When, and only when, every single person that plays this game has the exact same amount of free time in their day to play games, THEN you can ask for rewards based on time, rather than skill.
Rewarding for skill ... long term effects discussion
- Thread starter Ockish
- Start date
When, and only when, every single person that plays this game has the exact same amount of free time in their day to play games, THEN you can ask for rewards based on time, rather than skill.
First of all, i used PvP as an example only, because it's most expressive. Explorers can explore in any ship, although people still complain they need to "level up" their equipment before gaining the best possible jump range. PvP is most problematic, because to be competitive in random encounters with other players, people actually need to have the best equipment. When they'll encounter someone in max engineered ship, having stock version themselves, winning is probably much, much more difficult.
I don't know what you mean with careers removed. What I ment was that I enjoy engineering. I don't mind being told to gather 500 ore from your example - it's my choice to do it, not do it, postpone it until I'll be more interested in certain task or in proper neighbourhood, find another way of obtaining it. That's where adventure lies - it creates goals for me. It's much more interesting than fedex or other one step missions (you know, go there, do that, you're done). it's small campaign.
People, for whom this is obstacle to their path of selective gameplay - like said PvP (let's not forget that Arena was made specifically for those people, yet they ignore it for most part) - want to get rid of the part I enjoy.
I have my own issues with engineering - it's overpowered in my opinion, as those improvements should be smaller, not creating as huge gap between vanilla ship and fully engineered one - but it's not about having to do it. That's part of the game for me.
Again, I don't think this is true. I think people want an open world game which loudly claims to serve several different playstyles to actually do that. If anything, implying that your preferences and goals are "correct" in a way that other preferences and goals are not seems to me the most prescriptive thing in this discussion.
And that is totally fine. Being told to gather 500 ore will thrill some people and bore others, and that's 100% OK. This kind of activity can and should remain a rewarding proposition clearly signposted in Elite. I don't think anyone with half a brain would argue otherwise.
Yes. Which is maybe why people feel obliged to engage with mechanics they're not interested in, the same ones that you perceive as optional or unpressing.
People play games for subjective reasons and different goals should be treated with care by game designers as far as their target audience is concerned. This is not to say that every game should diversify - Elite clearly caters to a very specific range of tastes, but within those it does an awkward job of balancing.
To continue the example, what if mining led to incremental improvements to mining equipment, instead of gating one of the engineers that is 100% essential for competitive/high level combat players, while having little to no relevance to mining? The activity you enjoy would still exist, but by rearranging the tasks and goals many possible frustrations may be avoided. Or, as another option, what if Selene Jean was just one of several hull engineers each of whom catered to different tastes. Unless you're outright saying that your tastes are the only correct ones, which... I hope you aren't.
Fully agree with this, as does every single PvP player I know, incidentally. The insanely wide power spectrum in Elite makes balancing PvE fairly difficult, and a healthy, level multiplayer ecosystem slips further from reach.
I don't think I said my preferences are "correct" - I said that I'm actually playing the game instead of trying to skip through that and while playing I don't find requirements difficult to achieve - they become difficult (as in boring and unfun) to achieve and grindy when you take "speedrun" approach and start using shortcuts.
It's like trying to level up your character in some RPG like Skyrim ASAP to max level, because you think that only then you can have fun.
I'm not saying that you shouldn't do it if you feel like it - that's your prerogative to play how you want - I'm saying you shouldn't blame the game (and then demanding changes) for taking some extreme approach to playing it.
Those are details. I don't mind people discussing whether this or that requirement makes more or less sense and should be changed. Most of those are set up somewhat artifacially anyway.
I hate "why do I have to work to improve my ship - it should be instant" or " why can't I have any ship from the start" approach.
Flying close to the sun, here, lmao.
Using a famously mechanically flawed Bethesda game is a bold move, shifting the criticism of design flaws to a new title... You're finally awake! At least in Skyrim when you do archery you get better at archery, though, to be fair.
This post has come back to our starting point, confirming to me that you're mainly interested in discussing other human beings' character flaws, and not interested in looking at how game designers are responsible for engagement.
Your suggestion of "just playing the game" and your reprimand of "meta" and "speedrun" approaches are simply paradoxical. Since "just playing" the game would take these types of players that enjoy pvp for example months, if not even a year or more to get to pvp level with just one ship let alone. And to counter your Skyrim/MMO approach, in other MMOs when you get to a level you stay at that level, on the other hand pvp players would like to engineer additional builds and the material grind starts all over again.
Just play the game?
You clearly don't understand what I'm trying to say. I don't think you even try.
Cometitive PvP is not the main focus of Elite. ARENA module was made specifically for that. Elite is basically Single player game that has the option to encounter other players directly, whether for good or bad. But it also has modes that allow you to avoid direct contact entirely.
People who use Elite for competitive PvP can do it, but they would like to see it changed to something like Fortnite, or some other arena kind of PvP game, because their approach is geared towards that genre, not the one Elite is representing.
What is the focus then?
You are comparing apples to oranges. Arena is nowhere near the complexity and variety that pvp comes with. Have you stopped to think why is it not played? Are you aware that it's a separate instance from the main galaxy where you are not even allowed to bring your engineered ship but offered some crap predefined ship? Again, comparing apples to oranges.
Then were is the mod support? Why are people banned for cheating then?
Don't be absurd. No, they don't want to see it changed into Fortnite. We don't have to go into extremes here. They just want the material gathering to be less of a neuronal death than it allready is. Facilitating more rewards and even more G5 materials from combat missions will not affect you in the slightest. You are welcome to play the game as you want.
You claim to know what Elite is representing. What does it represent then? Jack of all trades master of none? A bunch of half finished mechanics not connected one to another?
I'm comparing apples to oranges - exactly. That's what I feel when people complain about engineering standing in their path to full enjoyment of the game - they eat an apple and complain it doesn't taste like orange.
You have complexity in a game that's not strictly competitive PvP - there's no level playing field here - you need to create that level playing field yourself - and that's where complaints arise - because it requires work you might not mind otherwise.
Last edited:
You are missing the point. "Full enjoyment of the game" does not mean the need to experience the entire game. It will NEVER be. Different people find like diferent aspects of the game. I for one find exploration and mining boring as hell.
i never said that. NEVER.
I only said that if you choose some fringe game activity, or you have some special approach, you shouldn't blame the game if this approach requires more work from you. You enjoy it, you pay the price.
Yes, but, unlike those crowds, you want to inflict your gameplay on other people. That is the foundation of why your arguments fail, both with the player base and with Frontier. Neither of them want PvP to be something that is a requirement in the game.
Where did I say it must be a requirement?
PvP NEVER will be requirement even if we allow territory control mechanics, becouse it's open world game, anybody who is afraid that pvp become enforced, then i say, is minining enforced if you want to make X number of credits, it's not, but if you want X, then you have to do Y, it's same with pvp. I just dont understand ths logic, that open only power play or BGS would "enforce PvP" everything in game is indirectly enforced on you if you want something, i just dont get why pvp should be diffrent from every other activity in game, not pvp-ing not blocks engineering, not blocks exploring....
Please, I didn't presume you are an idiot, don't imply that I am. PvP only works in all the iterations proposed if it becomes some sort of mandatory rquirement, either for progress or as a grind wall.
Right now, those grinds are limited to PvE in the Engineers. You can, with a lot of work and inefficiency, not climb the Power rank walls without combat.
Right now, those grinds are limited to PvE in the Engineers. You can, with a lot of work and inefficiency, not climb the Power rank walls without combat.
So lets ask FD to make engineering materials purchesable for credits then, whats wrong with this?
Could you elaborate a bit on this please? I'm not sure I understand what you mean.
That's rather A, therefore Bowling Balls.
You're conflating required with desirable. Your counter example is desirable, but you want PvP to be required.cmdr Ramius007 said:
There is no requirement to use whatever the current meta is for making wealth. If I want to make my money by flying out to Beagle Point, scanning this that and the other, that is my choice, even if it is not optimal. On the other hand, insisting that PvP be forcibly incorporated into activities, even when that has be repeatedly proven to be the least effective method of activity, is removing choice.
In any case, the Background Simulation is not a game of Risk, even if you find enjoyment in manipulating it. It is the mechanic for the economy and for the factions' politics. Note, I said FACTION, not, Player.
Personally, if it weren't for the fact that console players have to pay for Open access, I would say you can have it. As it stands, I won't ever support a discrimination that requires Pay to Play for PART of the player base.
You've yet to make an argument that doesn't amount to, I want to inflict myself on other players and Frontier should force them to be available for me.
Last edited:
INARA
The community site for Elite: Dangerous, Starfield, Kingdom Come: Deliverance with the game databases, information, gaming news and other handy content...
inara.cz
Combat rank of Dangerous or higher to meet.
As far as ranking in the Powers (King/Rear Admiral, etc), they have score grind walls per rank, which Can be achieved without combat missions. It is often more efficient to do the PvE combat (REZ farming) than to run all over the local area of the galaxy, depending on what you are flying.
If you look at ED and the Elite franchise as a whole, the contextual setting is one where a general principle is that skill is rewarded. It’s literally ensconced right there in the name.
So what they’re suggesting is in essence true to the game.
My question to you is how does your suggestion that the better strategy for the game is reward-for-time fit in with the nature of the game and the franchise? And can you demonstrate that it does so sufficiently well that it should override doing something which is true to the essence of the game?