ANNOUNCEMENT Game Balancing

It is absolutely inexplicable that fdev would be so clueless and reckless implementing a MASSIVE mining nerf, demanding deep core mining be done to make the most money, yet having an essential piece of hardware with the PWA broken and unusable. Who in their right minds would think its a good idea to implement such changes before getting the PWA fixed. They should have held off with the nerf to mining and increased combat. Then once they get the PWA fixed, look at mining if they must.

You must be new to elite. This is standard operating procedure, everything is working as intended.
Actually on a normal round of nerfing they would break the scanner when the patch came out then spend months denying anything was even wrong with it. At least we have a heads up that it's already borked and won't be fixed.
 
Really? why not? why shouldn't fun be accompanied by profit? why such misery? Feel free to stay away from profitable wing missions, but don't try to enforce your point of view to other players' gameplay. Let us choose our missions and pick profit if we want. I'm speaking as a triple elite cmdr with 14,5 bn plus another five in my carrier's balance. What progress would it ruin for you if I was to be paid as it is now? Why be forced to choose less?
Where did I say it shouldn't be profitable?
 
Where did I say it shouldn't be profitable?

The "how does it bother you for me to accrue insane wealth" argument always comes out when anyone talks about balancing the game so that reward has some tie to risk/investment and cost.

These are people who still have wet fever dreams of elite having a single player mode and dont acknowledge that the only thing that makes this a game, the BGS, does get impacted by infinite player funds ... as does any other mechanic that tries to leverage credits as a balance - and since it's not something that matters for the uber rich, and all mechanics eventually lead back to the bgs unless you're off in the black and never returning, all player actions impact the shared game of everyone. The decisions you make as a player where money is no object are undeniably different from those you would make if money mattered.

If the argument is that the way you play is more fun and objectively better where money doesn't matter ...vs what it would be like if it did...then argue for the elimination of credits altogether. Because in that reality, credits' only purpose is to be annoying to new players and force people to temporarily grind something they probably find boring until credits dont matter. What kind of purpose is that? Just get rid of it.
 
It absolutely astounds me that the idea of players "gaming the system with friends and alt accounts" via bounty payouts is still even a concept. Players are already transferring credits by the billions by manipulating the commodity prices on their Fleet Carrier markets. I can understand the original idea was to keep gold-farmers at bay, but that cat is out of the bag and it's not going away. It's kind of ridiculous that player bounty rewards have a cap on them and it's just turning people away from the PvP Bounty Hunter playstyle entirely. If player bounty payouts weren't capped, there would be an actual incentive to go out and actually kill the career gankers who do nothing but camp high-traffic systems and blow-up trade ships. As it is, player bounty claims rarely even cover the cost of ammo and repairs that you would need to pay after securing the kill on a wanted player.

The only real change that you would have to make to the payouts themselves would be to make them split evenly among the members of a wing who get the kill instead of each member receiving the full bounty.

It's not about exchanging credits, it's about generating them out of thin air e.g. through wing bounty sharing on artificially inflated bounties that can be rapidly generated on fake alt criminal accounts which are then reset and repeated. You need a carefully thought out set of constraints to mitigate exploits (e.g. search my recent posts for an attempt).
 
So are you going to bring all cmdrs across different platforms into the same instances?? You can barely provide a platform without instancing issues for each single platform.

Because unless you are you won't be able to have "open-only" BGS. We regularly fight against PC sqdns from an Xbox player base - no PvP possible. We have to use strategy instead of direct action.

Why force the issue anyway when there's no level playing field on equipment? Unless you're going to also get Microsoft to deliver VR and full peripheral support on xbox?

Open only powerplay is a great idea however but would fail for the same reasons.

Unless you segregate into a seperate galaxy for each platform? All you'll do is drive the core player base and future potential interest away from the game.

It's perhaps not to everyones liking the way it is but it's a great balance.
Your argument has some validity on the BGS front but PP groups are large and have teams across platforms so that each can be patrolled independently.
 
I'm pro Open-only Powerplay and BGS personally. I understand this is a long standing debate and know a few of the reasons it hasn't happened before. Maybe we'll be ready to have that conversation again sometime in the near future.

I would like both to be a thing, but I do think there would be too much opposition on the BGS front.

What I don't understand is that the conversation has already been had. Looking at the Focused Feedback that occurred way back when, a vast majority of the posters agreed with it, while a small minority disagreed with it. I personally think from that FF, it should of been implemented back then. At its core, OOPP is a game balance issue that would greatly benefit both smaller powers who may be able to use combat to even the odds, and potentially help all powers in their fight against fifth column activities.

Ignoring the whole OOPP topic though, it would be nice to see some other changes done to PP, such as the increase in weekly payouts, removing the cost of fortification, and eliminating the consolidation bonus that Rubbernuke referenced earlier in this thread. The first two would help greatly with making it more of a benefit financially to play PP, and the consolidation point would help with the static nature of PP. Another game balancing act I would like to see though is the removal of the pledge requirement to get PP modules. I think this would greatly help with grinders hurting the powers as well. The most popular suggestion I have seen with these modules is to move them to the tech brokers in each of the faction capitals.
 
IMHO, there is a fine line that FDEV need to run along. For those of us that have spent hundreds or thousands of hours of hours in the game, we see these issues as "balance" issues.
However, FDEV are looking at a broader audience and need to take into account that new players, i would even say most players, don't spend that amount of time or put that amount of effort into the game.
FDEV already has us Elite addicts, that isn't likely to change, we are not their active concern, what they need to be able to do is pull in more of the casual players and turn them into heavy players.
To do that they need to have a reasonable progression curve that people can follow and not make it a ridiculous grind to make the game fun.
They already have the addict grinds in the form of the Fed and Imp end game ships, and the high level engineering, and FC's.
Mining is unbalanced, no question, HOWEVER, most new players aren't jumping in and immediately mining most players want some pew pew and some fun missions and want to progress quickly enough that it's challenging but fun.
So by all means, pull the mission and combat rewards up, but nobody is sitting for hours a week laser mining because its really compelling gameplay, we do it to be able to afford specific things...FC's, Imp and Fed end game ships, and hording equipment and ships.
They have already nerf'd mining to a point where it's high enough paying to satisfy the needs of end-game players without the insanity of the 1.8m/tonne of LTD era, they need to concentrate on pulling up the rewards on the other game loops.
I would suggest that what they need to do is actually add to the end-game content and squad content more compelling. e.g. does your squad want to build their own station... o.k. you can, but the squad needs to invest in that with billions of credits in upkeep each week, and also by bringing in supplies like food, clothing and equipment; do you want to run a FC, sure no problem, but FC's can be attacked by pirates or players, and you need to pay for repairs, and if it's a really bad attack it might be destroyed and everything onboard is destroyed along with it; do you want to control a series of systems, all good, however, you need to make sure each station is kept topped up with the materials and equipment they need to function or they fall into disrepair and might decide that you aren't the best faction to be aligned to...... these are all things that would add gameplay loops, add make late game play far more intense and meaningful
Basically, bring the other gameplay loop rewards up a little but, leave mining alone as imho its late game content anyway (by the time you're cutter/anaconda/T9 mining you're in late game content) and then give players and especially player factions/squadrons something to actually spend the credits on that is meaningful and adds to the game/universe.
I'd say that a faction should be able to build in any non-claimed/empty system anywhere in the universe. It would quickly create a series of stop off points between the various regions and create a super compelling and vibrant player driven in-game content.
Kind of like the Silk and Spice Roads of the golden age of exploration where trade ports popped up and created the basis for countries, expansion and trade regions. It would make the growth of the in-game universe super player driven and really exciting; if you want to build a station in an inhabited system, well, the other factions might not like that and then you need to deal with sabotage, attacks, and blockades.
Admittedly these would require a massive investment in time and money on FDEV's part, but it would radically improve the overall gameplay for end-game players and would help to make boring but profitable gameplay loops like mining way more meaningful,and also mean that mining might be profitable, but damn it needs to be because the squads mining corps is paying the bills and keeping everything running.
Mining is a boring gameplay loop and if you make as much per hour mining as fighting, nobody will mine, there would be no point. Mining needs to be more profitable to make it worth even bothering and if you build gameplay loops around mining e.g. funding squad or FC activities, and then also combine that will changes in the way you fund the other purchasing and gameplay loops e.g. you need have certain other non-credit resources to buy ships e.g. materials or minerals, or maybe you need to have a certain rep with a faction before they will sell you certain resources, then that uplifts the game as a whole
 
Silly numbers for Ax kills

I do hope FDev does not fall for that.

A hydra can be killed in 15 minutes, maybe faster.

I can kill a Cyclops in 5 minutes with a Gauss Challenger, and much faster with a Shard Conda.
I'm not a Pro AX combat pilot - im really a FA On scrub but even for me, it's a risk free activity.
There is more danger for me to fall asleep mining and lose the ship to asteroids then lose it to a Cyclops during an AX fight.

2 millions for a Cyclops feels quite ok-ish. 10 millions is definitely not.

Cyclops' require very little in the way of skill, especially if you do what we call "gibbing" and just use Premium large shard cannons to completely bypass the heart system.

Everything past the Cyclops is a beast that requires quite a lot of devotion to time and effort to fight, the Hydra especially.
Per your claim that a Hydra can be killed in 15 minutes, please do show us yourself killing a Hydra in less than 15 minutes
 
@Bruce Garrido

I have a simple suggestion that would help boost metals and minerals that have almost no demand/price in a way that will help miners and traders diversify their mining. Many of the mined metals and minerals can be sold by fleet carriers for people to turn in as mission items for mining missions, but the low average cost and mission payouts makes it... not the best system for profiting for an FC owner, that's for sure. Issue is if they charge 1000% the missions wont cover it for the buyer with a profit margin so they wont get bought. Less than 1000% and it isn't worth doing compared to other methods of making credits. But... if those items were tied some how to CG's and the average price was boosted to allow FC owners more wiggle room with pricing it could be very worth it for players to mine then turn it in themselves, or sell it to an FC, or use their own FC to sell it.

There are a few items that could be used that way to give extra rewards by utilizing player supply chains toward a CG. Thargoid hearts or other parts could be turned in as CG items, which would then promote FC interaction as a trade medium between gatherers, and trader type players. I know missions are your main focus at first, but I'd like to think diversifying "money making" would include more independent methods like this rather than strictly for factions.
 
@Bruce Garrido

Can we see a fix/patch to remove the act of Gibbing Thargoids?
Currently, any AX CG's that are run consist entirely of people showing up with premium loaded Shard Cannons and Insta-gibbing a Cyclops without even going through a single heart.

There are multiple proposals by members of the AXI on how to create a method of removing Gibbing from the game, if you want to hear them you're more than welcome to DM me where I will send them over.
 
Are you considering the other kind of balance, ship balance?

I haven't actually checked since last year maybe the numbers have changed. However i remember that the Imp Courier was the only light fighter worth a damn and the others (eagle, viper3, imp eagle) were all worse by a wide margin despite being similar in price once outfitted. (Once outfitted is key here, most of the cost of any of these is that race spec engine)

The other light fighters have fractional advantages in other areas but nothing compares to the light hull weight and (relatively) massive shields of the Courier. To be clear I'm not hating on the courier, it's exactly where it should be, I just want the other fighters to be brought up to it's standard (or just below, they are a bit cheaper after all).

Will you be looking at that to diversify ship builds and add further variety to the game?
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the suggestion! For PvP payouts specifically, how would you account for players gaming the system with friends and alt accounts?

The way I would handle this, is to never introduce "new" money to the game, via player bounties.

How this works is - if someone is getting paid a bounty on someone elses ship, that same amount of money is going to have to be paid by the criminal.

Say someone get's a 10,000,000 credit bounty on their heads.

They get a friend to kill them to get the 10,000,000

However, they now need to pay 10,000,000 credits as part of their rebuy, when being spawned at the nearest detention centre.

This way, no one has gained any "new" credits. It does mean credits would effectively "transfer" between the two commanders - however, there are already ways to do this, which don't involve re-buying a ship.

What if the commander doesn't have the credits to pay the bounty?

They get reduced to a sidewinder (IF they have sold off other assets, such as ships, modules, etc from their storage, and STILL can't pay it off - this is an edge case!)

They also have a debt applied - this debt is paid via a "tarrif" on literally every single thing they do until it is paid. (This works in a similar way to the fighter crew who already take a percentage of all profits, and a lesser version could even be implemented using exactly that method - by adding an invisible crew member who takes X% profits)
Buying a module? you pay 50% more
Turning in a mission? 50% of your credit reward goes to the cops
Turning in some bounty vouchers? 50% of your reward goes to the cops

(There is one way this could STILL be gamed.... and that is by someone with 200 free epic accounts, creating new commanders and gaining very large bounties for this express purpose, to never ever pay off their debts - I would call this enough of an edge case with enough commitment required to... write it off as none problematic - it only works the amount of times as you have spare accounts)

(All of this only applies when another player is claiming the bounty. - If you are scanned and destroyed by an NPC (the NPC claims the bounty) normal rules apply and you don't have to pay the entire bounty you have)

The above reduces issues around making criminal play none viable.
 
Last edited:
What does e.g. mining do other than generate credits out of nothing?

So this thread is about a mining rebalance and you're advocating that subsequently the new mining should be farming alts because it'll make more credits after lifting the bounty cap? Why rebalance at all if all you want is infinite credits?

EDIT: see the point above mine by Drelthar for what an actual attempt to mitigate alt/friend farming looks like
 
The way I would handle this, is to never introduce "new" money to the game, [...]

I must repeat myself, sorry. Mining introduces "new money" in the hundreds of millions per hour. Nobody is addressing this as a problem.
Why then with the (relatively insignificant) player bounties?
 
The way I would handle this, is to never introduce "new" money to the game, via player bounties.

How this works is - if someone is getting paid a bounty on someone elses ship, that same amount of money is going to have to be paid by the criminal.

Say someone get's a 10,000,000 credit bounty on their heads.

They get a friend to kill them to get the 10,000,000

However, they now need to pay 10,000,000 credits as part of their rebuy, when being spawned at the nearest detention centre.

This way, no one has gained any "new" credits. It does mean credits would effectively "transfer" between the two commanders - however, there are already ways to do this, which don't involve re-buying a ship.

What if the commander doesn't have the credits to pay the bounty?

They get reduced to a sidewinder (IF they have sold off other assets, such as ships, modules, etc from their storage, and STILL can't pay it off - this is an edge case!)

They also have a debt applied - this debt is paid via a "tarrif" on literally every single thing they do until it is paid. (This works in a similar way to the fighter crew who already take a percentage of all profits, and a lesser version could even be implemented using exactly that method - by adding an invisible crew member who takes X% profits)
Buying a module? you pay 50% more
Turning in a mission? 50% of your credit reward goes to the cops
Turning in some bounty vouchers? 50% of your reward goes to the cops

(There is one way this could STILL be gamed.... and that is by someone with 200 free epic accounts, creating new commanders and gaining very large bounties for this express purpose, to never ever pay off their debts - I would call this enough of an edge case with enough commitment required to... write it off as none problematic - it only works the amount of times as you have spare accounts)

(All of this only applies when another player is claiming the bounty. - If you are scanned and destroyed by an NPC (the NPC claims the bounty) normal rules apply and you don't have to pay the entire bounty you have)

The above reduces issues around making criminal play none viable.

Someone (you?) earlier suggested making them pay significantly more than their bounty. Effectively the authorities take a tax.
 
I must repeat myself, sorry. Mining introduces "new money" in the hundreds of millions per hour. Nobody is addressing this as a problem.
Why then with the (relatively insignificant) player bounties?
Well I can get behind that - I'd nerf everything down to the same level as I'm happy for this game to be a slow burn. But in order to be fair you'd have to back date it and take money back from everyone who's exploited it. I think that horse has already bolted, so "rebalance" it is. By all means make it much more risky instead, like elite wings of pirates - but only in solo/pg - we already have players to do that job very well in open!
 
It's not about exchanging credits, it's about generating them out of thin air e.g. through wing bounty sharing on artificially inflated bounties that can be rapidly generated on fake alt criminal accounts which are then reset and repeated. You need a carefully thought out set of constraints to mitigate exploits (e.g. search my recent posts for an attempt).


The credits aren't coming out of thin air, they're coming out of the bank account of the guy who died. Getting a huge bounty is harder than one would think if you are on a fresh account with nothing but a Sidewinder. In fact, it would be more effort to grind out a huge bounty and then die to give it away to someone than it would be to just go mining.

To split a final hair, all credits are generated out of thin air. There is no real economy, so the faction that is paying out the bounty has infinite credits to pay you with, just like they have infinite credits to buy a million and one tonnes of painite.

Edit: I even addressed wing bounty sharing in my own post. Just divide player bounties evenly among the members of the wing that got the kill
 
@Bulbulunufus
CMDR, I begin to wonder if we are speaking the same language. You say that bounty payouts should continue to be treated different depending on if an NPC or a player with a bounty was killed. Because the latter generates credits out of nothing.
In fact any activity in the game does exactly this. I would like to know in which way credits generated out of bounty payouts are more toxic to the game than credits out of mining, trading, or exploration.
 
Back
Top Bottom