I don't. I care about the competitive aspect of the game not becoming a race to set up macros on multiple accounts.
Reconsider Player to Player Transactions
- Thread starter Daniel Klimchuk
- Start date
I don't. I care about the competitive aspect of the game not becoming a race to set up macros on multiple accounts.
So you do see it as a race then, you just want it to be what you see as the right kind of race. Well ok, you're choice, but I honestly don't care how someone else ranks up, or how fast they do it. And there will always be exploits.
Every time you add anything to the game, someone will find a way to exploit it. This is not a reason to stop adding stuff.
I don't really have an opinion about the ranking up, I did cover this when asked to clarify and you even quoted both times I said so
What would you like to be able to do with player asset transfers?
Having transfers take a couple days, or making the transfers into missions where you had make the journey to the station where your alt account or other commander left the ship, modules, mats, cargo for you would alleviate most of the exploits. I just don't see fdev going this way with it though.
Rockstar removed transfer of money in GTA due to the problems it caused because of players abusing it.
Its quite understandable.
Its quite understandable.
Fdev are quite capable of adding accidental exploits all on their own. They dont need to deliberately insert them, nor scour MMOs for 'most exploited feature' for that matter.
What are your specific reasons and goals for wanting to max your Alts as fast as possible? Im yet to hear a reason for this that isnt nefarious or just selfish, and im struggling to empathise with that kind of motivation just at the moment.
Still waiting for any good reason for why, that does not have the usual exploits of such systems.... as any such suggestions that starts to add restrictions to solve the exploits, will turn out to be "useless"...
Last edited:
And yet, people are willing to pay to get past doing hours of hours of content they think is booring, so there is market, and where the is a market, we will get bots etc, and bots will increase server load, increase running costs for FDev, it will also mean there would be reasons for using shady tactics to buy the game, by using stolen creditscards etc, which once again will put more burden on FDev when the charges are challenged....
There would be an even bigger reason to uncover more design flaws on the Elite client, as if Bots could one shot any target and/or be invulnerable would be sought after traits in maximizing any activity for profit, or what about hacked FSD jumps, picking up 30+ milion 20 000 LY tourist missions, and then complete these in minutes, with jump there, and jump back... would set new records on how much credits could be earned per hour....
And as you brought up Warframe, think about what would happen if FDev starts to track "tainted" resources, and even if you did nothing wrong, but your friend bought "tainted" credits, instead of earning it themselves, and then made an arrangement and paid you and not you got "tainted" credits... and FDev decided to crack down on EVERYONE that has "tainted" credits....
And we all know what comes next if they allows credits transfer.... module transfers, material transfer, data transfer, ship transfer.... we would see even more such threads if credit transfer are added.
I like to get drunk and jettison platinum in the toaster.
But there is a HUGE difference of incentive behind it.
If you allow player to player trade, there will be a market for Goldsellers, and if there is a market for Goldsellers, there will be a huge incentive to exploit the system and other flaws of the game.
Take Elder Scrolls online, they had a huge bot problem, caused by bots could "teleport" between resource nodes, and thus skipping the "travel time" between resource nodes, at some points, it was so bad, that regular players could not get to the resources as just as the resource respawned, a bot was there to collect before the player could!
And we already know the stories about bots in ED, that is used to run Powerplay cargo, or affect BGS etc, there is very little real value for these bots, and thus their use is limited, but if you could make money from using bots, then we are talking about a whole different incentive for this. and that is not taking into account the exploitations of poor people, that get paid to play, just to collect resources, that then will be sold to players that rather pay real money to avoid having todo their own collecting... There are a few on this forums that repeatedly have stated that they would like to pay REAL MONEY to get resources, as argument why the FDEv shop should sell credits, materials, data, engineering upgrades etc.
Look up the term Whales when it comes to comes to games with micro transactions, that is a SMALL subset of the players, spending HUGE amounts of real money, and the same kind of players would do the same in regards to gold sellers, if that means that they get to skip things they consider boring...
So there is an incentive to capitalize on these sort of things, and you trying to downplay it, will not make this any less true.
Mining earns several hundred million in a couple of hours. Passenger carrying earns around 80 million per hour. How would credit transfer between players with a cap say between 1-5 million and maximum 5 transactions per day per player encourage gold selling? Jesus, trying to sell gold through that kind of system would be more painful than dumping and picking up cargo canisters.
Again, there is no reason not to add restrictions. If an MMO manages to balance the economy between computer generation and player activity, with necessary restrictions it will be a very successful MMO. The biggest problem with Elite Dangerous at the moment in my opinion, is that the player base is detached. The only form of interaction is occasionally seeing a player in your instance and the only way to succeed is to do randomly generated missions and watch money magically appear out of nowhere and go into your balance. Which is the reason why solo is more popular than open.
Last edited:
If you want to transfer credits just use Wing Missions. One player completes a 50MCr (lesser payouts are available) source-and-return cargo mission, the other three wing-mates each collect their 50MCr payout without having to do anything. One player in a cargo-Cutter can turn three others into billionaires in very short order; even less time if all four players assist in the cargo hauling. Of course, that's the high end of it with Elite ranking, allied faction status and the largest ships, but it works on all levels.
It's a mechanism that effectively allows credit transfer but with a requirement of some time and effort in the game.
It's a mechanism that effectively allows credit transfer but with a requirement of some time and effort in the game.
CBA reading two pages of posts - has anyone said 'no' yet ?
-smirk-
-smirk-
I never said I wanted to max my alts as fast as possible. I don't have any alts. Don't put words in my mouth. And don't try the weak excuse that I implied it, because I didn't. As to "nefarious or just selfish", define them in this context. I still fail to see why you care how other people play the game. Elite is not a competition: there is no first prize. It seems to me that you're just seething because some people might do stuff that you don't/can't/won't. Play your own game, and stop trying to make everyone else play your game too.
I have to smile, really. Every time - every single time - someone has an idea, a bunch of people will leap up and claim it's impossible, and if it isn't it should be because it's evil. Every time.
When I played Jumpgate - which was a kind of smaller scale Elite - we had player trading; and everyone used it all the time. Why? A zillion reason I suppose, not the least of which is that people like making deals. But when someone suggests having something like it here, there's a million reasons why it shouldn't happen. Just like there's always a millions reasons to not do anything, ever. But relax guys: FD will never implement it. They want full control over everything, and player trading gives players too much freedom, in their eyes.
That's it. That's all I want to say.
Last edited:
Say again what this would bring to the game? with your proposed limits, what would the POINT BE?
and then comes the lies... Solo being more popular than Open... That have been contradicted by statement from FDev saying the opposite.
But wasn't there a few more other differencies with jumpgate, like you had to learn to be better at the game to advance instead of the more common grinding for XP/gold/credits for advancement... A game launched in 2001? and was cancelled 2012?
In Elite we do not have any levels that mean anything, we have a few ships locked behind some rank grind, but all the other ships can be bought as soon as you have the credits... I have lost track on how fast freshly reset account can go from Sidewinder to a fully A-rated Anaconda. but it is more in hours than days, and it was long time ago this was measure in weeks...and most if this require no skill, just to follow an instruction...
By mistake I conflated your OP with some other posts, maybe even another thread. Ive been guilty of that before, probly will again some time. Apologies for misrepresenting your POV. You went seamlessly from telling me not to put words in your mouth to putting weak excuses in mine in the next sentence. We're not going to have a blatant hypocrisy issue here are we?
For players who play the competitive game of BGS or PP, what other players do and what other players are capable of doing is relevant.
As it stands, if you want to have a greater effect than a single commander can, you persuade others to join your cause. It's better than bribery as it is, and has no complications that allow mass-grinders to leverage absurd credit balances to have even greater impact, as well as rebuy immunity & no need to pick any reward but influence, which seems sufficient frankly. How do you balance trades to be both worthwhile and not exploitable? You cant. As it is, you can complete wing missions with a player for 'payment', but you have to complete them to-order, which limits the exploit potential. Player-trading would remove that limit, and help nefarious resource switching between accounts for untraceability. Gankers & BGS terrorists would thank you for that one.
Lots of playstyles are popular in-game, and this OP creates problems for some, for the convenience of playing less of the game for others. It is a double-edged benefit, for a considerable detriment, but if that doesnt affect you then I guess thats fine, if selfish.
So, play the game we all share, but if you only appreciate your own gamestyle and disregard all others then youre going to keep coming up with ideas and suggestions like this one.
Only cheaters want to transfer items and credits.
I'd like to be able to pay notorious PvPers billions to motivate them to spend days or weeks hunting other Cmdrs for me, and other flimsy excuses to help finance their rebuy crack habit without needing to rely on the double-six dice throw of me having a suitable wing mission I need to complete and them being online and not in a wing when I complete it.
There is a supply & demand opportunity there that could be more convenient & opportunistic to grease the wheels of diplomacy and mafia style intimidation.
OK, I forgot to mention ppl with power fantasies.