I am sorry to hear that, don’t tell us and don’t let FDev know or you might…
My new player experience (262 hours of play time) - It doesn't have to be this way
- Thread starter Linux Kernel
- Start date
-
- Tags
- grind
It might encourage player interaction outside the game with people engineering stuff to order for cash.You know all this engineering debate could be settled if, perhaps, players could build up their own engineering skill and sell engineered modules on a marketplace. Keep the NPCs as a backup maybe but let players freely profit for their efforts. Maybe make it difficult to solo level engineering skill without other players bringing in lots of materials to do multiple upgrades, but not totally prohibitive. Players could decide where to specialize based on what they themselves need or based on market demand.
On second thought, no. That would encourage more player interaction in game and create a player-driven economy for modules. We can't do that now, can we. That might be fun and engaging. /s
Yup, they were introduced as part of "Beyond Chapter 1" in Feb 2018 which added material traders for everyone using Horizons. It was explicitly a series of quality of life additions. There were no rep requirements at all.
Elite Dangerous: Beyond
Elite Dangerous: Beyond advances the ongoing player-driven narrative and introduces dozens of game-changing upgrades and enhancements, whether you prefer to trade, fight or explore. This third season of content is available FREE for all Elite Dangerous owners.Frontier Developments[1] Elite...
elite-dangerous.fandom.com
This is wrong. There never was any alliance rep requirements, I think you're thinking of the 3 new alliance ships in beyond which arrived at the same time. But there was no rep requirements. And material traders are nothing to do with the alliance specifically.
It's not just ED, "the industry" has by now realized that the vast majority of people prefer coop over PvP.
Plus PvP games have mostly moved to match-based ones with equal numbers on both sides. After all, when that's not enforced, then the (much) bigger groups almost always win.
The graveyard of MMOs has many "hardcore" / PvP-focused ones. EVE Online is one of, or The, exception where it became big enough that the game could survive even serious mistakes from the developers.
Hi there, and it looks like you're remembering wrong. Material traders were added in Beyond Chapter One, early 2018, as part of Engineering 2.0. You didn't need any rep requirement to use the contacts either.
Update: Whoops, posted by another at the same time.
As for folks talking about sending modules, ships etc to other players: perhaps you missed the part about Vanguards (the upcoming update Frontier have somewhat talked about) where the developers said adding exactly that. Granted, that's not a global marketplace, but doing tasks for your player group (of groups) is more player interaction than an automated interface anyway.
Last edited:
Online games have encountered that problem for a long time and developed several creative solutions. A notable solution is the one CCP used for EVE. https://store.eveonline.com/#plex
That wouldn't work for Elite because Elite is not subscription-based, but you could consider something similar and it could potentially be a revenue stream for FDev.
Also if you think about it, how is offline exchange of in-game goods bad for Elite or FDev other than FDev missing out on a potential revenue stream? Even Blizzard came up with a solution to this problem and it was primarily motivated by their desire to take a cut of the profits. Offline Warcraft gold sales were rampant and now there is this: https://us.battle.net/support/en/article/000031218
That it is not subscription based is a huge plus point for Elite.
It could be considered a form of pay to win.
Someone mentioned in another thread that you can already spend IRL cash for credits without any evidence backing it up. I have also stated before that
CREDITS ARE A MEANINGLESS RESOURCE ON THIS FORUM UNLESS SOMEONE NEEDS THEM TO BE CONVENIENT TO THEIR ARGUMENT. IT IS FREQUENTLY ARGUED CREDITS ARE SO PLENTIFUL AND EASY TO EARN THAT THEY DONT HAVE ANY MEANING, WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
There is no need to shout.
aRJay didn’t mention credits, but rather engineered items for cash.
In response to being able to spend credits on engineering.
No in response to people being able to trade engineered items and therefore being able to offer to do that in exchange for actual money.
I wouldn’t be keen on player to player trading of any kind unless there was an effective way to stop that happening.
Oh that ship sailed ages ago when FC's were added but Credits are meaningless anyway. (is what we tell ourselves, while not letting any credit sinks exist to get rid of all the credits)
Yes. I never suggested that it should become subscription-based.
Barely, but sure. That's a fair criticism some people might feel that way and it's understandable. WOW gold and EVE ISK don't help you win but they do save time, which is why there was an offline market for them. Whatever solution Elite could implement could receive a "pay to win" feeling and backlash.
What's the difference? Either they buy credits offline to buy items in game or they pay engineers offline to get the same items in game. What's your point?
Obviously it's in the EULA but the concern was that people would be more incentivized to break the EULA if an in-game market for items were available, which is a valid point. Unless you are suggesting that nobody will ever break the EULA for Elite Dangerous, so it's ultimately a moot point and there's no need to read or comprehend the ways other companies have addressed the issue as I wrote clearly in my post?
Last edited:
Gross. If I wanted to play Eve, I'd play Eve.
I like Elite, and I've played all the Elite games since the original in 1984 (Although, I only got my copy in 1985 or so. I guess I'm a bit of a late-comer to the franchise.)
ED is a pretty faithful version of that game. But in the actual Milky Way, or at least a very good approximation of it.
Either way. I hope you find a space game that you do enjoy.
I like Elite, and I've played all the Elite games since the original in 1984 (Although, I only got my copy in 1985 or so. I guess I'm a bit of a late-comer to the franchise.)
ED is a pretty faithful version of that game. But in the actual Milky Way, or at least a very good approximation of it.
Either way. I hope you find a space game that you do enjoy.
I'm honestly not for anything Eve Related but Op does have alot of good points about how poorly implemented alot of stuff still remains so many years in. We don't even have text input fields for buying and selling resources after this long. :|
Player economies do vaguely exist with fleet carrier markets, but the incentive to use them is very niche and without many methods for players to manufacture their own products they will remain that way forever, many supposed features get marketed as new and innovative but are really just old features with extra steps like Colonization basically just being the A>B>A trade loop but with a few buildings you can place and Engineering just being alot of busy work tied to more busy work that takes you away from whatever gameplay you actually wanted to do, to unlock the gameplay it actually has (and we can't act like it was considered really really bad when it came out, Fdev has acknowledged it was bad, it's been nerfed several times to make it better, and it's still kind of bad and is a massive blocker/filter for new players for a reason since very little of it's progression is achieved through natural game loops.)
Too many replies are fixating on the eve crap without actually fixating on the issues presented because lol eve bad.
Different Game bad.
Outsider bad.
Other opinion bad.
Hemmoraging 20% of player base every other month good.
Game not for everyone.
Game only good for 100 or so players who like all this.
Just buy more arx.
Player economies do vaguely exist with fleet carrier markets, but the incentive to use them is very niche and without many methods for players to manufacture their own products they will remain that way forever, many supposed features get marketed as new and innovative but are really just old features with extra steps like Colonization basically just being the A>B>A trade loop but with a few buildings you can place and Engineering just being alot of busy work tied to more busy work that takes you away from whatever gameplay you actually wanted to do, to unlock the gameplay it actually has (and we can't act like it was considered really really bad when it came out, Fdev has acknowledged it was bad, it's been nerfed several times to make it better, and it's still kind of bad and is a massive blocker/filter for new players for a reason since very little of it's progression is achieved through natural game loops.)
Too many replies are fixating on the eve crap without actually fixating on the issues presented because lol eve bad.
Different Game bad.
Outsider bad.
Other opinion bad.
Hemmoraging 20% of player base every other month good.
Game not for everyone.
Game only good for 100 or so players who like all this.
Just buy more arx.
Last edited:
Well it doesn't help.
People bad.
A good source for this would be good.
True, especially not for those expecting a different game.
You are saying it isn't good for the 15,000+ participating in the current CG?
No.
I don't think a CG that's offering a participation reward for turning in a single bounty for a FOMO Module for a whopping playerbase of 15k players while steamcharts is showing a 13% drop in the past 19 days of this month alone is the humble brag you think it is. (Legitimately that is a number smaller than the concurrent playerbase of Fallout 76 if you're being generous.)
Last edited:
What’s an example of something in a video game that you’ve done that you considered meaningful. I’m not slamming you. I’m genuinely curious
Yep.
- reinforcement is legal, usually fairly safe, often profitable in ways other than merits, lets you make use of your own power's rank bonuses, and is often stuff you'd be doing anyway so if you have a "home system" aligning to the local Power whoever they happen to be is just free merits
- undermining is often illegal or has other negative consequences, often unprofitable except for the merits, rarely lets you use your power rank bonuses, and generally requires choosing to specifically do it
I think the obvious answer to "why it fails to capture a larger audience" is "it's a game about flying spaceships" (and on the simulationist "it's a game about binding a few hundred controls and then flying spaceships" side of that, too).
Leaving aside that both ED's player base and its detractors don't agree at all on what ED should have done differently I think the "still fell short" is to an extent based on a flaw of perception. The game isn't perfect, of course - trivially "ED but without the bugs" would be a better game than ED. But all the broad complaints levelled at ED today - it's buggy, it's got some really weird design decisions, a lot of features are underbaked, the multiplayer is flaky, it's got so much missed potential - were complaints also heard ten years ago.
Despite that, ED did sell pretty well over those ten years. Even over a decade in, it continues to bring in enough revenue - largely from a steady accrual of new players - to cover its running costs and fund some ongoing development.
So, the question this implies is obvious: given that
- ED was obviously flawed but still at least a niche success
- a better game in the same genre should therefore be even more successful (without having to focus on "not flying the spaceship")
- there's the experience of ED to show some of what works and what doesn't
... where is the competition? ED is a decade old and still basically the only multiplayer spaceship-flying game of its sort out there. SC is stuck in eternal pre-release, a few other attempts failed to get even that far, but barely anyone even tried, even long after ED showed that it could be done.
So it's really easy to imagine a better spaceship-flying game. Depending on exactly what you're after - especially if you don't want even ED's limited multiplayer and are happy with single-player - there might even be one. But the "missed potential" is an illusion. Building fun spaceship flying games is hard [1], expensive, and has a limited market. If there were even five games in the "MMO(ish) spaceship-flying" genre, no-one would be bothering to criticise ED that much for what it does badly. They'd all be playing the other four which do that stuff better, and the people playing ED would be the ones who prioritise the stuff it does well. But there's pretty much just ED, so it gets all its own players and all the people who want to play those other four games, but can't because they don't exist.
[1] The problem starts with "set in space". The thing about space is that it's extremely large and extremely empty, which isn't an environment lending itself to gameplay. But take away those components and you've got no real reason to set it in space in the first place, now that we're out of the 20th century and "most of the pixels are black and that's easy" isn't a critical performance optimisation.
What's the meaning of life*?
*: As you may guess from my avatar, I already know the answer.