ANNOUNCEMENT Game Balancing

In 25 hours of CQC combat with 545 kills, I've earned 341,359 cr.
That's still enough to maintain a Corvette!

Only concern is any system that generates rewards from interaction between players is open to be gamed.
So is anything that generates rewards.

Combat rewards should really be a zero (or negative) sum game. These assets come from somewhere, and while losses are handwaved when it comes to NPCs, it should be difficult to earn more than the other side loses in a strictly PvP encounter.
 
Thanks for the suggestion! For PvP payouts specifically, how would you account for players gaming the system with friends and alt accounts?
To date, the PvP payouts comes from the game and not from the players. This source is infinite, why not let the players set PvP payouts themselves with their own credits?
No one will therefore be able to generate credit from this system. Except exchanging credits but this is already possible in other forms.
 

Bruce Garrido

Community Manager
Frontier
I'm just curious why start with mining when its all the other ways to make money are the ones thats the real issue. AX combat is so under paid compared to the risk
People seem to disagree what the "real" issue is. After taking all the feedback and data on board, we think it's a holistic issue and mining is the activity most affected by power creep and changes we reference near the start of the post.

Let us know what changes you'd make to AX for us to consider.
 

Bruce Garrido

Community Manager
Frontier
That's still enough to maintain a Corvette!



So is anything that generates rewards.

Combat rewards should really be a zero (or negative) sum game. These assets come from somewhere, and while losses are handwaved when it comes to NPCs, it should be difficult to earn more than the other side loses in a strictly PvP encounter.
The same does not apply to anything that generates rewards. You're not "gaming" a PvE system simply by playing it, and it's much easier to balance.

Zero sum PvP is an interesting take and definitely cancels any risk of manipulation but is a huge disincentive for the activity overall.
 
People seem to disagree what the "real" issue is. After taking all the feedback and data on board, we think it's a holistic issue and mining is the activity most affected by power creep and changes we reference near the start of the post.

Let us know what changes you'd make to AX for us to consider.
AX combat is by far the most difficult PvE combat in the game. Taking on the most basic Thargoid Interceptor might be "easy" for players with a lot of skill, but it's a huge task for many other players. It's very risky, and extremely easy to lose a ship.

As far as I see it, changes for AX combat pay would need to reflect this extremely high risk activity. PvP aside, it's likely among the most risky activities within the game. Payout does not reflect this. My suggestion would be to take a look at what your plans are for increasing regular combat pay, and then apply that to AX combat with an additional bonus.
 

Bruce Garrido

Community Manager
Frontier
To date, the PvP payouts comes from the game and not from the players. This source is infinite, why not let the players set PvP payouts themselves with their own credits?
No one will therefore be able to generate credit from this system. Except exchanging credits but this is already possible in other forms.
I like the idea of player-set bounties on the surface, but have no doubt this would become malicious very quickly.
 
Could I ask too for powerplay can you halve or drastically lower the cost of fortification materials (but not preparation cargo)?

Its silly I have to pay my boss to work for him when I should be rewarded for working (via the weekly rank reward).

This could be an either / or with my previous suggestion, because having to buy fortification eats into your credit balance each week. This drives casual players away.
 
For the health and longevity of Elite Dangerous, we're going to considerably reduce the payout of this activity so that it remains lucrative but players won't feel compelled to head out to the latest triple hotspot whenever they need credits.
Nerfing mining before buffing combat just destabilises economic surety and misunderstands why people feel compelled to mine as an income. Which is to say - credits are used to be able to do things, because those things don't pay well enough to be self sustaining. Now we just have to work twice as long to get those credits to do the other things.

Seems weird to nuke laser mining financial viability to promote core mining, whilst core mining is broken and you don't have a planned fix. You're replacing credit certainty with a future promise that somewhere down the line the balance will work how you see it - assuming the devs can get a fix in.

Will galactic average prices for the mined minerals be adjusted to reflect these changes?

Is there a timescale for expecting the PWA to be fixed so that this suggested balance can actually see a result?

Looks very horse before the cart tbh. People can play the game to its full when earning credits isn't a chore, this looks to be pushing us back to the chore.
 
Notice how they didn't mention several other areas of the game that need fixing:

CQC
Powerplay
Surface missions
Megaship heists
Pirating(Black Market)
PvP

All of these need some TLC and are either not worth doing due to credit payouts or are just straight up broken.

For crying out loud several powerplay modules are near useless and desperately need tweaking.
 
Sounds like a good start. Also, I appreciate that you remembered that exploration exists: I look forward to seeing more details on that later. Although I don't think it needs large adjustments, but who knows.
About the only larger change I'd suggest there would be to move more credits from the DSS mapping to first discovery scans (with the FSS) instead: players shouldn't be compelled to waste quite large amounts of time flying out to an unlandable body, just to get more credits (and a second tag), but nothing more to actually explore.

For example, read this account of a player new to exploration who thought that DSS-ing every planet was a must, and had gotten rapidly bored with exploration as a result.

Oh, and I'd recommend revisiting multicrew exploration, where currently crew members who help the host with exploring don't get anything for their effort. In my opinion, those who join up as crew and scan bodies with the FSS should receive vouchers that can be turned in for credits, but not getting any tags on the bodies.


Also, on the subject of CQC and players potentially gaming the system: CQC should probably not be the highest-earning gameplay, so that folks who'll want to farm credits will flock there, but it still would be nice to earn something more than the tiny amounts we currently get. It's mostly just about the message said amounts send.
 
We'd love to improve PvP for you - let me know with a forum message or on any social channel what your feedback is. For now, this is a discussion about game balance.
I made a video a while ago when Open Only Powerplay was being discussed, since that would genuinely guarantee meaningful PvP in the game. It's just something to get your toes wet in terms of potential changes for PvP.

 
who cares, the game is already hugely unbalanced by all the people that took advantage of the very late ( like 5 years late lol ) balancing effort from the developers, why would I come back to a game where everyone is filthy rich and the new players will be punished by it? ( and yes the money other players have matter on a multiplayer pvp game)

the only way to balance this would be to major inflate the rewards and cost of things, so the gap between new players and old players would not be that big.

but as usual it will be a half baked balanced with the usual FD signature.
 
Top Bottom