The Elite Dangerous ingame reputation system thread

.

  • .

    Votes: 32 100.0%
  • .

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    32
  • Poll closed .
I really don't like the idea of losing reputation over time.
I am all for a dynamic reputation system but only if it is based on actions and decisions made by the Cmdr.
You are now an ally to a faction ? OK, now you become neutral or unfriendly with the opposite faction.
You have committed a crime ? You'll be dealt with like a criminal, your allied status won't save you.

It is just a video game, don't punish thoses who, can't, don't want to, for whatever personal reasons or not, play 24/7.
You want to reward thoses who want to spend more time into this video game on top of their in-game achievements ?
Go for it, but don't remove what little things from less available gamers can achieve over a much higher period of time.

It is too much punishing for something that has nothing to do with the game itself, to my opinion.

If I have misunderstood how the game mechanics is working, please, feel free to correct me.

Another grind mechanic, that seems to actively punish those that do not grind.

This is quite disappointing, is there a daily grind I need to do to maintain my rep? Is it like must spend 1 hour a week on each rep so it does not decay? Minimum amount of missions I need to do in a week?

Does not sound like much fun.
 
I just think it's an all round bad mechanic that needs cutting.
The only time I would approve of players loosing rep is by certain actions (like killing faction ships) or by working for an opposing faction.

Considering the boring grind that I had to do to raise my rep for some factions, FD artificially destroying all that hard work so it was just a waste of time doesn't sit well with me at all.

Agreed, I do not think npc should forget you or your help and develop Alzheimers simply because you haven't played in awhile or were in some other part of the verse doing something.

Han Solo didn't lose rep with the Rebel Alliance while he was hung up on Jabba's wall. Just sayin'.

Indeed alas it appears that was in a galaxy far far away.....
icon10.gif
 
Something occured to me.
How are legends born?
Legends (if based on a real person) are usually an over-exageration, or embellishments of what that person had accomplished when they were around. Absence of this person creates a void in the society that favored them. Stories are embellished, poems/songs are created, and romanticism is sometimes thrown in.

When alive, and active, the person who becomes a legend is a hero in the eyes of the society he/she helps.

To me, if my character has an ultra/super-duper/whatever-the trigger-is allied status with a faction, community, whatever_populace, absence of my character does not create a fading memory to the society, rather my absence should make their hearts grow fonder.

The same principal applies inversely to the villain.

So I think that Frontier has the reduction implementation backwards. Super duper allies should receive stronger allied status over time, not less.
Super super hostile should increase as well to become hitler-type devil_incarnate kill on sight status.

/musings.
 
Last edited:
Something occured to me.
How are legends born?
Legends (if based on a real person) are usually an over-exageration, or embellishments of what that person had accomplished when they were around. Absence of this person creates a void in the society that favored them. Stories are embellished, poems/songs are created, and romanticism is sometimes thrown in.

When alive, and active, the person who becomes a legend is a hero in the eyes of the society he/she helps.

To me, if my character has an ultra/super-duper/whatever-the trigger-is allied status with a faction, community, whatever_populace, absence of my character does not create a fading memory to the society, rather my absence should make their hearts grow fonder.

The same principal applies inversely to the villain.

So I think that Frontier has the reduction implementation backwards. Super duper allies should receive stronger allied status over time, not less.
Super super hostile should increase as well to become hitler-type devil_incarnate kill on sight status.

/musings.

Indeed, heroes do not decay with time IMO!
 

Deleted member 37733

D
Whether reputation decay is 'realistic' or not is irrelevant, you can see in this thread that you can make arguments for either side. The real question is if it's a good gameplay mechanic, and I haven't seen anyone in favour of decay explaining why it enhances gameplay but plenty of people pointing out why it detracts from gameplay.

It's just a grind mechanic discouraging casual play.
 
Yeah. After taking a day/night to think about/sleep on it, I'm still not a fan of this change. 1.3 seems to be the Grind Patch. Module resell fees, reputation decay.. what's next? Someone mentioned ship decay as a future possibility - and honestly, at this point, that would not surprise me. They'll add another category of ship damage that cannot be repaired, so that ships can only last so long before you have to replace them. It is at that point that I will put Elite down and never pick it up again (as well as warning people away from it) - and we're well on our way there.
.
But my biggest issue with it? It's totally unnecessary. Whether or not it's realistic doesn't matter (it's not). It makes the game less fun, and as I was taught in my game design class years ago, the WHOLE POINT of a game is to be fun; if it's not fun, you (as the creator) have failed. Modern games aren't supposed to require that you play them in order for you to keep your progress (older games that don't allow saving are different, obviously).
.
In fact, there is a zombie game called State of Decay. Ironic, because in that game, you rescue people - but their status decays over time. They can even die while you're not playing! And guess what? That game doesn't get played by me (and others), and those expansions don't get purchased. Ever.
 
Last edited:
I like the concept behind this change. I hope it is "sped up" for beta, and specifically focuses on Power ranking. If you don't participate often, your influence within that Power will fall. If you want to defect from high rank, just go out exploring. Defect once you've lost status so the penalties are less. That makes sense.

It also makes sense to a degree for Minor Factions, however, there should be some actions that overwhelm or delay the degradation of your reputation. Like someone said earlier, you don't forget your local heroes that quickly. (For that to really work, we need to have missions that let us be local heroes, and not just traders or bounty hunting scum.)

Major Faction and naval rankings should only degrade due to action, not time. That said, if you defect to the pirate faction of the galaxy, both navies should be upset by that. Of course, the federal rankings feel military and merit based, but the imperial rankings are more like landed aristocracy. Sure, those could be stripped, but there should be a really good reason.
 
Another grind mechanic, that seems to actively punish those that do not grind.

This is quite disappointing, is there a daily grind I need to do to maintain my rep? Is it like must spend 1 hour a week on each rep so it does not decay? Minimum amount of missions I need to do in a week?

Does not sound like much fun.

If you think that's not fun, wait until you see the Power Play 'merit' mechanics. LOL

The more I look at it the more PP looks like a halfassed RPG 'dailies' mechanic. The 'top 50%' get to participate in the rewards. The casual players will presumably be the lower 50%, since they won't have the same time to commit as the 'hardcore' players will, and won't see any tangible rewards (weapons, etc...) because they won't be able to progress in the rankings in order to reach them. As soon as they figure this out, they're going to blow up the forums with complaints and indignant howls of rage, then abandon the Power Play 'system' altogether.

I don't really see this as being good for the long term health and growth of the game, to be honest.
 
Whether reputation decay is 'realistic' or not is irrelevant, you can see in this thread that you can make arguments for either side. The real question is if it's a good gameplay mechanic, and I haven't seen anyone in favour of decay explaining why it enhances gameplay but plenty of people pointing out why it detracts from gameplay.

It's just a grind mechanic discouraging casual play.

It also actively penalises explorers.

Explorers who already get less pay per hour now have to suffer having their "home" system forget them. Thanks a bunch!

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah. After taking a day/night to think about/sleep on it, I'm still not a fan of this change. 1.3 seems to be the Grind Patch. Module resell fees, reputation decay.. what's next? Someone mentioned ship decay as a future possibility - and honestly, at this point, that would not surprise me. They'll add another category of ship damage that cannot be repaired, so that ships can only last so long before you have to replace them. It is at that point that I will put Elite down and never pick it up again (as well as warning people away from it) - and we're well on our way there.

You forgot the change of the fine/bounty system where even minor infractions become bounties which can't be lost for 7 days. So, one friendly fire incident when trying to defend your "home" system and you're effectively banished from it for a week.

On the other hand, if you go out for a killing spree you only get a bounty in that minor faction now, so just move on to the next system and repeat. After a week come back to the first system and grief away!
 
As a seafarer I am pretty much doomed with this system.. Why does it not clock ingame time spend instead of real world time?

6 weeks leave and 6 weeks work will leave me unable to do anything :S
 
With all due respect, this is missing the point.

It initially took me a very long time to get Allied with the Empire for example, back when I had a lot more time to play. I'm now going through a period where I can only login intermittently due to real life, and from Saturday onwards for 3 weeks, I won't be able to play at all due to not being at home. This type of situation happens to me two or three times a year and can seriously impact my game play for months at a time.

Why on earth would I even begin to 'grind' my rep to Allied if I know it will fade back to Friendly while I can't play? If I'd have known this from the get-go, I wouldn't have wasted my valuable game time on something that will evaporate outside of my control!

I'm sure there are many other people out there who feel the same way!

This exactly.

This is simply a dumb mechanic penalising people who bothered to put the effort in to get reputation gains.

I agree that slowly scrubbing bad reputation makes sense (time heals and all that), but scrubbing the positive reputation makes little sense logically (are you suddenly disreputable just because you went on holiday?) or from a fun perspective.

I get to play an hour or two a week, maximum, seems like it'll be fairly pointless attempting any reputation gain in future beyond 'friendly' so it'll probably negatively impact me personally as an incentive to play.
 
Last edited:
People will have to be something solved at some point and will be rewarded for it, this is a psychological canon. Rep loss is totaly against this.
 
Yet another way 1.3 removes fun from the game. I spent many many in-game hours to build the rep I had with the three major powers only to have it erode in <24hr of real time from allied to just friendly. Even with 48hr=1week time compression in the beta... that's way too fast. I guess when I read that extremes would decay to less extreme... I didn't consider "allied" to be extreme. Decay to friendly over weeks/months being away maybe, but 2-3 days of real time not playing and many hours of gameplay rep are lost?
 
I´d be more in favor of rank giving negatives to its opposing faction/s. That would have a nice action = consequence thing going for it, and not punishing people with low gameplay time.
 
Hi all,

To let you know we have changed the rate of decay today to make it a bit slower. The effect may not become apparent instantly (as servers need to update etc) but hopefully over the next few days you will notice a difference. Also just to clarify, your reputation should never decay below friendly (or above unfriendly).

Adam

Really should think about what you are doing here. It's a bad mechanic that simply takes away an acheivement earned by a player. If it's a good game mechanic then please help explain to us how this will improve the game experience and how it will make E D more enjoyable? Seriously, think a number of us would like to hear the rational - thanks!
 
Back
Top Bottom