional borann mining in open, instead of using minimaxed t9/t10 with 400 cargo and ~12 limpets i fly conda with 190t & 6-7 limpets. I tested it against wing of 2 murder hobos (g5 fdls, not pirates), quite safe, unless in selling system when they could jsut chain-interdict me untill shields will fail. Having same survivability in non eng ship would require huge sacrafices, if even possible (remember about heavy duty shield boosters)


Negative. I cant recall saying so. Meaby when i was pointing out someone's biased request, just like you are trying now.
Honestly I'm for adding PVE open next to "normal". But lets not discuss it in this thread.

The issue with the addition you mini suggest is that It doesn’t actually add anything to the game. Vs the topic at hand makes things like bgs and pp actually set the small scale stages of the sandbox, and also allow the small little pushes and pulls in the bubble to at least have some weight

 

[CNC drill press]

The issue with the addition you mini suggestion is that It doesn’t actually add anything to the game. Vs the topic at hand makes things like bgs and pp actually set the small scale stages of the sandbox, and also allow the small little pushes and pulls in the bubble to at least have some weight

My addition was to clarify my believes in that matter for Paul Smith the 3rd.
As for if it adds anything or not - that is just your opinion. Whatever.

As for second part, Oh I'm all in for actions having consequences. But thread started with elite being too easy and should be simply harder. Thats diffrent thing.
I guess Ganogati nailed it.

For me, "harder" means the choices we make matter.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

My addition was to clarify my believes in that matter for Paul Smith the 3rd.
As for if it adds anything or not - that is just your opinion. Whatever.

As for second part, Oh I'm all in for actions having consequences. But thread started with elite being too easy and should be simply harder. Thats diffrent thing.
I guess Ganogati nailed it.

Yeah I explain in what way I would like it to be harder, and the way I describe is for actions or lack of to have consequences, via the galaxy actually reflecting the system states and what not and how they interact with the player, using thargoids as an example.

 

[Just Paul]

1. Ofc it would be on me (not using filter) but it would be boring after while, that was the point. Would be inconvenience, just like interditions while doing mission runs in sothis/ceos. Cool for first few times, then you switch ship from t10 to something more agile in SC, and then you jsut irritated for time lost on minigame that you will win anyway.

2. I assume people advocating for making elite harder are just bored. Despite its being big galaxy. Understandable but like i said in 1) you will return to starting point - "been there done that, these inspeciton in war systems are too easy"

3. So this is what you meant by "cutting other parts of post"? Jeez. I tried to refer to some "milestones", which i believed could be good indication of your core points for things you talk about. It havent included points that were, IMO, not required. If i fail then you can point it out, but save accusation for yourself. It leaves bad taste.

All the things I suggested was for PvE, so it would be the same in all 3 modes. No harder enemies or need for G5 engineered ship, just like right now. The galaxy and it's states should make sense and the consequences for wandering in an adverse environment should not be opt-in, be it taking a paper-trader into a Thargoid infested system or going in you wanted ship into a high-sec system. All it would do mark certain areas as being "off-limits"* until skill and equipment matches the challenge. You could think of it as similar to Skyrim's difficulty levels depending on the area you are.
You don't want to have to deal with the interdiction mini-game, trade in high-sec systems. You don't want to interact with Thargoids, don't go to infested systems. You don't want to have your smuggling ship impounded and be sent to jail, don't do smuggling in high-sec systems. The choice is still yours on how you want to play. I would say it would be even better as it's now as you just have to choose the systems which cater to your play-style.

*"off-limits" in the sense of difficulty, like trying to fight an npc Anaconda with the starter Sidewinder.

Just to understand, you prefer the current way things are there it really doesn't matter what's going on in the system and the only difference is the type of missions available?

That being said i dont see how cutting part about hi sec systems being safer is relevant to 3). You would limit big part of bubble behind grind wall (also remember deicat is most popular system among griefers), because, in my opinion, no engineering means you are severly limit performance of you ship in the name of survability.
Example: For ocasional borann mining in open, instead of using minimaxed t9/t10 with 400 cargo and ~12 limpets i fly conda with 190t & 6-7 limpets. I tested it against wing of 2 murder hobos (g5 fdls, not pirates), quite safe, unless in selling system when they could jsut chain-interdict me untill shields will fail. Having same survivability in non eng ship would require huge sacrafices, if even possible (remember about heavy duty shield boosters)

Again all this would be for PvE not PvP and you can survive in PvE without or little engineering. My post had nothing to do with PvP, so I don't know where the whole engineering and mining thing comes from. The "more secure" hi-sec system is part of the states mean something thing. Leaving it out painted a picture in your quote of something that went against what my post was trying to portray.

Fyi Deciat is a med-sec system and she is only 1 engineer who has no special engineering skill. The problem with Deciat is that she is the first one in all the get-engineers-unlocked-fast guides. Elvira does the same FSD and is easier to unlock, hardly any gankers there. But that's also a discussion for a different threat.

 

[Augusta]

Ugh... I always come back to this game wishing something dramatic would happen in the galaxy. It never does. Wishful thinking!

 

[Rubbernuke]

I made this graph a while ago, but it seems apt here- at least for PvE.

The question is not making the game harder for people on the lower half of the graph, its making the upper tier NPCs scale better to top end player ships. You can either make high end NPCs have better engineering, or reduce engineering. The outcome being that experienced player get a satisfying challenge.

The "danger gap" should really be named "boredom" because thats what it is, because you are not challenged after a certain level.

Some players suggest using lower powered ships, which I disagree with, mainly as why have G5 in the first place- and that it shows engineering should be massively toned down.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

I think I remember a time when the NPC's were unleashed.

The screaming could be heard in the Andromeda galaxy.

This is why we have solo. Two groups of players, with radically different tolerances for PvP/Lethal PvE. Satisfy one group, and lose the other as customers.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I think I remember a time when the NPC's were unleashed.

The screaming could be heard in the Andromeda galaxy.

This is why we have solo. Two groups of players, with radically different tolerances for PvP/Lethal PvE. Satisfy one group, and lose the other as customers.

The only time NPCs were 'unleashed' was when they had a weapon bug that gave them PA gatling cannons. I can't actually think of a time when AI difficulty was increased for all ranks- so far its only been Dangerous and above where things have changed.

Having easy PvE also means security levels don't work, and a whole host of other nested issues that just add up.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

The only time NPCs were 'unleashed' was when they had a weapon bug that gave them PA gatling cannons. I can't actually think of a time when AI difficulty was increased for all ranks- so far its only been Dangerous and above where things have changed.

Having easy PvE also means security levels don't work, and a whole host of other nested issues that just add up.

We need two games, then. Your ideas I am in general agreement with, but implementing them is something that I consider unlikely by Frontier.

 

[Brrokk]

We need two games, then. Your ideas I am in general agreement with, but implementing them is something that I consider unlikely by Frontier.

A difficulty switch?

 

[Rat Catcher]

So what you're saying is that the whole game needs to be so easy that you can make a minimal effort to play.
Here's a fun fact, there are other people that play the game besides yourself and many of them enjoy challenging gameplay.

Why should anyone care about how anyone else plays their game?
I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys how you wish to play, or how you wish the game was... I'm only interested in me... Exactly the same way as are you

 

[CaptainPugwash]

We need two games, then. Your ideas I am in general agreement with, but implementing them is something that I consider unlikely by Frontier.

Well, this is a discussion forum so why not bounce ideas off each other anyway? Regarding what Frontier may do, you never know ..

 

[CaptainPugwash]

A difficulty switch?

The problem with that is the common BGS i.e. common to all modes of play and all platforms. If I want to defend my home system from an attack I just use the easy mode.
It could be used in a pure 'off-line' mode, something which I think should be considered for those that have no wish to play with others.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

The problem with that is the common BGS i.e. common to all modes of play and all platforms. If I want to defend my home system from an attack I just use the easy mode.
It could be used in a pure 'off-line' mode, something which I think should be considered for those that have no wish to play with others.

A true offline mode would be my ideal.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The problem with that is the common BGS i.e. common to all modes of play and all platforms. If I want to defend my home system from an attack I just use the easy mode.

For some, the existence of the other modes sharing the single galaxy is already bad enough without introducing a difficulty slider to exacerbate and already fractious situation.

It could be used in a pure 'off-line' mode, something which I think should be considered for those that have no wish to play with others.

Offline mode was pitched as part of the Kickstarter and cancelled before launch. It seems to me to be highly unlikely that it would be re-introduced now. Frontier have stuck to their stance that every player experiences and affects a changing galaxy for over seven years now, much to the chagrin of a subset of the player-base, and reiterated their stance comparatively recently.

There is no requirement to play with others in this game - as the game design made clear at the outset - and those who eschew playing with others are equally entitled to affect the shared galaxy.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

For some, the existence of the other modes sharing the single galaxy is already bad enough without introducing a difficulty slider to exacerbate and already fractious situation.

Offline mode was pitched as part of the Kickstarter and cancelled before launch. It seems to me to be highly unlikely that it would be re-introduced now. Frontier have stuck to their stance that every player experiences and affects a changing galaxy for over seven years now, much to the chagrin of a subset of the player-base, and reiterated their stance comparatively recently.

There is no requirement to play with others in this game - as the game design made clear at the outset - and those who eschew playing with others are equally entitled to affect the shared galaxy.

And there, we have our present situation. Two groups, separated by a common BGS.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And there, we have our present situation. Two groups, separated by a common BGS.

... and a preference, or lack thereof, for PvP.