ANNOUNCEMENT Game Balancing

[aRJay]

You seem to be using docking slots that are larger than the ones I get to use. I've been flying the T9 enough to know how that turns out and use the DC because it means less damage, less getting stuck, less trouble with traffic and lower risk to get fined.

I haven't manually docked the Beluga enough to figure it out because I didn't feel like doing it --- only enough to find out that's it's not easy to dock. There is no advantage in damaging it.

Anyway, you won't loose anything if DC and SCA were built in because you never need to use them.

Personally I am not good enough to get two wide ships through the slot side by side, but I can dock my T9 more times in a row without hitting the slot coming in manually than the docking computer does.
As one of the activities I like doing in the game is rescue flights from burning stations I need to keep my manual docking skills as automatic docking isn’t available until the station is fully repaired.

If I got a Beluga in game, I have only tried it in the beta when it was brought in, I would start out with the docking computer just so I could get used to the positioning to get through the slot.

The docking computer would need a way to be switched off if built in otherwise it would keep trying to take over when you were at zero throttle.

 

[Orsum]

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.

I think the zero sum PvP is a great idea, you shouldnt be rewarded for destructive gameplay that can kill whole communitys in general. PvP should be an interaction based on only corperations/organizations interference that is mutually agreed to by both parties involved and can only be activated when those criteria are met. Say for example PvP can only happen between corperations/organizations on a timer that the dev's can set and cannot be changed but will only effect those involved in that faction and the opposing faction. It must be setup next to the system for that pvp to happen so people cannot just active it willingly. It must give clear timer information that the org within a certain amount of time is going to attacked. Give organiztion leaders the option when first making an org to set wheather it is PvP based this will be locked for the lifetime of the faction. Once the faction is set to be attacked everyone in those factions are locked and cannot leave or change org until the outcome of the fight is finished. In effect you are turning both systems into a PvP CG/CZ.

 

[D.D.Hariman]

OK. Had another fight to get into PG and Wing.
BUT I didn't actually get there.

Winged Not Visible.mp4

drive.google.com

Everything said the ships were in PG and Wing but neither ship could see the other one.
Neither ship could see the others Prospector.
Neither ship could see the fragments the other knocked off.
Both ships mined the same rock which is also the same rock we mined twice in the previous post in MY Odyssey.

 

[Anticon]

I scan so that I can use the system map in case I need to, that's all. Looking would only make it take even longer to scan a system.

Sheesh. You need to stop and smell the roses! It's ok to zoom through systems if you really want to, but there's lots of information - leading to understanding, and broadening of your knowledge horizons - to be gained by taking it easy, scanning, and thinking about what it all means. Especially in exploration, but also even when you're running around the bubble like a fly in a bottle. It's really basic: the more you learn, the more you understand.
And folks in this forum are generally here to help you, not to be adversaries. Lighten up! And fly safe.

 

[CMDR_M_Veidt]

While travel is an essential part of any space game, there is a fine line between gameplay, and making the player wait unnecessarily.

Thanks. Disagree completely with everything you said, for my part

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Mate.... spend some time flying. Plenty of folk don't use a DC. I'm definitely no ace but I fly a beluga, t9 and t10 a lot - I've never used a DC - you can get 2 T-9s or 2 belugas through the slot side by side (done it plenty of times, and if you pay attention to cockpit placement and visual cues its not that hard). If you think otherwise you haven't been paying attention, or haven't been flying enough to judge.

Do. Not. Fly. Without. A. Rebuy.

 

[Rubbernuke]

@Bruce Garrido

On page 1 or 2 you asked about Powerplay balancing- in addition to the rank payout I suggested here are some extra ideas for the power bonuses themselves:

Bounty bonuses stay the same (since they will be buffed via the main game anyway).

BGS influence bonuses remain the same.

Change the R5 bonus of Denton (-90% to ammunition in controlled & exploited systems which is useless really) and instead make it an upgrade to the Rank 2 bonus (-10% price of weapon modules in controlled & exploited systems)- perhaps make this rank 5 bonus -50% off all combat module prices (i.e. not just weapons but shields, SCBs, hull reinforcement etc) to make it worthwhile.

Reasoning: Restocking ammunition saves hardly any money for such a high end perk (with billions in cash what is a few tens of thousands)? With my suggestion the rank 2 bonus gives money off weapons, while rank 5 opens this to all combat related modules making it an interesting mirror to LYR and Mahon ship / module bonuses, and a foil to the passive Hudson bonus.

Change the R5 Rares bonus for Zemina Torval (+50% to Rare trading profits in controlled & exploited systems) to a +20% bonus on mining profits (separate to the 1/2/3 standing bonus which is trade).

Reasoning: mining has been reduced, but features in the game should allow meaningful perks for a price (in this case service to Torval). Rares are not profitable any longer, and in lore Torval is heavily involved in mining operations (her special modules is a mining weapon hybrid) so it makes her bonus relate to her lore better.

Similarly, change Mahons R5 bonus (which is the same +50% to Rare trading profits in controlled & exploited systems) to +20% on all trade profit and make a reduction on Alliance ships a rank 2 perk based on Alliance standing (so 5 / 10 / 15% off Chieftain, Challenger Crusader and T-10). This rank 2 bonus might blunt having such a poor Powerplay module.

Introduce a lower rank reward for exploration data with LYR in place of the Rank 2 -5% ships rebuy in controlled & exploited systems perk- maybe +10% on all exploration data.

Reasoning: Rebuy costs are an irrelevance in the credit inflated game today, and the exploration bonus would be more useful.

Archon Delaines R5 bonus: please make it so that as well as reducing all bounties and fines to 0 the BGS actions of those negative actions still count- so if I shoot a security ship I get no fine but the assault is registered as negative influence in the BGS.

Reasoning: With R5 its impossible to do negative BGS work, and if changed would make for a much more effective R5 bonus.

 

[Maymo]

I don't even have the option to look at the system map when I haven't scanned the system first.

Yes.....that’s how it works, it’s called exploring.

So you're omitting most of the data and have to come back later to scan if you want to know about a system you've already visited.

Why would you come back if you’ve already established that there’s nothing there?

That shows only some percentage of the system.

It discovers the existence of all bodies and you need to honk to use the FSS regardless.

The FSS doesn't save any time at all, it's extremely time consuming and makes all travel through unvisited systems taking very very long.

You do know that we used to have to fly up to every individual planet in a system just to scan it right? You would have had a stroke...

And all that for systems that have already been scanned and explored. It makes no sense.

If all systems that had been visited by other players were already fully mapped/explored you wouldn’t be able to get any exploration data/credits from them.

It would mean that a new player wouldn’t be able to start a profitable career in exploration until they were capable of getting way out into the black.

Pretty sure you’d have a big problem with that too...

 

[Ozric]

It says it zooms in to the signal source and then shows additional information. That's all, so using the scanner, I see it shows the metal contents, ok, next one, metal contents, next one, more metal contents, ok, they're all the same, so next one, next one ... who cares.

It does not say that it shows geological features, so how would I know that? Even if I happen to see any geological features, at the point I'm first using the scanner and am trying to figure out how to scan a system, it's likely that I don't know what it means.

By playing the game. By looking at the picture that goes with the words. I'm not sure what other games you play, but you must really not like most games if you have to actually think for yourself at any point.

It's like the engineers when the first one says 'I want sulfur' and before you give me some, you can't do anything. Ok, I don't have sulfur and I don't know how to get some, so forget it and do something else.

It's missing information and no ways to learn for the players that makes the game fail miserably.

The information is in the game. And I am done with talking to you I'm afraid, because you ignore any evidence or advice that is offered to you it seems just to keep the argument going.

 

[Ralph Vargr]

Could I have some peanut butter, now?

 

[zimms]

Could I have some peanut butter, now?

Nope, not part of your balanced diet.

 

[Florenus]

If you want a game that consists of nothing but holding players back and forces them to grind and to do stupid repetitive tasks, that's ok. It's not the kind of game I would play, and Elite deserves better than that.

Elite doesn't hold you back. Whatever you want to do, you can, from the very begginning.
The only thing that changes with progression is effectivenes of you performing certain task, whether by getting better ships or equipment, or upgrading that equipment.
If you don't enjoy doing those tasks, then there's absolutlely no reason for you to play the game at all. Being able to skip the progression will end up with you doing EXACTLY the same things in game, but without said progression that is fundamental for most people to keep enjoying the game for much longer that it took you to judge it.

As for the rest of things you post... It's hard to find the right words.

 

[F4fred]

@Bruce Garrido

On page 1 or 2 you asked about Powerplay balancing- in addition to the rank payout I suggested here are some extra ideas for the power bonuses themselves:

Bounty bonuses stay the same (since they will be buffed via the main game anyway).

BGS influence bonuses remain the same.

Change the R5 bonus of Denton (-90% to ammunition in controlled & exploited systems which is useless really) and instead make it an upgrade to the Rank 2 bonus (-10% price of weapon modules in controlled & exploited systems)- perhaps make this rank 5 bonus -50% off all combat module prices (i.e. not just weapons but shields, SCBs, hull reinforcement etc) to make it worthwhile.

Reasoning: Restocking ammunition saves hardly any money for such a high end perk (with billions in cash what is a few tens of thousands)? With my suggestion the rank 2 bonus gives money off weapons, while rank 5 opens this to all combat related modules making it an interesting mirror to LYR and Mahon ship / module bonuses, and a foil to the passive Hudson bonus.

Change the R5 Rares bonus for Zemina Torval (+50% to Rare trading profits in controlled & exploited systems) to a +20% bonus on mining profits (separate to the 1/2/3 standing bonus which is trade).

Reasoning: mining has been reduced, but features in the game should allow meaningful perks for a price (in this case service to Torval). Rares are not profitable any longer, and in lore Torval is heavily involved in mining operations (her special modules is a mining weapon hybrid) so it makes her bonus relate to her lore better.

Similarly, change Mahons R5 bonus (which is the same +50% to Rare trading profits in controlled & exploited systems) to +20% on all trade profit and make a reduction on Alliance ships a rank 2 perk based on Alliance standing (so 5 / 10 / 15% off Chieftain, Challenger Crusader and T-10). This rank 2 bonus might blunt having such a poor Powerplay module.

Introduce a lower rank reward for exploration data with LYR in place of the Rank 2 -5% ships rebuy in controlled & exploited systems perk- maybe +10% on all exploration data.

Reasoning: Rebuy costs are an irrelevance in the credit inflated game today, and the exploration bonus would be more useful.

Archon Delaines R5 bonus: please make it so that as well as reducing all bounties and fines to 0 the BGS actions of those negative actions still count- so if I shoot a security ship I get no fine but the assault is registered as negative influence in the BGS.

Reasoning: With R5 its impossible to do negative BGS work, and if changed would make for a much more effective R5 bonus.

Alternatively Ed needs to have a serious word with his engineers along the lines of get me a decent PP module or you are all fired!

 

[Juniper]

I wish Frontier would actually treat all this as properly holistic and make all the changes together (then tweak as appropriate) rather than spread them several weeks apart. That's not "holistic" - in fact, it's completely the opposite. If you do it individually - hell mend ye - but don't insult my intelligence by claiming it's "holistic" when it's anything but.

Then players will at least know where they stand, and they can make their decisions to adjust gameplay accordingly.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Alternatively Ed needs to have a serious word with his engineers along the lines of get me a decent PP module or you are all fired!

Its been said many times about the poor modules in PP (Zeminas Mining lance, Eddies Retributor) and I was tempted to add them, but I tried to keep as close as possible to 'balance via credits' spirit as possible with this one.

 

[F4fred]

I wish Frontier would actually treat all this as properly holistic and make all the changes together (then tweak as appropriate) rather than spread them several weeks apart. That's not "holistic" - in fact, it's completely the opposite. If you do it individually - hell mend ye - but don't insult my intelligence by claiming it's "holistic" when it's anything but.

Then players will at least know where they stand, and they can make their decisions to adjust gameplay accordingly.

You did read the bit about the changes developing over time subject to player feedback? This is not a change one thing at a time and then it is done kind of deal. It is going to take some time. I think a cycle of changes and adjustments is more likely to result in a holistic outcome than presenting the players with a package of changes and saying there you are it is done and maybe tweaking it a bit afterwards.

 

[Juniper]

You did read the bit about the changes developing over time subject to player feedback? This is not a change one thing at a time and then it is done kind of deal. It is going to take some time. I think a cycle of changes and adjustments is more likely to result in a holistic outcome than presenting the players with a package of changes and saying there you are it is done and maybe tweaking it a bit afterwards.

I did, I just don't believe Frontier will do that in reality. Which is why I think doing everything at once would make more sense. Should I mine this week? Or do passenger missions? Or do some bounty hunting? Maybe some exploring or trading? Maybe I should wait until next week and see what happens... don't want to waste my time do I? Next week whatever I do could be worth twice as much for the same grind thing.

Surely this is what beta servers are for.

 

[Maymo]

I wish Frontier would actually treat all this as properly holistic and make all the changes together (then tweak as appropriate) rather than spread them several weeks apart. That's not "holistic" - in fact, it's completely the opposite. If you do it individually - hell mend ye - but don't insult my intelligence by claiming it's "holistic" when it's anything but.

Then players will at least know where they stand, and they can make their decisions to adjust gameplay accordingly.

Given the absolute bedlam that changing just one element has caused I think the forums would have possibly crashed and half of us would probably be banned if they’d changed everything at once...

I do agree with you somewhat though. If holistic change is what they were actually going for I’d have incorporated everything at once but spread it out to give players chance to adjust in the game....

Week1
Mining -10%
Combat +10%
Trade +10%
Aliens +15%

Week2
Mining -5%
Combat +10%
Trade +5%
Aliens +10%

Etc...

These changes are also being incorporated into the narrative which i do think is a really cool thing, especially if it was played out gradually.

 

[Juniper]

Given the absolute bedlam that changing just one element has caused I think the forums would have possibly crashed and half of us would probably be banned if they’d changed everything at once...

Well, see I think the 'bedlam' you describe is inevitable... and arguably worse for Frontier as they are going to be facing this every single time they make their "holistic" change to a single thing, as they are seemingly planning to do. Better IMO to just get it all over with, and say "There now, that's the game, adjust or die, but we'll tweak things that are obviously broken as per our metrics".

It's like they're not even sure what to fix, other than mining is overpaid and combat is underpaid. So they're just attempting to suck it and see. Again, not holistic.

I do agree with you somewhat though. If holistic change is what they were actually going for I’d have incorporated everything at once but spread it out to give players chance to adjust in the game....

Week1
Mining -10%
Combat +10%
Trade +10%
Aliens +15%

Week2
Mining -5%
Combat +10%
Trade +5%
Aliens +10%

I understand the logic, but again, it's just prolonging the "pain" that players are experiencing.

Just do it. It's their game, and it's just numbers, so just do it.

These changes are also being incorporated into the narrative which i do think is a really cool thing, especially if it was played out gradually.

That I do think is a good thing, and one argument for doing it over time. It's not compelling though, sorry.

 

[limpetdwarf]

I don’t have a console but as I understand it the fees for the premium account (or whatever it is called) that you need to play multiplayer games go to Microsoft not Frontier.

It's called a game pass. IIUC you can't play ED on an xbox unless you have subscribed for a version of the game pass that includes playing online. Perhaps the information is misleading, I don't know.

Why would they make an xbox version of ED when they're not getting some money from the subscribers?