Egosoft: Never again

[exogenesis]

I've not played the game for nealy a month because of the excessive rewards in mini-missions - it IS too unbalancing.

Saying that I could donate the excess is a bit like when the reverse used to be the case,
i.e. cash took too long to get (for some) then saying 'well script some cash in then'.
It's an immersion & long-term game knackeriserer for me.

I doubt I could justifiably be accused of having a lack of imagination,
there's just no fun in having to imagine 'it didn't happen' as you play along.

btw : the forum is hugely more pleasant to use with the new server,
well done ES !

[Nanook]

I wholeheartedly agree with exogenesis (except for the not-playing part ). I don't take patrol missions, ever, but would truly like to at some point. Having to avoid a feature of the game because it's broken isn't something that we should have to do. It's exactly the same as the broken XI missions in X2. Way, way too much payout for the time and effort, and screwed up mechanics to boot. I'm pretty sure Egosoft will fix them, and that what's happening now is not an intended feature set. At least, I sincerely hope so.

[dminor]

So now we are all ranting about the awards being to easy. Before X3TC came out. It was add more missions, It's to hard to make money, the hyp is to overpowered, the plot sucks. Egosoft gave ya what ya wanted now your all screaming Its to easy to make money. Plots like the hub are to hard.

Make up your freaking mind

I have never told anyone this before but if you can't find combat with out doing patrol missions, your playing the game freaking wrong.

[Nanook]

So now we are all ranting about the awards being to easy. Before X3TC came out. It was add more missions, It's to hard to make money, the hyp is to overpowered, the plot sucks. Egosoft gave ya what ya wanted now your all screaming Its to easy to make money. Plots like the hub are to hard.

Make up your freaking mind

We have made up our 'freaking minds'. We want more missions than Reunion had, but we also want balanced missions.

I have never told anyone this before but if you can't find combat with out doing patrol missions, your playing the game freaking wrong.

So? That's not really the point, is it? Just going hunting can get old after a while. Having a mission structure that you can succeed/fail and get rewards/punishment for just adds more to the game than simple killing. It's called 'atmosphere' and 'life'. Anything that adds more of both to the game is a positive. Having missions so unbalanced as to get both the money and the rep to buy the best and biggest ships in just a couple of game days negates the additional 'atmosphere' and 'life'. And that's the point.

[Chroniss]

So now we are all ranting about the awards being to easy. Before X3TC came out. It was add more missions, It's to hard to make money, the hyp is to overpowered, the plot sucks. Egosoft gave ya what ya wanted now your all screaming Its to easy to make money. Plots like the hub are to hard.

Make up your freaking mind

I have never told anyone this before but if you can't find combat with out doing patrol missions, your playing the game freaking wrong.

It can be too easy, It can be too hard. The idea is to find the middle-ground, the way it is they have done anything but.

[eladan]

Isn't there a rule somewhere about making personal attacks...? It's also considered a bad way of validating an argument.

While I didn't mean it as a personal attack, it probably was overly sarcastic. My apologies if anyone was offended.

I just can't believe anyone would defend the patrol missions the way they are. I can't believe it.

I can't recall any post which defended the missions.

No, because there's no thinking being suggested here, just pretending that you're playing a different game in the absence of actual challenge.

I'll give this one last try, though I suspect I'm wasting my time.

This is a game where there is a single difficulty level. That would be true, no matter how the missions were configured. Given that there are many people playing, with vast differences in ability, time, etc, it's up to the player to tailor the difficulty to their own level. In a game with a single difficulty level, unless you're extremely fortunate, the default game won't provide the challenge you crave.

Whether or not the missions are unbalanced is not at issue. The fact that you are not enjoying the game is down to the fact that you haven't considered how to adjust your game to get that enjoyment. Balancing the missions won't achieve this, as everyone will have different ideas about what constitutes a balanced mission. So, you have to do some of the work yourself.

If you don't want to, fine - consider your game broken and continue to annoy yourself (or not.) I for one though would appreciate it if you wouldn't come on the forum to complain about something which is in your power to affect.

[ClearSky]

Gosh, what a lot of invective. I am surprised any of you have any time to play the game

@Eladan.

I understand what you are saying and I agree totally and unreservedly. I am somewhat reminded of cruise ship passengers. Why? well, I noticed that, in general (don't shoot me please), cruise ship passengers were the type of people who paid money to be entertained. They get unhappy if they are bored and there isn't something being organised to change their plight.

People who burn with desire to play sandbox games (in truth, not just words) generally want an environment, some basic tools and a push out the door. If the environment etc has a backstory that explains its existence well, then that's great! Either way, for sandbox players, most of the joy comes from NOT knowing exactly what's going on, or how to do stuff, or where things are.

Egosoft have provided an environment that has a bit of 'life' to it, some basic 'rules', some back stories (in the form of plots) and basically said "get out there and do what you want". It's not perfect - what is? - but it is pretty darned good.

Squiddy McSquid showed an excellent approach by tailoring his sandbox to suit his ideas. Kudos Squiddy

Ultimately what I am trying to say is that when it comes to entertainment there are generally 2 types of people:

1. Those that require someone else to entertain them, and
2. Those that get joy from entertaining themselves (no rude jokes please )

X veterans who bought X3TC knew beforehand that it was sandbox. They cannot, by definition, complain that the game does not lead them by the hand by providing entertaining goals for them.

There seems to be quite a few posting here that perhaps would be better off playing something more linear. <awaiting howls of protest>

I have enjoyed TC so far. I have a crappy old computer and the lag is something fierce at times. I have done some plots, some missions etc and am having a blast. No CTDs yet either, woohoo!

If you want your life scripted, go somewhere else would be my advice.

On a semi-related note: I found that the increased rank/cash rewards which led to quicker acquisition of bigger ships/fleets is quite nicely offset/balanced by the scarceness of bigship weaponry.

Can't please everyone though.

I was thinking of offering an apology here to those who might be offended by any of the above, and then I thought why should I? The opinion is sincere.

Remember: no risk = no value.

The X-verse should be a fraught and dangerous place. And now it is. No more jumping in an M3 and lording it over everyone. Now the enemies really have bite. Yay!

Icky

[Chroniss]

This is a game where there is a single difficulty level. That would be true, no matter how the missions were configured.

Balancing the missions won't achieve this, as everyone will have different ideas about what constitutes a balanced mission

Why is it hard to balance fight missions? Get player ship, get player military assets , get rank, plug into a balancing equation according to the strengths of those variables, Multiply/Divide based on mission difficulty setting (I think theres like 5 or more difficulties). They already do this based on rank and difficulty, even if its buggy, It shouldn't be hard to fix up and expand. What other factors come into play here?

Only debatable thing there is the players military assets, whether the player uses them or they remain OOS. You could script that as well, if more player ships enter IS after mission starts, increase the attack. Of course player skill, well thats what the difficulty setting is for, if it worked correctly a newbie would take easy missions, the # of ships that attack would be divided in half or certain ship type restrictions, or even weapon restrictions (For instance, no missiles on Easy).

[exogenesis]

Whether or not the missions are unbalanced is not at issue.

Glad that got cleared up , since they are so obviously not balanced.

The fact that you are not enjoying the game is down to the fact that you haven't considered how to adjust your game to get that enjoyment. Balancing the missions won't achieve this, as everyone will have different ideas about what constitutes a balanced mission. So, you have to do some of the work yourself.

If you don't want to, fine - consider your game broken and continue to annoy yourself (or not.) I for one though would appreciate it if you wouldn't come on the forum to complain about something which is in your power to affect.

I'm afraid that's just plain wrong,
the missions being so way off balance IS a main issue (for me, & others it seems).
Bringing them anywhere near the realms of balance would help.

It is not possible to 'adjust' the (vanilla) game to ignore this & get sensible full-scope long-term game enjoyment,
The game IS broken from this point of view.
And, personally, I won't mod the game so early, to fix something that so obviously could be fixed in a patch
- hence why not playing & I'm hoping the next patch will do this.

Options available:
1 Don't take any missions & so don't get mega-cash = misses out a significant fraction of the game.
2 Dump any excess cash = make a mockery of game play, fullstop.
3 Wait for a patch that addresses this.
4 Mod the game - no thanks, not within only a day's worth of game-time.
5 ?

I've gone for 3, if it never occurs, I guess I'll just play it 'shoot-em' style, at some future point, like a lot of others have done already.

Not having a go at you (much), but your last sentence tasted a little too trite:
Please don't gloss over this as if it were a player problem.

[eladan]

Bringing them anywhere near the realms of balance would help.

I'm sure it would. However, the thrust of my argument was that it's only part of the solution. I was responding to someones argument that it was impossible to enjoy the game with the mission balance as it was. That's rubbish - it's quite possible to enjoy the game even with the missions as they are. You merely need to exercise a little creativity.

I happen to agree that the missions are out of whack. I haven't let that stop me from enjoying the game. I'm sure the same is true for many people here.

It is not possible to 'adjust' the (vanilla) game to ignore this & get sensible full-scope long-term game enjoyment,

Who's adjusting anything? I'm not.

The game IS broken from this point of view.

In your opinion. Unbalanced, yes. Broken, no. For the reasons I've already given, this game is still playable. In my opinion.

Options available:

...

5 ?

5. Do what I've suggested now several times. Rebalance the game yourself until something is done about it.

Please don't gloss over this as if it were a player problem.

I'm not in any way suggesting that it's a player problem, although I do believe that if you play a sandbox game you should have a degree of flexibility in the way you approach the game. Certain posts in this thread have indicated little in the way of this.

As I said above, I agree that the missions as they stand need some fixing. All I'm saying is that there should be no reason for that to stop you from playing (and enjoying!) the game.

Why is it hard to balance fight missions?

As I mentioned, the people who play this game have widely varying skill levels. Even with the same equipment, same fight rank (yes, even someone who mostly trades is likely to go up in fight ranks, although slower than combat junkies) etc. people will have different abilities to do certain things. It's not that easy. However, again, as I said above, I'm not saying that it couldn't be better than it is at present.

I didn't want to turn the point I was trying to make into any argument about the missions. Unfortunately, it seems people are fixated on that, and can't see what I'm trying to say.

[bounty_hunter66]

I can't understand why you ppl complain so much...I like the game just the way it is. The only think im waiting for now is the 1.3 plot fixes and it will be heaven on earth

[BillSheil]

I was responding to someones argument that it was impossible to enjoy the game with the mission balance as it was.

If that was a reference to myself, then it's a lie, and as mufassa pointed out personal attacks are against forum rules.

As I wrote explicitly it's possible to enjoy the game bt playing a limited subset of it, however (and this is the point) this does not in any way make the mission balance correct or excusable or indeed make the game as a whole as good as one in which the very elements are broadly balanced.

It would be helpful, eledan, if you would actually take some time to read and understand some of the discussion at hand before replying in such a patronising (but yet ill-informed) manner.

[Mars Mug]

Hasn't anyone noticed that often times missions end for no reason in the middle of combat while half of the Invaders are still in the sector shooting at you? That would be a slight clue that these missions are not as the designers intended them to be. They are broken, and do not work properly. The sheer number of invaders that appear at the same time should be a hint that all is not well.

I mentioned this on page 10 of this thread, there is a distance from enemy trigger that will end the mission and leave invaders still in sector (but without the big rewards).

No one has explained to me why the reward for killing a J/K before the mission ends is 12,000,000 but after it ends is 10,000 (assuming you have a police licence). That’s the same ships in the same sector at more or less the same time. Is the assumption that the Xenon invasion is 1000 times harder than a normal single kill?

Now I am being told that I should find a way to waste most of the 470 million I made from my last invasion by buying ships/stations and destroying them, or not do the invasions at all and go for occasional single kills.

It took me a few weeks of occasional gameplay to build up to a fully armed Osaka and that was great. After a mission lasting less than two hours I can now afford five more of the things.

This thread has now got bogged down on the Xenon invasions which are just an example of the issues people have with the game. Perhaps we could have a moderator controlled thread where people can post issues as they see them so that a moderator can edit an accumulated a list of issues in the first post. Such a thread would have been useful to me in avoiding some of the scripted mission problems for example. I would rather have that than wait until I hit a problem and search for solutions/answers. Reading the entire forum myself before playing to work out what might go wrong isn’t really practical.

[RegisterMe]

This thread is turning from a discussion about the games merits and problems into a point scoring "my post is better than your post" forum fight .

[Mars Mug]

This thread is turning from a discussion about the games merits and problems into a point scoring "my post is better than your post" forum fight .

I don’t view it quite as a point scoring thing, more that differing views are not meeting in the middle and arguments are starting to repeat. I think the idea of playing the game differently to work around an issue is fine, except that you can’t expect or force people into accepting that stance and no amount of argument will change that.

People play the game differently and have different expectations. Because one person has a way of compensating for the huge Xenon invasion payouts by dumping cash, or buying large numbers of big stuff, that doesn’t mean that the person who does not want to do that sort of thing is somehow wrong and loses the right to complain about the huge payouts.

[Vayde]

Each time Ego release a new version of an X game these forums lightup with heated disscussions on what's right and what's wrong. While all this is happening it seems Ego have a baying mob desperate for the promissed land. Most of the ideas suggested here find there way into the game eventually, making it a better experience for all.

It has been suggested that Ego don't have limitless resouces when developing the software. I dissagree. With the thousands of beta testers they get for free on each new release suggesting changes for the game, that would seem to be unlimited.

So this got me thinking. If you beta test software for free for a company does that mean you are working for said company That being the case everyone here complaining is complaining about themselves

Ok enough mocking. I see two choices for those in this thread.

1. Stop playing untill the forums tell you everything is fine and you'll find your tensions easing and life will be better.

2. Continue as you are with pumped up stress levels and a feeling of utter impotence at not being able to affect anything.

Nuff said

[RegisterMe]

1. Stop playing untill the forums tell you everything is fine and you'll find your tensions easing and life will be better.

2. Continue as you are with pumped up stress levels and a feeling of utter impotence at not being able to affect anything.

3. Continue as you are, enjoying the game, knowing that it isn't perfect but that it will improve.

[Mars Mug]

I’m playing on quite happily but would like a few things changed. It may be that when some significant changes appear I restart with a new game. I am not busting a blood vessel over any of this but feel that a lot of arguments could be avoided by providing an up front list (perhaps growing) of issues people have found to allow others to avoid those issues.

For all those people who see no major issues with the game and love it to bits, please accept that this is not a global view and allow others to register their dissatisfaction. Please don’t patronise people who have issues with the game.

[Rapier]

I was responding to someones argument that it was impossible to enjoy the game with the mission balance as it was.

If that was a reference to myself, then it's a lie, and as mufassa pointed out personal attacks are against forum rules.

I think eladan makes it quite clear that he's responding to an argument, not a person: It is not a personal attack. If you think this or anything else is, the correct course of action is to contact that person or a moderator with a Private Message.

It would be helpful, eledan, if you would actually take some time to read and understand some of the discussion at hand before replying in such a patronising (but yet ill-informed) manner.

This, on the other hand, does constitute a personal attack; it states several derogatory things about the user, not about their argument. I shan't take any further action on this now as I trust eladan to do what any user should do in this instance, which is to try and resolve personal issues by Private Message (or alternatively just ignore it and let it drop).

This thread is turning from a discussion about the games merits and problems into a point scoring "my post is better than your post" forum fight

I don’t view it quite as a point scoring thing, more that differing views are not meeting in the middle and arguments are starting to repeat.

Either way, this thread is heading in the same direction as the last one that had to be locked. People couldn't convince other users of their point of view, so they resorted to trying to undermine the user instead. I said it back on page 2 and I'll say it again:

If you keep to the rules and keep to the subject under debate then you can carry on with the discussion, but anyone attacking another user personally will find themselves in the moderators bad books. This is your one and only warning (except all the warnings you got in the other thread).

Several users have come very close to crossing that line, and I don't exclude moderators from that (though they, at least, apologised later in the thread).

Do debate the issues, even argue if you feel you have to, but don't get personal.

[exogenesis]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Satires

perhaps they will watch themselves,
or would be that be Commander CBJ then.