The Elite Dangerous ingame reputation system thread
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
I feel the same.
Why the developer team feels the need to punish their customers for not using their product in the first place ?
This so called game-play element is useless and do not improved the experience to my opinion.
On the contrary it question my motivation to keep playing a video game. What ???
I should only question myself about playing based on the amount of fun, challenge, immersion quality a game can provides me.
Not about the amount of punishment I'll get if I don't want, can't or for whatever reason, play the game within an arbitrary time frame.
Last edited:
Yeah, my understanding of the current implementation is that the rep decay will prevent a pilot from being explicitly Allied to all the major factions simultaneously for a long time (but they can still just be Friendly). I'm also surprised how in 1.2 one can quickly become on Friendly terms with an entire Major Faction (regardless of what one single minor faction affiliated to a major faction thinks of you).
I do not know what this means for military rankings though, given that we already have many ranked at Post Commander and Earl simultaneously. (Myself, I'm a lowly Midshipman.
) My hope is that military ranks will be separate from rep, and remain permanent as a sign of personal progression within the separate naval programmes as opposed to how those in charge feel about you (and you about them) at any one given time.
Last edited:
I'm not particularly attached to reputation in Elite... But I am fond of reputation decay simply due to the fact that it is far, far too easy to become Allied to everyone through major factions.
I think reputation decay should only occur under the following conditions and the rate of decay should be dependent on how the decay was initiated.
The above circumstances give you various decay rates depending on why the factions opinion of you is lowering over time, while giving you a recourse to stop the decay if you are actively participating within that faction.
As someone who works with databases on a daily basis and understands the impact of maintaining these types of queries and calculations I realize this can cause some severe server load issues, but I think this would be best countered by having reputation decay only calculate on initial login, and session changes. Calculating this value for offline players would be an un-neccessary database load that would only impact the servers more over time.
In terms of the feature as a whole, I love the idea of reputation decay. But it should never be an "all factions decay at the same rate, nomatter what your participation or actions are" and it certaintly shouldn't be at a rate that is "un-fun".
I think reputation decay should only occur under the following conditions and the rate of decay should be dependent on how the decay was initiated.
- Account Level Inactivity
- Decay Rate: Very Slow
- Occurs From: 4 Weeks of complete inactivity from a player (not logging in at all)
- Notes: Applies to all factions.
- Faction Level Inactivity
- Decay Rate: Moderate to Slow
- Occurs From: 7 Days of not gaining any reputation.
- Notes: Applies to any major/minor faction you are not actively gaining reputation with.
- Hostility Towards a Faction
- Decay Rate: Fast to Extreme
- Occurs From: Combat, violent actions against a faction or gaining bounties within their territory.
- Notes: This decay can only be stopped by gaining reputation with the faction.
- Not meeting faction expectations
- Decay Rate: Moderate
- Occurs From: Failing Missions or gaining fines
- Notes: This decay can only be stopped by gaining reputation within the faction.
The above circumstances give you various decay rates depending on why the factions opinion of you is lowering over time, while giving you a recourse to stop the decay if you are actively participating within that faction.
As someone who works with databases on a daily basis and understands the impact of maintaining these types of queries and calculations I realize this can cause some severe server load issues, but I think this would be best countered by having reputation decay only calculate on initial login, and session changes. Calculating this value for offline players would be an un-neccessary database load that would only impact the servers more over time.
In terms of the feature as a whole, I love the idea of reputation decay. But it should never be an "all factions decay at the same rate, nomatter what your participation or actions are" and it certaintly shouldn't be at a rate that is "un-fun".
I'm just posting to join the chorus of people who DO NOT WANT this.
Elite: Dangerous is a computer game. It is an entertainment product, not a simulation of real-life "but what have you done for me LATELY?" attitudes in business/politics. When a computer game tries to punish me for not playing, I'm going to stop playing it.
It's an immoral player retention strategy taken straight from the worst of the "freemium" skinner-box MMO/mobile games. And even they have the sense to spin it as getting a bonus for regular play rather than a penalty for not playing. This mechanic has no business being in a game that is ostensibly made for adults with real life responsibilities.
I've earned my allied status, and it shouldn't decay unless I do something to annoy a faction. It certainly shouldn't decay because I went on a summer holiday, got ill, my computer broke, I wanted to play Witcher 3 instead, or any of the other millions of reasons I have to not play a game for an extended period.
It's also bad for Frontier's business. The fact is that I will stop playing Elite for a while. Then maybe I'll see a patch announcement, expansion pack or news article and decide to come back to the game to see what's changed. Then I'll load the game and find that all my reputation has gone. I'll immediately lose all interest in trying to grind back to where I was and hit uninstall.
Other MMO's know that players take breaks. WoW makes it ridiculously easy to reactivate old accounts and carry on where you left off. They know it would be insane to have inactive XP decay.
Elite should not be run like the Red Queen's domain:
Elite: Dangerous is a computer game. It is an entertainment product, not a simulation of real-life "but what have you done for me LATELY?" attitudes in business/politics. When a computer game tries to punish me for not playing, I'm going to stop playing it.
It's an immoral player retention strategy taken straight from the worst of the "freemium" skinner-box MMO/mobile games. And even they have the sense to spin it as getting a bonus for regular play rather than a penalty for not playing. This mechanic has no business being in a game that is ostensibly made for adults with real life responsibilities.
I've earned my allied status, and it shouldn't decay unless I do something to annoy a faction. It certainly shouldn't decay because I went on a summer holiday, got ill, my computer broke, I wanted to play Witcher 3 instead, or any of the other millions of reasons I have to not play a game for an extended period.
It's also bad for Frontier's business. The fact is that I will stop playing Elite for a while. Then maybe I'll see a patch announcement, expansion pack or news article and decide to come back to the game to see what's changed. Then I'll load the game and find that all my reputation has gone. I'll immediately lose all interest in trying to grind back to where I was and hit uninstall.
Other MMO's know that players take breaks. WoW makes it ridiculously easy to reactivate old accounts and carry on where you left off. They know it would be insane to have inactive XP decay.
Elite should not be run like the Red Queen's domain:
so im going to stamp my feet and scream and scream and scream...
as i understand it, and i have been playing beta for a few days now this has nothing to do with allied faction as you previously understand it. its not always a good idea to listen to the ill informed rubbish which is often spouted on these forums
as i understand it, and i have been playing beta for a few days now this has nothing to do with allied faction as you previously understand it. its not always a good idea to listen to the ill informed rubbish which is often spouted on these forums
I do not like mechanisms that cater to the lowest common denominator at the expense of hard working intelligent people. We see the same thing in the banking world when savers get shafted while borrowers get incentives and lower interest rates. However, back on point, the only reasonable argument for this rep decay is that if you are hostile to a faction, that hostility will fade over time to just unfriendly, making life easier for you.
What about the players who aren't trigger happy idiots and care about building rep? The players that have put considerable effort into keeping factions sweet and becoming allied with everyone.
These people get the short end of the stick in favour of making the game easier for idiots who can't put two and two together before pressing the trigger button or being scanned while carrying 50 tons of slaves.
I also simply cannot agree with any achievement in a game being eroded from under your feet. It is a total demotivator to playing the game.
Why not make negative rep decay to unfriendly, but positive rep never decay?
What about the players who aren't trigger happy idiots and care about building rep? The players that have put considerable effort into keeping factions sweet and becoming allied with everyone.
These people get the short end of the stick in favour of making the game easier for idiots who can't put two and two together before pressing the trigger button or being scanned while carrying 50 tons of slaves.
I also simply cannot agree with any achievement in a game being eroded from under your feet. It is a total demotivator to playing the game.
Why not make negative rep decay to unfriendly, but positive rep never decay?
I have invested a LOT of time getting allied with lots of interesting minor factions (like all the Prison Colonies, you never know when that might be handy), if these are going to decay it would be yet another area of the game that looses any interest to me.
Major Factions decaying seems reasonable, I don't really like the implementation of that anyway, but if it goes applies to Minor as well, then I dont think I will be buying any more mugs.
Major Factions decaying seems reasonable, I don't really like the implementation of that anyway, but if it goes applies to Minor as well, then I dont think I will be buying any more mugs.
This. And if you want to limit the ability to be allied with all 3 major factions, don't do it by decay, buit just cap the reputation of the other 2 at friendly, as soon as you reach allied with one of them (i.e. to ally yourself with a different one, you had to actively destroy your previous allied rep first).
How does one "actively destroy" an allied rep with a major faction?
Through hostile actions.
I'd rather that rep gained for one major faction reduced the others by a similar amount. Perhaps allow multiple rep up to friendly, but above that the others start to fall back so that's it a juggling act to keep them all friendly and impossible to be allied to more than one.
Last edited:
Wouldn't hostile actions make you, well, Hostile? (Or at best Unfriendly if they were in a good mood?)
It's not like you can start shooting someone deliberately, killing them, and then their agency responds by declaring, "Oh, this guy used to be an ally, but he's now started killing one of our own now and is a potential threat to our stabiity and security, so let's just demote him to 'friendly' instead, that'll show him."
Destroying an Allied reputation through hostile actions is only going to make things worse for your rep in the long run.
I think that's exactly what the devs have now proposed for major factions with which you are not actively involved, except keeping the lower cap to Friendly (or more precisely, one or two steps above the cutoff to Neutral) for the major factions.
Minor factions to whom you are Allied, but not involved with actively, will remain Allied, as they know you personally and know what sort of CMDR you are, regardless of whichever political career you choose (as long as in your career you don't do anything actively and directly hostile to them).
As for major factions with whom you are involved, yes, I agree that maintaining Allied rep should continue, but what I hope the Devs can clarify is if there are sure fire ways of making sure that rep with a major faction you are involved with is maintained, and indeed showing why there is rep increase, maintenance, or decay (in addition to what is happening at present, showing that change is happening somehow and in which direction through the blue and red arrows).
I'm hoping, or at least I think it would be a nice idea, that by pledging to a Power affiliated with a certain Major Faction, then your reputation with that Major Faction is immune to this passive decay as long as you remain pledged to that Power (sure, your rank could fall back with disuse, but not your reputation through disuse alone).
But wait. This then brings up the problem of inter-Power tensions, especially if both Powers belong to the same major faction: how will rep changes be meted out? For example, there will be problems if enemy agents of a rival power, who happens to be affiliated to the same major faction as your Power, interdict you within systems influenced by your rival, and you have to decide whether it is in your interest to fight them and hope your Power can justify your actions to the major faction in the background, or to flee, etc. Maybe if it involves tensions of an inter-Power, intra-megafactional nature, then overall rep for the major faction will be unchanged, but minor factional rep will suffer in that system belonging to the rival Power because of your direct action against the agents native to that minor faction.
Last edited:
The way I understand it so far: Major rep decays, but minor rep doesnt.
It would be great if the decay in major rep did not affect your progress to the next rank progression mission. ie the repution decays from allied to friendly, but the actual REP number doesnt change. (I know you can never be deranked in a major faction, but that is not what im getting at with this idea)
It would be great if the decay in major rep did not affect your progress to the next rank progression mission. ie the repution decays from allied to friendly, but the actual REP number doesnt change. (I know you can never be deranked in a major faction, but that is not what im getting at with this idea)
They are. Have some rep!
Plus, the other thing that is often overlooked is that it works the other way too: Hostile reputations slowly repair back to Unfriendly (or to be precise, one or two steps below Neutral), giving you respite from constant bad feeling and a chance, with time, to do something direct and active to go back to Friendly or better. (There are some missions in the Beta that require Unfriendly reputation as a minimum, so that is OK.)
Agreed, this is how it should be, imo. FDEV will never do it though, they're ignoring player feedback on this issue, as the recent AMA clearly shows. People don't want it, people hate it, people have offered positive alternate solutions, and FDEV ignores it all and does whatever they want. Welcome to the fail.
I would say it is more of a problem that it only happens when offline.
you may be online everyday and not go to that system or work for that faction for a year, and have perfect rep, but log off for 20 days and it has completely decayed to its lowest set level...
you may be online everyday and not go to that system or work for that faction for a year, and have perfect rep, but log off for 20 days and it has completely decayed to its lowest set level...
War Zones and Reputation... will I become hostile with Alliance and Federation and unable to land etc?
I wanna try out war zones, but I couldn't figure out what repercussions that may have on my standing elsewhere. Apologies if info is already posted somewhere, I failed to find it, in spite of reading a couple of war zone guides, that caused me to be interested in the first place...
1) If I take the mission in an Empire controlled system and go to a war zone in that system I presume the enemies will be from Federation and Alliance?
2) IF my guess from question 1 was correct, will my fighting there have any effect on my standings with Alliance or Federation?
3) Could it go so far down, that I'm hostile and can't trade with them or land at their stations?
4) Or are war zones considered fair game by Elite and no standing is lost at all?
5) Are there war zones that don't involve Alliance or Federation, but some smaller, unaligned sub factions?
6) How do you find Capital Ship events?
I wanna try out war zones, but I couldn't figure out what repercussions that may have on my standing elsewhere. Apologies if info is already posted somewhere, I failed to find it, in spite of reading a couple of war zone guides, that caused me to be interested in the first place...
1) If I take the mission in an Empire controlled system and go to a war zone in that system I presume the enemies will be from Federation and Alliance?
2) IF my guess from question 1 was correct, will my fighting there have any effect on my standings with Alliance or Federation?
3) Could it go so far down, that I'm hostile and can't trade with them or land at their stations?
4) Or are war zones considered fair game by Elite and no standing is lost at all?
5) Are there war zones that don't involve Alliance or Federation, but some smaller, unaligned sub factions?
6) How do you find Capital Ship events?
Last edited:
Can't understand reputation increase / decrease inconsistency from bounty hunting
DAY 1) First time I went bounty hunting in DAII at a RES, I killed 1.5 million worth of mostly big ships.
Returning to the station, I had red down arrows next to the 3 independent factions, that the pirates had been from. Though 95% of pirates were from Jet Council, the rest from the other 2 factions were enough to give me red down arrows for all 3 factions.
Then I turned in the Empire and DAII bounties, and there was no blue up arrow for it anywhere. Now, I read that bounty hunting gains you reputation, but apparently not?
DAY 2)
The game seems to disconnect me after 1.5 million in bounties, which I took both times as a hint to go to the station and turn in my bounties.
This time, I dock at the station, I got no red down arrows next to the 3 independent factions, even though I obviously killed no less of their ships than the first time.
Turning in the bounties got me no blue up arrow with anybody either, so at least that part was consistent.
So, does anybody know why I didn't lose reputation at least with Jet Council for killing all their pirate ships? (note, I was always neutral with them and still neutral) But they sure don't offer me missions now ;-)
Another thing: It took a full hour to do 1.5 million in bounties, because there's a lot of wasted time between spawns, where there's simply no ships to shoot at. I made it a habit to simply follow the security guys around, unless a contact pops close enough for my crap sensors and the security guys are somehow not going to intercept.
Rather than following my original plan of just attacking what security forces have already aggroed, I actually had to solo a whole bunch of Anacondas, Pythons, Dropships and Clippers, cause system security ships seem to have worse sensors than me lol.
(I have 4C sensors, cause the 4B and 4A would simply eat too much power)
DAY 1) First time I went bounty hunting in DAII at a RES, I killed 1.5 million worth of mostly big ships.
Returning to the station, I had red down arrows next to the 3 independent factions, that the pirates had been from. Though 95% of pirates were from Jet Council, the rest from the other 2 factions were enough to give me red down arrows for all 3 factions.
Then I turned in the Empire and DAII bounties, and there was no blue up arrow for it anywhere. Now, I read that bounty hunting gains you reputation, but apparently not?
DAY 2)
The game seems to disconnect me after 1.5 million in bounties, which I took both times as a hint to go to the station and turn in my bounties.
This time, I dock at the station, I got no red down arrows next to the 3 independent factions, even though I obviously killed no less of their ships than the first time.
Turning in the bounties got me no blue up arrow with anybody either, so at least that part was consistent.
So, does anybody know why I didn't lose reputation at least with Jet Council for killing all their pirate ships? (note, I was always neutral with them and still neutral) But they sure don't offer me missions now ;-)
Another thing: It took a full hour to do 1.5 million in bounties, because there's a lot of wasted time between spawns, where there's simply no ships to shoot at. I made it a habit to simply follow the security guys around, unless a contact pops close enough for my crap sensors and the security guys are somehow not going to intercept.
Rather than following my original plan of just attacking what security forces have already aggroed, I actually had to solo a whole bunch of Anacondas, Pythons, Dropships and Clippers, cause system security ships seem to have worse sensors than me lol.
(I have 4C sensors, cause the 4B and 4A would simply eat too much power)
Last edited: