ANNOUNCEMENT Game Balancing Pt.3

No, I understand perfectly why they are doing this, and YOU are missing my point.
When I played this game at the release, you had to buy multiple ships to get the one you wanted, you had to "work" to get it.
Now, by inscreasing the payout of all activities, the problem is still here... But now you can do other activities to get the "best" ship in 1 day of playing, which is completely idiotic
You left out the part about up hill both ways through the snow lol 😉
 
..
Delivery Missions
The increase in minable commodity prices has had an unexpectedly large effect on delivery missions due to compounding multipliers, allowing large numbers of credits to be earned with minimal risk and effort...
Really? You guys should look at the Palladium Source & Return mission and such.. 50m for 80m's worth of Palladium. That is large numbers of credits to be lost CMDR's, not earned.
 
Gotta say I'm not a huge fan as it seems to equate most pvp to ganking and is very heavy-handed in its response of calling in ATR on literally every fight outside an anarchy. The impact upon intended/meaningful PvP (conflicts and piracy in particular) would be huge. Say I'm fighting a war against someone, they wake out of the CZ and I follow them and take them out - that's a massively different scenario to just senselessly jumping people on their way to farseer.
 
Looking at how things have gone with the ranks over the years.

Combat: has basically only had two changes to the difficulty curve so far
- when the "park next to a capship" exploit was fixed early on
- when certain Thargoid targets started giving huge rank boosts for their relative toughness
- ...and now today?

I think it's probably in the right place for most things - as a mostly non-combat pilot nowadays, I'll reach Combat Elite in another couple of months just through having been around for ages.


Trade: the 1B threshold has basically never changed since the start, but the ease of getting trade credits has just got easier and easier:
- bulk trade profits up from 1k/tonne being good to 40k/tonne being possible
- mining, of course, going from 40k/tonne to 1M/tonne
- trade missions getting much higher payouts


Exploration: up until 3.3 the scans/rank curve was fairly constant for this even as the payouts increased. In 3.3 the mapping process gave too much rank (though still arguably not enough pay) for terraformables and my impression is it got a lot easier.


CQC: yeah, this one takes a while. About 600 hours of fighting is how long it takes most people who get there. As someone who has it, I'm quite happy for it to stay like that, too - at least it's the most fun of the four to obtain!


I don't think there's a problem with these ranks taking a while to get. In terms of what concrete benefits the ranks actually give in-game:
- Combat gives nothing above Dangerous (with most benefits by Expert)
- Trade gives nothing above Dealer
- Exploration gives nothing above Surveyor
- CQC gives nothing above Champion
(and you need one of the first three at Elite for Shinrarta, but it can be any of them)
It's just a target to aim for and a measure of still making progress, for the most part - I played FFE for years and never got to Elite in that.

Equally, it's probably too late to worry about making Trade/Exploration harder again - those ranks no longer mean much, so making them tougher for 2021's beginners just seems a bit harsh.
 
Indeed it is interesting.

It calls for an 80% penalty to be applied to the Powerplay and BGS actions of players in Solo and Private Groups and notes that it would be "simpler to just nix BGS Influence gain and Powerplay merit-earning in any game mode other than Open, and this would be my real preference" - which would mean, if implemented, that the actions of players who eschew PvP, in a game where other players, and therefore PvP, are optional extras, would be made somewhere between worth less and worthless.

We've all been told to play the game the way we want to, with or without other players - yet it seems that a subset of the player-base who enjoy playing in a manner that not all players enjoy want those who don't play with them to be penalised for doing so.

All players affecting the shared galaxy, regardless of game mode, has been a part of the game from the outset - those seeking meaningful PvP by the removal / reduction of the effect of players who choose not to PvP would, in effect, be making the PvE of affected players meaningless / have less meaning in terms of their effect on the unique connected galaxy.

Exactly. Not to mention the ps4 or xbox players that cant be seen already that affect the pc side. Forcing open wouldnt solve this without true and full cross platform AND proper instancing.
 
Indeed it is interesting.

It calls for an 80% penalty to be applied to the Powerplay and BGS actions of players in Solo and Private Groups and notes that it would be "simpler to just nix BGS Influence gain and Powerplay merit-earning in any game mode other than Open, and this would be my real preference" - which would mean, if implemented, that the actions of players who eschew PvP, in a game where other players, and therefore PvP, are optional extras, would be made somewhere between worth less and worthless.

We've all been told to play the game the way we want to, with or without other players - yet it seems that a subset of the player-base who enjoy playing in a manner that not all players enjoy want those who don't play with them to be penalised for doing so.

All players affecting the shared galaxy, regardless of game mode, has been a part of the game from the outset - those seeking meaningful PvP by the removal / reduction of the effect of players who choose not to PvP would, in effect, be making the PvE of affected players meaningless / have less meaning in terms of their effect on the unique connected galaxy.
The same principle of risk-and reward applied. Low risk (no players) means low reward and effect. High risk (pvp)means more rewards. Its that simple :)
 
@Bruce Garrido Great changes that will improve AX experience by a lot. I foresee two issues though.

With the increase of credits for cyclops, gibbing which can be done by a completely unskilled player (even solo in case of cyclops) will become prevalent method of fast credits. Here I can propose solutions that would prevent it (it is also a problem with AX leaderboards as gibbers nuke clopses in seconds and then get advantage over squadrons who hunt Hydras the legit way).

1. If the heart mechanic is bypassed and you deal enough damage to exert second heart without destroying the first one, the powerplant of the Interceptor becomes unstable and explodes killing everything in 150km radius. You can also use extremely long EMP instead of explosion that fries your ship.

2. Alternatively, just do not allow to go below the exertion point on interceptor hull with overwhelming damage (Taking 20% of remaining health makes interceptor exerted - just prevent any more hull damage until the heart is destroyed).

The second issue - Hydra class interceptor.

I am not even talking about a solo Hydra, which takes on average around 1 hour to do. Even wing Hydra is long experience as it is much harder to hit when it constantly moves in different direction, thus making it not that muich shorter than solo :) It is definitely completely unviable as money making endevour to kill Hydras for money instead of Medusas - they are simply 100x more work and if you go for one solo you either have to grind a lot of guardian mats for premium synthesis or do a 2-3 hour long fight with basic, which is even harder. You have to remember that going for Guardian mats for synth requires you to go far away outside the bubble and in the opposite direction that Goids are. Thus in my opinion Hydra should be worth 120-150 mil. Even a 100 mil would be better than 60.
 
If we were to adjust rank gain, it should affect future commanders only, not diminish people's effort retroactively.
FWIW, in the event of any of the rank scales being revalued, I would have no issue with the new scales being applied retrospectively, even if that meant I'd lose rank. Wouldn't want to be treated differently from new players.

(Suggestion you were responding to of a complete rank reset, I wouldn't agree with - that's a sledgehammer to crack a nut.)
 
It seems to me that ax combat bonds should be divided by the number of players involved, but otherwise the change are good. Can't wait for 2021 to see for more !
 

Deleted member 192138

D
Indeed it is interesting.

It calls for an 80% penalty to be applied to the Powerplay and BGS actions of players in Solo and Private Groups and notes that it would be "simpler to just nix BGS Influence gain and Powerplay merit-earning in any game mode other than Open, and this would be my real preference" - which would mean, if implemented, that the actions of players who eschew PvP, in a game where other players, and therefore PvP, are optional extras, would be made somewhere between worth less and worthless.

We've all been told to play the game the way we want to, with or without other players - yet it seems that a subset of the player-base who enjoy playing in a manner that not all players enjoy want those who don't play with them to be penalised for doing so.

All players affecting the shared galaxy, regardless of game mode, has been a part of the game from the outset - those seeking meaningful PvP by the removal / reduction of the effect of players who choose not to PvP would, in effect, be making the PvE of affected players meaningless / have less meaning in terms of their effect on the unique connected galaxy.
You laud the idea that people should play the game they want to. At the moment all open play interactions and PvP potential is undermined and negated through grind in PG and solo. In celebrating the existing system as the correct way to allow players to all play the way they want to, what you're actually doing is telling people interested in PvP and open interactions that their gameplay is meaningless and worthless, in the grand scheme of BGS and power play. So it looks like you're scared of your gameplay being subject to the sort of imbalance that you celebrate when it favours you. Kinda ironic, perhaps.
 
I don't kow if I like the nerf to combat rank progression killing scouts. Now there isn't a point to dedicate a build to hunt scouts, so non-human signals of threat 4 or less lose their point, but whatever.

Bold. I don't see this going down well with players who have spent many hours grinding the ranks. If we were to adjust rank gain, it should affect future commanders only, not diminish people's effort retroactively.

As a brand new player (one month into the game), I strongly disagree with you in this Bruce. I managed to get Elite in trading without any effort during my first week, and same goes to Explorer Elite, so both of them means nothing to me. I would be very happy if those would have been more harder and If I have to lose that fake Elite ranks to get that, I am totally in. On the other hand, I'm enjoying the combat progression, each rank achieved is a good rewarding sensation of effort done (currently Expert, 90%).

My feedback about ranks

Combat:
I wouldn't touch nothing, it's cool as it is right now. Being Elite means something, at least a lot of hours of combat in my back.
Trade: Large increase in profits required to rank up, based on current money gain. Being Elite in the first two days of playing the game is just hilarious, everyone is Elite Trader right now without any effort.
Mining: New category, linked to the number of refined minerals and not to the profit from selling them. It is a totally different activity than trading, it should have its own rank, not based on the profits (same as combat is not based on the profits of killing pirates or gaining combat bonds, it is based in killing pilots with high ranks).
Exploring: Great increase in the profits associated with the sale of exploration data, according to what is paid today (yesterday I went from Pioneer (30%) to Elite scanning about 20 systems with ammonia planets already discovered for the community event, It seems like a joke to me.
CQC: I can't say nothing here because even I have already played some CQC, I don't have enough experience to talk about rank balance.

o7
 
Back
Top Bottom