I suppose it is possible to get to Rear Admiral in a day of playing... As long as one doesn't need to eat, sleep, visit the WC etc...o get the "best" ship in 1 day of playing
I suppose it is possible to get to Rear Admiral in a day of playing... As long as one doesn't need to eat, sleep, visit the WC etc...o get the "best" ship in 1 day of playing
You left out the part about up hill both ways through the snow lolNo, 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
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...
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...
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.Hopefully! I found this post very interesting: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...nishment-a-proposed-holistic-approach.559839/
coughMost exaggerate their epeen
They're wing missions, and are designed to be done as a wing (when the reward pool is then 200m credits)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.
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 simpleIndeed 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.
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.If we were to adjust rank gain, it should affect future commanders only, not diminish people's effort retroactively.
That's why I used the qualifier 'most'.cough
I'm not really that good a pilot, either. Basilisk, Medusa and Hydra are all no-go.
I endorse every part of this post.Any word on the PWA? I kinda miss heading out to the rings, putting on some Joe Satriani, and blowing up rocks!
After the first payout raise, maybe so.up until 3.3 the scans/rank curve was fairly constant for this even as the payouts increased.
That sounds like a lot of work. Good luckExactly. 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.
And the amount? 0.01 - 0.1 % maybe, or is that too much...?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![]()
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.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.
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.