The Elite Dangerous ingame reputation system thread

[Kramster]

I do take Shaamaan's point though... if I've got two games going and in one I lose a bunch of stuff for not playing for a while and in the other I don't I'm more likely to play the one that I'm NOT being coerced to play... and the longer that goes on the more likely I am to not bother coming back again.

Me too, I had taken a few weeks off to test a couple of alpha's that have just had major updates while I waited for PP to land. Now it has I am underwhelmed and this offline thing, although allegedly minor, just turns me cold. Many great games released already this year that don't require me to keep redoing things I have already achieved while I sleep.

Of all the ways FD could have thrown a line to those stuck with bad rep, this is just the laziest solution which seems to make little sense in or out of game.

 

[Ben Ryder]

Pecisk:

First of all let me preface this by saying that you and I are usually on the same wavelength - we have some disagreements, but generally we both agree - and we both want to see the game and Frontier succeed.

But on this I think you're being a bit blinkered. This is not fake outrage - there was no outrage. But Frontier do not have a good reputation amongst their players at the moment. If they continue down this path of bad releases then people are going to leave, and in their droves.

After the heat death of the game universe I suspect you'll still be there championing them.

On a personal level, I do take a lot of walk and enjoy a lot of sunsets - I also have started Scuba, do Salsa classes and generally have quite a full life outside of this game. My dog moves from Scotland to London next week, and I expect to be out the house quite a lot.

But when I want to sit down and play it, and I can't because on Frontier's continued ineptitude at releasing stable major updates during the busiest gaming period for most people - i.e the weekend - then I have to question things like my continued financial investment in the company - both through the game, and through shares - and my continued emotional and time investment in the game itself.

- - - Updated - - -



I'm not sure what you are insinuating? Are you saying someone in Frontier is trying to deliberately sabotage this game? Or people outside of it? Or even me?

I, like you, am an investor in more than one way and I certainly want to see things succeed.

I don't feel their is a conspiracy. I played Eve for a long time, and CCP got just as much flack in the beginning and for a few years into Eve's existence. The problem I see if that Frontier haven't learned any lessons from anyone's past and are doomed to repeat them.

They haven't even learned lessons from their own mistakes as far as I can see. And Frontier's marketing department seem to have far too much power.

And when it comes to DBOBE, it feels a bit like "Big Brother" in that they wheel him out when they have to calm the proles - but beyond that, the inner party seems to be in more control than the figurehead.

I dint mean to insinuate anything, especially about you. It was an anecdote. They had a free bar

 

[Rauminen]

Doh. I called it. This weekend being a gamma test. But you know what, it's fine. Being in IT for 15+ years as well - this is not an accounting system, or a banking application. This is a game. That I like to play when I have free time. You don't have to think of the same standards as you would do for real stuff.

They'll get around to fix it. In the meantime just don't do / work around the bits that are bugged. There's plenty to do in this game.

 

[Moosegun]

Agreed, there's still a lot of misunderstanding about many of the aspects of 1.3. I'm still trying to find a reason to like PP for instance but I can't. Just not interested in paying my credits to help expand an imaginary person expand their empire for no significant benefit to myself. Must be something to it though coz lots of other people seem to like it. I do take Shaamaan's point though... if I've got two games going and in one I lose a bunch of stuff for not playing for a while and in the other I don't I'm more likely to play the one that I'm NOT being coerced to play... and the longer that goes on the more likely I am to not bother coming back again.

First up I totally agree with some of the things you have posted about decay in general, I think it is crazy that you can rank all three at the same time, there should also be online decay if you stop working for certain factions or you work for their rivals. Ranking is FAR to easy to get and hold on to at the moment.

The thing is that at the moment noone appears to be losing a 'bunch of stuff' when offline, as far I am aware you will just see a small drop from allied to friendly (just below allied) over a period of time. For me that is not really a big deal and something that is easily fixed if you want to fix it. Then you get people suggesting that we are now going to see drops in combat rankings, which is nothing short of scaremongering and people rage quitting over it.

 

[Aldaris]

If that were the reason for my description you'd be right, but it's not. I describe it as poor, illogical, and lazy coding because it IS... it's using triggers that aren't connected to the event because they're easy and already exist rather than actually doing some hard work and creating a new trigger that's relevant to the event. There is no logical connection between the trigger and the event because using the game's internal logic the "real world" doesn't exist therefore why should you be penalised for spending time there?

Simply saying it is doesn't make it so. There is a logical connection between the trigger and the event. The galaxy is continuing to be simulated and you're not active in it so you're forgotten about. Not hard to understand.

I do wish people would stop trying to justify a poorly coded trigger by saying "but it's only a small loss". IT DOESN'T MATTER if it's a big or a small loss, it's STILL DUMB!

And I do wish people would look at reality and the actual impact this has on the game rather than throwing a pointless hissy fit. You're literally complaining about nothing.

Really? You REALLY can't think of a better way of doing this? It's really not hard, how about this one? As a coder you set up a timed check on a player (say once an hour) to see if he supported his allies or provoked his enemies. You start the timer when he logs in and stop it when he logs out. If the answer is yes you leave his reputation with that faction alone. If the answer is no you decay that reputation. That way you have a trigger that's ACTUALLY RELATED to what you do in game and it achieves the same result without penalising people for not playing and without opening itself up to exploitation. It also means that you'd lose rep with factions you ignore, which you currently don't do (another stupidity). It's really not hard - but it requires new coding (with all the relevant testing etc) instead of just recycling what's already there. They've gone with a dumb, easy solution.

Doesn't solve the problem I said but nice try. Your solution only solves it from your stance, and not the idea that the galaxy is a simulation that continues with or without you. Your solution doesn't solve every aspect of the game design. Saying people are penalised is not only is hyperbole given the actual impact, but you have yet to explain any exploitation.

 

[Titus Balls]

Doh. I called it. This weekend being a gamma test. But you know what, it's fine. Being in IT for 15+ years as well - this is not an accounting system, or a banking application. This is a game. That I like to play when I have free time. You don't have to think of the same standards as you would do for real stuff.

They'll get around to fix it. In the meantime just don't do / work around the bits that are bugged. There's plenty to do in this game.

Yes, in commercial software like that - while deploying on a Friday might not be ideal - doing it means that as a generally Mon-Fri sector if anyone is working overtime at the weekend and spots a bug it tends to be a low number of people and someone can get right on it and deploy a hotfix.

But this isn't the commercial sector, not a Mon-Fri business. Most people are logging on Friday & Saturday night - for some people it's the ONLY time they get to play. And if every time they log in after a patch the game breaks, then all they see is a broken game.

Because they are not the same sector, it's not a 1 to 1 relationship and after what I was listening to last night on Teamspeak it's really making Frontier the butt of jokes and destroying their reputation among their own player base.

 

[Sandmann]

First up I totally agree with some of the things you have posted about decay in general, I think it is crazy that you can rank all three at the same time, there should also be online decay if you stop working for certain factions or you work for their rivals. Ranking is FAR to easy to get and hold on to at the moment.

The thing is that at the moment noone appears to be losing a 'bunch of stuff' when offline, as far I am aware you will just see a small drop from allied to friendly (just below allied) over a period of time. For me that is not really a big deal and something that is easily fixed if you want to fix it. Then you get people suggesting that we are now going to see drops in combat rankings, which is nothing short of scaremongering and people rage quitting over it.

It's only been in a couple of days.. there hasn't been time for people to lose much. When people who've been offline for a few weeks and were allied come back to find themselves barely friendly however there'll be screams of dismay. Either way that gets back to the "how much" thing. It's not how much that matters... a little or a lot is irrelevant. It's the how and why that matters. The game needs the decay but there's MUCH better and more meaningful and logical ways to do it. This method is just cheap.

 

[JughedJones]

I agree...... We are becoming agitated.

this is the funniest post I've read in a while.


btw, get used to it. Nobody loves you forever if you don't keep loving them. They might stay friends with you, but they won't love you anymore.

It's hardly punitive, and people freaking out about it is silly. Get some perspective.

 

[Titus Balls]

Oh yea, I had forgot about this too - must have blocked it out with some PTSD

If you think its bad now you should have been around when FD decided to launch the game a week before xmas then promptly went on holiday until the new year leaving a handful of game support workers to deal with issues. Hundreds, if not thousands, of players couldn't even play the game they bought in good faith for xmas until the first week on the new year. And some longer.

Why FD decided to release this particular major game upgrade on a weekend beats me, but nothing really surprises me anymore with some of the decisions they come up with.

 

[Flyto]

They'll get around to fix it. In the meantime just don't do / work around the bits that are bugged. There's plenty to do in this game.

Not when you're tens of thousands of LY from Sol and you can't hyperspace without disconnecting.....

...but hey, there's plenty else to do in life. I've chalked up another black mark to Frontier, and put the game to one side until the next patch.

 

[Moosegun]

It's only been in a couple of days.. there hasn't been time for people to lose much. When people who've been offline for a few weeks and were allied come back to find themselves barely friendly however there'll be screams of dismay. Either way that gets back to the "how much" thing. It's not how much that matters... a little or a lot is irrelevant. It's the how and why that matters. The game needs the decay but there's MUCH better and more meaningful and logical ways to do it. This method is just cheap.

Of course it matters, all these people taking about 'waking up and losing everything' or having to play constantly just to maintain their position. Ok put the mechanism to one side for a minute, we both agree it could be implemented much better but either way the level of effect it has and the period of time it takes is fundamental to how it will CURRENTLY effect players. Anyway going to have to drop out of this for a while, RL stuff to do.

 

[Titus Balls]

Not when you're tens of thousands of LY from Sol and you can't hyperspace without disconnecting.....

...but hey, there's plenty else to do in life. I've chalked up another black mark to Frontier, and put the game to one side until the next patch.

Yea, about 6000ly out for me. I made it about 300ly last night with the constant disconnections - in an Asp that can do 30ly jumps. That was from around 7pm till 11pm when I gave up and went to bed.

 

[JughedJones]

Yes, in commercial software like that - while deploying on a Friday might not be ideal - doing it means that as a generally Mon-Fri sector if anyone is working overtime at the weekend and spots a bug it tends to be a low number of people and someone can get right on it and deploy a hotfix.

But this isn't the commercial sector, not a Mon-Fri business. Most people are logging on Friday & Saturday night - for some people it's the ONLY time they get to play. And if every time they log in after a patch the game breaks, then all they see is a broken game.

Because they are not the same sector, it's not a 1 to 1 relationship and after what I was listening to last night on Teamspeak it's really making Frontier the butt of jokes and destroying their reputation among their own player base.

You really think that a mechanic that doesn't let you stay loved within a faction you never see again, and stay hated as well, is making frontier 'the butt of jokes'?

I would suggest it's the people you're hanging out with that need to check themselves... they sound unhinged. The mechanic is sound. The galaxy moves on without you. If you want to be loved by a faction, keep doing things for them, if not... don't. They'll still like you.

Get some perspective, man. A couple cool videos doesn't make you (or your friends) the final arbiter on game mechanics.

 

[persephonius]

Since PowerPlay is seemingly being released with the stupid Reputation decay intact, and the thread discussing Rep decay has been archived along with the whole PowerPlay sub-forum, I'm starting this thread to continue discussion of this pretty unpopular change.

David Braben says he thinks Reputation decay is just fine, which is presumably why it's still included in PowerPlay:

Sadly they don't seem to understand that their "solution" is far worse than the problem(s) they are trying to solve.

As a reminder, here is Sandro's description of exactly how Reputation decay works:


My objections & suggested fixes follow:

First, if the main aim is to prevent permanent hostility trap with major factions, THEN DON'T DECAY NON-HOSTILE REPUTATION.

But if Frontier still need to decay non-hostile reputation (for some unstated reason), then please only decay it when I am ONLINE. Doing it offline just punishes casual players for having a life outside of Elite Dangerous (and for playing games other than ED). It also makes little sense for something to only happen when I'm not playing.

If you want to make it harder to be allied with multiple factions, offline rep decay is completely the wrong way to go about it (casual players have their positive rep punished, while hardcore players will hardly loose any negative rep). There have been suggestions of much better solutions, such as (say) 10% reputation gain in one major faction giving you a (say) 3% reputation reduction in all other major factions


I had hoped that PowerPlay would give me incentive to play ED more than I do, but with Rep decay it's going to do exactly the opposite: I'll know that it's pointless to work at increasing my Friendly status to Allied (because the game will automatically reduce it while I'm not playing), so I simply won't bother. i.e. One less reason to play ED, because it will steal any work I put into increasing my reputation above Friendly. Hard core players will probably be fine, because they'll be doing enough jobs to counteract the offline decay, but more "casual" players like me probably won't. It would be far fairer to decay only while I am online, although I think rep decay is the wrong tool for fixing the problems Frontier claim to be trying to fix.

Well... how does a 'veteran' reputation system sound. It would have everything that is in the game currently, decay and all. But a 'veteran' tier in reputation can be achieved by certain things that when you achieve this, it locks your current reputation to that faction. But, if you do anything at all to hinder your reputation with that faction, you loose the 'veteran' rating and your reputation begins its decay. Each time you lose your veteran rating, it becomes more and more difficult to re-gain it, for instance that it works on a loyalty system.
.
So there would be 2 'reputation' scales for each faction, the main reputation and a loyalty rating. Maxing out loyalty will lock your reputation to avoid decay, but loyalty will suffer significantly if you do anything against that faction, and so your reputation will decay like it does currently.

 

[Titus Balls]

You really think that a mechanic that doesn't let you stay loved within a faction you never see again, and stay hated as well, is making frontier 'the butt of jokes'?

I would suggest it's the people you're hanging out with that need to check themselves... they sound unhinged. The mechanic is sound. The galaxy moves on without you. If you want to be loved by a faction, keep doing things for them, if not... don't. They'll still like you.

Get some perspective, man. A couple cool videos doesn't make you (or your friends) the final arbiter on game mechanics.

Oh you didn't read the post.

I used Frontier's own mechanic to describe REAL LIFE reputation. As in what the company does is making them the joke, not the game (TBH I was travelling South East Asia during the beta so know pretty much nothing about Powerplay). This is nothing to do with in game.

So now I know you didn't actually bother reading the post, just the topic I can safely ignore anything else you post in this thread.

 

[Sandmann]

Simply saying it is doesn't make it so. There is a logical connection between the trigger and the event. The galaxy is continuing to be simulated and you're not active in it so you're forgotten about. Not hard to understand.

OK let's look at this. You're using the persistent universe argument here - it's not a local game and the universe goes on so there must be an impact on you while you're not there. Sure... but if you're gonna apply that logic then you also need to apply parking fees while offline in a station, chances of death while offline in space, interest accrued from money in the bank, living expenses, yada yada yada. You can't have one without having the lot. Fail to apply one because it's inconvenient and you thereby undo all the logical arguments for the rest. ALso this ignores the fact that there's better alternatives.

And I do wish people would look at reality and the actual impact this has on the game rather than throwing a pointless hissy fit. You're literally complaining about nothing.

No, I'm not. You can jsut say "well it's a small loss so it doesn't matter" and hand wave it away. If the bank were to start charging you a small amount for not coming into the branch every few days you'd be ropeable, but that's exactly what the game's doing.

Doesn't solve the problem I said but nice try. Your solution only solves it from your stance, and not the idea that the galaxy is a simulation that continues with or without you. Your solution doesn't solve every aspect of the game design. Saying people are penalised is not only is hyperbole given the actual impact, but you have yet to explain any exploitation.

Again if you want the persistence thing you need it in ALL measures, not just one. What doing it online does is give a realistic effect (if you don't MAINTAIN relationships they fade) while at the same time acknowledging that this IS a game and that there is a real world out there and that not all players have the same time resources available to them. What we have now is the ability to remain allied with one faction while doing missions for their enemy as long as you keep playing the game - in what way is that logical or realistic?

- - - Updated - - -

Of course it matters, all these people taking about 'waking up and losing everything' or having to play constantly just to maintain their position. Ok put the mechanism to one side for a minute, we both agree it could be implemented much better but either way the level of effect it has and the period of time it takes is fundamental to how it will CURRENTLY effect players. Anyway going to have to drop out of this for a while, RL stuff to do.

Yah agree there needs to be realistic information on how much impact this will have so as to avoid scaremongering and exaggeration. Unfortunately issuing hard facts is something that FD is notoriously reluctant to do which does nothing to avoid rumours being taken out of proportion.

 

[JughedJones]

Oh you didn't read the post.

I used Frontier's own mechanic to describe REAL LIFE reputation. As in what the company does is making them the joke, not the game (TBH I was travelling South East Asia during the beta so know pretty much nothing about Powerplay). This is nothing to do with in game.

So now I know you didn't actually bother reading the post, just the topic I can safely ignore anything else you post in this thread.

I was just about to take it back... but you still sound hyperbolic and silly.

It's a couple days after a major update. Take a breath.

 

[Titus Balls]

I was just about to take it back... but you still sound hyperbolic and silly.

It's a couple days after a major update. Take a breath.

You're posting this like it happening time and again is in any way acceptable?

If I deployed my client's work like this, I'd get a rather bad reputation in the industry and would most likely be out of a job right now.

No Hyperbole - if you check my history you'll see I've been pretty consistent for about 9 months now about this issue.

(And quite frankly seeing the bugs being posted still - lots of schoolboy errors, and where is the QA department in all of this? Did nobody test things like wear & tear costs? It seems they are lacking any user acceptance testing - or any unit tests)

 

[JughedJones]

You're posting this like it happening time and again is in any way acceptable?

If I deployed my client's work like this, I'd get a rather bad reputation in the industry and would most likely be out of a job right now.

No Hyperbole - if you check my history you'll see I've been pretty consistent for about 9 months now about this issue.

I, and most others, have been playing for a long time with little to no problems. (or you'd see every comment about Elite mired in terrible reviews.)

I've had a (mostly) hiccup free experience since 1.3 launch, and I know most folks are in my shoes. You're looking for perfection and using industry terms to
make your points like "look at Reddit!" "Look at Steam!"

You can go to any game's Reddit or Steam forums and see flaming posts. Go to Witcher 3's forums, a game that was widely given 10s across the board, you'll see
endless people DESTROYING the game.

A few 'developers' like you nerd raging about some connection issues after an update is silly and hyperbolic.

 

[Coyote]

In all honesty, when looking back at the Elite/Frontier days, they never had a fame of providing high-quality software. But one could cope.

Releases on Fridays... my customers always consider these. Gradual releases (like is done for Android updates for instance) or "Big Bang" releases like FD does. Both have their merits and risks. What I found to be the worst about the PP update wasn't how and when it was delivered. It was the Q&A in the newsletter. Three parts mostly irrelevant information, two parts "yes, that was a mistake, we're going to fix that again" and one part "it's not great, but it's not all that bad, mostly". And the latter parts were not a surprise - they have beed discussed during Powerplay beta over and over and over again.

Means: the Beta is not designed to find flaws in the concept. It's only designed to find software bugs. For a business model, that otherwise seems to set its course to wherever the wind currently blows, this is not beneficial.