The Elite Dangerous ingame reputation system thread

[Sandmann]

So it is the principle of offline decay vrs online decay. You dont like the fact that the game continues to fact in your existence even though you are not actually online.

No I'm not arguing principles, I'm arguing game design. It's the MECHANIC of being penalised for being busy, rather than being penalised for not supporting my allies when I'm playing. It's the same MECHANIC that allows me to KEEP my allied status with a faction as long as I keep playing EVEN IF I'M SUPPORTING A FACTION WHO MY ALLIES ARE ENEMIES WITH! It's a stupid, illogical mechanic that punishes people for being busy, and rewards people for no reason.

Of course it matters, there is a massive difference between coming back after two weeks holiday and finding all your rep has gone completely and coming back to find out you need to do a couple of missions to get back to where you were. I want to know the REALITY of what happens rather than hearing people complain about a principle they dont like. Dont get me wrong I GET why you dont like it, just the extent of implementation is what will allow me to make my judgement. If you dont care that is fine, you dont like the principle, but for me (and other by the look at it) we cant make up our minds until we understand that ACTUAL effects.

No, it doesn't matter FOR THIS ARGUMENT. How much you rep you gain or lose is something that FD can fine tune and I'm sure they'll get the right balance eventually... it's the same as fine tuning how much damage a weapon does or how many credits you get for gold this week. What matter is HOW and WHY you lose it.

 

[JughedJones]

I agree with the mechanic. It's a living system, more now than ever. The world goes on, with or without you.

I thought the whole point of Elite was that you're a tiny piece in a huge thing... this makes it feel more like that. Moreover, it's hardly punitive. They just don't love you anymore if you
don't show them love. They merely like you. Big deal.

 

[Starwart]

I never had anything bad to say about ED so far. And I think rep decay is a great thing. But it should only happen online. Forcing your playerbase to log in is a very bad practice and (for the first time) I think this is a very lazy and obvious design decission. And yes, I say this on principle because it is just flawed. It does not matter how big the effect is to know that it is.

I am not sure why some think this should be an offline machanic only. If you argue that it is unrealistic that rep is not chaginging, you should also argue that it has to happen online as well. While online this effect should indeed be more noticable. Like the second you do missions for another faction there should be a great chance that other reps go down. If you are in another factions space (and not on a mission) your rep should decay rapidly as well.

In my personal view, the game is paused while I am not playing, so I expect my comanders state to be unchanged when I return. So for me, it would make more sense to ditch the offline decay and implement it properly as an actual game mechanic.

 

[p.opus]

It's not the principle. The principle of rep decay is fine. It's a good thing. It's the mechanism. You're losing rep (good OR bad) through non-game activities. It's like getting in game credits for going to work, it's just a stupid idea. Rep los or gain should ONLY be achieved as a result of what you do in game. I don't care if it's one point or one million. It doesn't matter! It's WHY you lose it that matters, not how much.

Okay,

Let's try to explain this. When you logout, the game doesn't stop. Your character basically goes to sleep, like in Avatar.

You either buy into a persistent universe or not. If you don't believe in a persistent universe, then you are in the wrong game. Sorry, nothing against that, but those are the facts. If you believe that the entire game should go on hold when you logout, then really you need to get another game, and this is not meant to be a slam.

So if you buy into a persistent universe, then you can't possibly buy into time stopping because you logged off. So reputation creep is inevitable. You continually say that you shouldn't lose rep when your out of game, but from the games standpoint you never left. Your character is sleeping, or doing anything but helping the faction they are allied with.

Write any backstory you want. If you go on vacation for 6 weeks, and there was a major action that occurred while you were gone, guess what, you missed it. Maybe your character got blackout drunk on Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters. I don't know.

You can choose to disagree, which is fine, but the bottom line, is either you believe in a persistant universe or not. Elite is a persistant universe, so regardless of whether or not YOU are in game or not is beside the point. Your character still exists even if you aren't controlling him. And the rep is being lost on your character, not you.

 

[Moosegun]

No, it doesn't matter FOR THIS ARGUMENT. How much you rep you gain or lose is something that FD can fine tune and I'm sure they'll get the right balance eventually... it's the same as fine tuning how much damage a weapon does or how many credits you get for gold this week. What matter is HOW and WHY you lose it.

Not sure are listening to me. You clearly dont like offline rep lose, the principle of it being OFFLINE regardless of how it is done. That is no problem, you are entitled to that opinion. Please understand though that other people dont have an issue with it. I am fine with it but ONLY if it is a gradual lose which is capped at a level which it isnt too difficult to get back regardless of how long you have been away. That is why I am trying to find out some actual information of the level of loss and whether it is capped. It might not matter to YOU but it does to ME. Only after being given more details will I be able to take a position.

 

[Brimstone]

Okay,

Let's try to explain this. When you logout, the game doesn't stop. Your character basically goes to sleep, like in Avatar.

You either buy into a persistent universe or not. If you don't believe in a persistent universe, then you are in the wrong game. Sorry, nothing against that, but those are the facts. If you believe that the entire game should go on hold when you logout, then really you need to get another game, and this is not meant to be a slam.

So if you buy into a persistent universe, then you can't possibly buy into time stopping because you logged off. So reputation creep is inevitable. You continually say that you shouldn't lose rep when your out of game, but from the games standpoint you never left. Your character is sleeping, or doing anything but helping the faction they are allied with.

Write any backstory you want. If you go on vacation for 6 weeks, and there was a major action that occurred while you were gone, guess what, you missed it. Maybe your character got blackout drunk on Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters. I don't know.

You can choose to disagree, which is fine, but the bottom line, is either you believe in a persistant universe or not. Elite is a persistant universe, so regardless of whether or not YOU are in game or not is beside the point. Your character still exists even if you aren't controlling him. And the rep is being lost on your character, not you.

Very well said.

 

[Sandmann]

I agree with the mechanic. It's a living system, more now than ever. The world goes on, with or without you.

I thought the whole point of Elite was that you're a tiny piece in a huge thing... this makes it feel more like that. Moreover, it's hardly punitive. They just don't love you anymore if you
don't show them love. They merely like you. Big deal.

Problem is that with this system I keep my reputation with a faction EVEN IF I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM FOR MONTHS just by being in game. It's stupid.

- - - Updated - - -

Okay,

Let's try to explain this. When you logout, the game doesn't stop. Your character basically goes to sleep, like in Avatar.

[snip]

You can choose to disagree, which is fine, but the bottom line, is either you believe in a persistant universe or not. Elite is a persistant universe, so regardless of whether or not YOU are in game or not is beside the point. Your character still exists even if you aren't controlling him. And the rep is being lost on your character, not you.

Yeah ok you want to use the persistent universe logic? Let's go there. In this persistent universe I can log out for a month and lose a bunch of my rep but apparently if I keep logging in and playing FOR THE ENEMIES OF MY ALLIES I will keep my allied status, just because I've been a good boy and kept playing? That's a stupid, illogical, inconsistent mechanic that is only designed as a poorly thought out attempt to keep people playing when they'd otherwise stop playing.

 

[Moosegun]

Problem is that with this system I keep my reputation with a faction EVEN IF I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM FOR MONTHS just by being in game. It's stupid.

I agree this is stupid, I would like to see online and offline lose but with a slower rate offline and a cap to the level you can drop to.

 

[Mephane]

I... I kinda like this change.

It always felt weird to me that I could be allied to all three major factions, and basically need to do nothing to keep it that way.

It is said that the decrese will stop just below the friendly/allied border. So, really, you just have to log in, do one good thing for the faction, and you're back to allied. Not hard, not much time needed, and just makes the rep system still relevant in the "end-game".

It was also said they would change it to only apply to major factions, yet still minor faction rep decays. I don't believe they changed anything at all, or if they did, reverted it for the release of 1.3. The only mention in the final compiled patch notes was a reduction of the rate, nothing else. Therefore, I will remain under the assumption that the reputation decays entirely to neutral.

 

[Sandmann]

I agree this is stupid, I would like to see online and offline lose but with a slower rate offline and a cap to the level you can drop to.

That's why I keep saying KEEP the idea of decay, but tie it to what you do in game, not the time out spend out of game. If you support faction B your rep with faction A should drop... but you shouldn't lose (or gain) rep just by going on holidays. It's a game, not a job... it shouldn't be tied to the real world, its logic should be all internal to the game.

 

[Ervig]

Okay,

Let's try to explain this. When you logout, the game doesn't stop. Your character basically goes to sleep, like in Avatar.
--
Write any backstory you want. If you go on vacation for 6 weeks, and there was a major action that occurred while you were gone, guess what, you missed it. Maybe your character got blackout drunk on Pan Galactic Gargle Blasters. I don't know.

Want the RP atlrgument? My backstory is that my character is not drunk on that delicious drink, but doing some very small administrative things for my Power. Not enough to rise up in ranks, but also not enough to drop down in ranks.

- - - Updated - - -

That's why I keep saying KEEP the idea of decay, but tie it to what you do in game, not the time out spend out of game. If you support faction B your rep with faction A should drop... but you shouldn't lose (or gain) rep just by going on holidays. It's a game, not a job... it shouldn't be tied to the real world, its logic should be all internal to the game.

Agreed!

Although I must admit that I agree because this decision affects me personally (as a casual player).

 

[p.opus]

Problem is that with this system I keep my reputation with a faction EVEN IF I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THEM FOR MONTHS just by being in game. It's stupid.

- - - Updated - - -



Yeah ok you want to use the persistent universe logic? Let's go there. In this persistent universe I can log out for a month and lose a bunch of my rep but apparently if I keep logging in and playing FOR THE ENEMIES OF MY ALLIES I will keep my allied status, just because I've been a good boy and kept playing? That's a stupid, illogical, inconsistent mechanic that is only designed as a poorly thought out attempt to keep people playing when they'd otherwise stop playing.

I agree 100% what you just said. THAT is stupid. That's why I believe rep decay should be expanded, not contracted. I'm currently friendly with Federals with a rank, but allied with empire. How is that possible? AND I'm out exploring beyond occupied space now, so all my rep should be decaying even while I am in game.

If you are not actively helping your faction, then your rep should decay, but not below friendly unless you've done something that either directly (like attacking them) or indirectly (like working for their enemy) harms them.

I knew that we would find common ground if we looked hard enough.

 

[Grecian]

I think a consensus is being formed from honest-to-themselves players.

The current mechanism where one can be allied to all 3 powers is obviously problematic. I'm a Knight with Empire, Midshipman with Fed and allied and friendly respectively.

I like the idea of being forced to concentrate exclusively. However the mechanism for this should NOT be in any way connected with OFF LINE activity or lack of, but with IN-GAME activities and decisions.

The rise of rank and status with one Power should automatically lower these with the other. Simple and gives no reason to anyone to be unhappy.

Makes me wonder how a dev team decides to adopt extremely complicated mechanisms such as the current one which creates all this furore and not adopt something simpler.

 

[Sandmann]

I agree 100% what you just said. THAT is stupid. That's why I believe rep decay should be expanded, not contracted. I'm currently friendly with Federals with a rank, but allied with empire. How is that possible? AND I'm out exploring beyond occupied space now, so all my rep should be decaying even while I am in game.

If you are not actively helping your faction, then your rep should decay, but not below friendly unless you've done something that either directly (like attacking them) or indirectly (like working for their enemy) harms them.

I knew that we would find common ground if we looked hard enough.

Ever stopped to find out how taxi fares are worked out? There's an initial fee called "flag fall" (which I'll ignore for the sake of this argument), a fee per kilometre/mile travelled, and if you stop moving long enough there a small ongoing charge per minute that only occurs when the taxi is idling in traffic.

To apply that analogy to the rep decay you'd have the major losses/gain happen from in game actions.. being in game and ignoring an allied faction or provoking a faction would decay your rep by large amounts to a capped amount, and then after you'd been out of game for a decent period (say a week or ten days) you'd start getting small decays down to a capped level... that at least would make sense and be internally logical and consistent.

 

[Aldaris]

That's why I keep saying KEEP the idea of decay, but tie it to what you do in game, not the time out spend out of game. If you support faction B your rep with faction A should drop... but you shouldn't lose (or gain) rep just by going on holidays. It's a game, not a job... it shouldn't be tied to the real world, its logic should be all internal to the game.

Saying it's a job seems like hyperbole to me. You've said several times that you don't care about the real impact, it's the mechanics that are in question. However, comparing it to a job brings real impact back into play. The real impact of the decay is so small that it's impossible to compare it to a job. I would love a job I could not touch for several weeks and not really lose much or from a certain point of view gain!

You don't have to login in every single day and grind it out for hours to maintain or make up for any loss. Saying it's a job is a bad comparison. You know what was a job in a game? In WoW being an engineer and raiding with best ammo during vanilla and first expansion as Hunter. THAT was a job. This is a tiny hobby in comparison.

I do agree that rep loss with factions should be severe in game for siding with one faction however. I feel it should be possible to maintain a neutral or friendly with each faction, but that there should be more than just allied above that, and going beyond friendly with any one faction should tank the rep with the others.

 

[Sandmann]

I think a consensus is being formed from honest-to-themselves players.

The current mechanism where one can be allied to all 3 powers is obviously problematic. I'm a Knight with Empire, Midshipman with Fed and allied and friendly respectively.

I like the idea of being forced to concentrate exclusively. However the mechanism for this should NOT be in any way connected with OFF LINE activity or lack of, but with IN-GAME activities and decisions.

The rise of rank and status with one Power should automatically lower these with the other. Simple and gives no reason to anyone to be unhappy.

Makes me wonder how a dev team decides to adopt extremely complicated mechanisms such as the current one which creates all this furore and not adopt something simpler.

While it's useful to us as players to be able to be allied to several opposing forces, it's also annoyingly irrational and silly. It obviously comes from the single player games where computers were so small and klunky that it would have proved too much to keep track of but there's no excuse to keep it in today's games. It annoyed me with its silliness 30 years ago and it annoys me equally today.

- - - Updated - - -

Saying it's a job seems like hyperbole to me. You've said several times that you don't care about the real impact, it's the mechanics that are in question. However, comparing it to a job brings real impact back into play. The real impact of the decay is so small that it's impossible to compare it to a job. I would love a job I could not touch for several weeks and not really lose much or from a certain point of view gain!

Again, this is an appeal to the minimal nature of the loss in order to justify the inappropriate nature of the loss. It's poor, illogical, lazy coding and could be done MUCH better. Just because it's a small loss, that doesn't make the inappropriate trigger OK.

If you REALLY want something tied to the real world and time spent in game play then you should be rewarding people with something extra for playing more, NOT punishing people by taking something away for NOT playing. There's also the point that it's inviting exploitation - eg: if I know I'm going away for a month soon I can be an at all I like and know that by the time I get back I'll have avoided most of the consequences.

 

[Zulu Romeo]

I see military rank and major faction reputation being separate entities, linked in a complex way.

I have no problem with holding rank in rival militaries. They are a personal level of progression, as opposed to a status of how the major faction feels about you which is where Repuation comes in. And being Allied to two or more major factions is a bit nonsensical.

That said, I do feel that military demotions ought to occur but only if you are really and consistently nasty towards a major faction. Simply working for the other side without undermining the current side would not be grounds for demotion, especially if you were actively doing your own thing and ignoring the opposition directly. It should cause rep decay as you are not working for the major faction, but not military demotion.

Shooting down a military ship of a rival to whom you hold rank, now that would be a court-martial offence... And yet, it would make sense if such actions were the basis of missions for promotion to the highest military ranks.

 

[gogereaver]

one guy aruldy igured out if hey pays to have no timer and got max rank doing the trade runs he would make 15 mil profit a week. the trade run is litterly 2 jumps atm for him. so staying max rank would on lt be a matter of a few hrs work 1 day a week. that not asking alot. 15mil is if he pays to have no cooldown timer.

 

[Sandmann]

I see military rank and major faction reputation being separate entities, linked in a complex way.

I have no problem with holding rank in rival militaries. They are a personal level of progression, as opposed to a status of how the major faction feels about you which is where Repuation comes in. And being Allied to two or more major factions is a bit nonsensical.

That said, I do feel that military demotions ought to occur but only if you are really and consistently nasty towards a major faction. Simply working for the other side without undermining the current side would not be grounds for demotion, especially if you were actively doing your own thing and ignoring the opposition directly. It should cause rep decay as you are not working for the major faction, but not military demotion.

Shooting down a military ship of a rival to whom you hold rank, now that would be a court-martial offence... And yet, it would make sense if such actions were the basis of missions for promotion to the highest military ranks.

I've been justifying it to myself by thinking about myself as more of a "private contractor" to the various militaries rather than a real enlisted member, and their ranks as being representative of their trust me me - a sort of "security ranking" - rather than a military ranking. It simply wouldn't make sense to be a real member of several opposing military organisations, who doesn't actually have to take orders from any of them, who picks & chooses the missions he wants to perform, and who only does so for pay.

 

[Gracey Field]

I really fell sorry for the guy who has to work away from home in RL (Rigs, Ships or whatever) cause when he comes back all his friends and family have disowned him.

That's what the GAME has effectively done.

As for all the people who are shelving the game. Yeah cause that'll teach FD.:S If you were paying a subscription, maybe, but you shelving the game you have already paid for ??

Not really happy that I'll get penalised because I have a life outside ED.