Frontier, tell me, who came up with those ideas. Really.

[SavingPrincess]

I have not seen any hate.

Anyway, in my opinion, death penalty is already properly balanced. If a large group of players encounter the same issue over time then maybe arguing a change might have merit. However, this post is based on a single event that happened to a single player once: OP lost some bounties and exploration data when his ship blew up and he "suggests" that because this is obviously a flaw in the game, a change must be made so that some exploration data remains along with bounties earned.

I disagree, and have argued why. I still have not found any counter arguments except that it sucks to loose stuff when you die.

You're completely ignoring the fact that all the negative information stays with you, all the positive goes away. You start in a WORSE spot than you would if you started completely over in some cases (truly going back to a sidey) and at that point you may as well re-roll. Sorry guy, the game's going to get moved in a player-friendly direction at some point... it just is. They gain nothing from making the game "super hardcore screw you if you die" mode. Lowering death penalty would introduce SO many positive things into the game. More people playing out of solo mode, more player interaction, more pirating, more bounty hunting, more pvp; the list goes on. Right now, there's a HUGE chunk of the player base who won't even go out of solo mode in fear of losing hours (if not days) of work. In other massively multiplayer games, you don't lose your entire character, inventory and restart at the beginning if you die. If you have quests completed in your quest log and you die, you don't have to redo all those quests. There's just to much logic in favor of reducing the death penalty where all the counter arguments I've heard fall in the realm of "Well I want other's to suffer because it makes the game more enjoyable for me."

Sorry, it's going to change. We will miss you.

 

[norcus]

From Sandro Sammarco (Dev) in another thread:

Thank god

 

[Commander Dini]

Dude, ignore some of these people. Death penalties will be balanced at some point... more likely in favor of the player. This will make 98% of the people's experiences better, cultivate more interesting gameplay, more player interaction... and people like Germin and Nocus or whatever will sit back and talk about "the good old days before this game was filled with a bunch of filthy casuals" while the rest of us have a blast on our space-adventures.

People don't understand the concept of feedback forums and feel they need to speak out for the status quo, because they don't care about other people's enjoyment of the game, going so far as gaining enjoyment from other people's suffering. The developers never develop toward the desires of these types of players... because that's bad for business.

One aspect of constructive criticism is that it does not start with an insult.

In today's increasingly sociopathic society, this is the sequence that often presents:

1) Someone gives criticism (which may be valid) and dresses it up in statements such as "Frontier, tell me, who came up with those ideas. Really." (sacrasm), "There is no justification that validates those decisions." (not constructive; it does not seek to understand the reasons behind the decision - prejudicial view), "I understand this is a game, but it would be so nice if it was based in some sort of logic." (insulting... suggesting that the devs did not think about the game design), "The current system sucks gonads." (this is an opinion presented as a fact and uses unnecessarily unpleasant language), "you lose everything for no other reason than "we want it that way"" (putting words in the mouths of those being criticized), "It doesn't fit with the Elite universe" (ignoring that the devs know better than anyone what the Elite universe is, given that they created the damn thing in the first place), It is only there to hinder and for no other reason" (suggesting that the devs deliberately want to reduce fun, which is ridiculous)

2) People who care about the subject (in this case Elite Dangerous), react negatively to such statements, because they feel they are unfair and could prejudice new players and diminish the reputation of the game and the people involved unfairly.

3) Some of those who concur with the original statements use the reaction of group 2) as an excuse to accuse them of being 'fan boys'

4) The 2) group start talking about constructive criticism

5) The 3) group, now unable to agree with 2) about anything on principle, get confused about what constructive criticism is and start playing the free speech card. The view is that all criticism is good no matter how it is presented (which is a pretty sociopathic way of looking at criticism).

6) Eventually everyone gets bored and the argument dies, leaving an unpleasant aftertaste.

I think we are are somewhere between stages 5) and 6) at the moment.

If you want to avoid all the above and just give constructive feedback that helps improve the game, give your feedback respectfully. here is my two step program:

1) Express how *you* feel about whatever you want to talk about.
2) Avoid expressing opinion on the motivations, competency and views of others. Use inquiry instead.

If everyone in the world followed this, the world would be a much better place. We can start with a forum, though.

 

[SavingPrincess]

The view is that all criticism is good no matter how it is presented...

Except when you're developing software, it really is. It's data aggregation. This isn't "emotional" for the developers. They're aggregating data. Therefore yes, all feedback (particularly negative feedback) is important for them to prioritize development resources. What I get emotionally frustrated over, is not the "complaints" and people who are so frustrated and angry about something that they come here and rant, it's the people who tell them that "everything is your fault, you're the stupid one" and then expect the discussion to stop there. Death penalties should be balanced, one dev said that "It's unlikely" that you'll be able to retain bounties... but that doesn't end the discourse. There are other things that can be addressed, cartographic data, ship insurance mechanics, negative bounties... etc. Risk vs. reward gameplay (in the dev's words) should also be balanced to a point where everyone doesn't stay the hell away from each other and you have the majority of the userbase hiding in remote corners of the galaxy (or in solo mode) in fear of losing everything.

I want to talk about these things, I'm sure a lot of people who have already given up on these forums want to talk about these things, but that "type" of person who just likes to come in and say "I'm smarter than you, therefore the game is fine, nothing should change, stop talking" is counter-productive to all of those things.

 

[Commander Dini]

No. If you want constructive discussion, you need to be constructive, otherwise you will get a reaction that will diminish your feedback.

Like I said, we are somewhere between stages 5) and 6).

 

[SavingPrincess]

No. If you want constructive discussion, you need to be constructive, otherwise you will get a reaction that will diminish your feedback.

Like I said, we are somewhere between stages 5) and 6).

Except the OP was constructive in the literal sense, he offered suggestions/alternatives. So constructive, but dispassionate?

 

[Armchair]

And how do you send emails? Radio? Your target outruns the radiosignals. Only way to transmit current data between systems is to use couriers with FSD. How do you know where to send information? Concievably there could be a network of automated data drones, but you would still need to travel to a station that is part of such a network in order to download any messages. Then there is the question of security. These drones could be easy targets for pirates and other bad guys. Why do you think you get paid to deliver data packages?

We have sensors capable of tracking the movements of superluminal targets in real time. That's ftl transmission of information. Ftl comms are well within grasp with tech like that. (at least on a small scale intrasystem system level)

 

[Commander Dini]

Except the OP was constructive in the literal sense, he offered suggestions/alternatives. So constructive, but dispassionate?

The word you are looking for is respectful. I know it is a terribly old fashioned word. You can be constructive, passionate and respectful, all at the same time. However, it is impossible to be disrespectful and constructive, because we are dealing with human beings, not machines.

The whole point I am making is that if the OP wants to have debate *actually about the game*, then this is accomplished by *actually talking about the game* and leaving out comments that *the devs suck, don't know what they are doing and just want to make his experience unbearable*. Not agreeing with someone, but still appreciating that they might actually have good reasons for their opinion... that's respect.

Want to be heard? Say it with passion. Say what you believe. Say it with respect.

 

[GerminVermin]

From Sandro Sammarco (Dev) in another thread:

WOOHOO! This is great news.

 

[norcus]

We have sensors capable of tracking the movements of superluminal targets in real time. That's ftl transmission of information. Ftl comms are well within grasp with tech like that. (at least on a small scale intrasystem system level)

Yes and there is the hypothesis of quantum entanglement which leads to the possibility of instant communication across any distance. However, the game universe is clearly not designed with such possibilities. One thing is suggesting an improvement or shift within the existing framework, but to change the framework itself is like changing the way pieces move on a chessboard. Good luck with that

 

[GerminVermin]

Sorry, it's going to change. We will miss you.

No, it won't change, right from the mouth of the Devs in a post quoted above. Stop whining. Deal with it.

 

[SavingPrincess]

The word you are looking for is respectful. I know it is a terribly old fashioned word. You can be constructive, passionate and respectful, all at the same time. However, it is impossible to be disrespectful and constructive, because we are dealing with human beings, not machines.

The whole point I am making is that if the OP wants to have debate *actually about the game*, then this is accomplished by *actually talking about the game* and leaving out comments that *the devs suck, don't know what they are doing and just want to make his experience unbearable*. Not agreeing with someone, but still appreciating that they might actually have good reasons for their opinion... that's respect.

Want to be heard? Say it with passion. Say what you believe. Say it with respect.

Very idealistic of you...

... however you're basically saying all feedback given without "respect" is null and void. That's not how software developers really work... they don't aggregate data on design issues based on how "nice" someone is; and if we're really being frank, the OP was pretty tame on the "disrespect" scale. Should people be more respectful? Sure... everyone should, you'll get no argument there... but should people giving feedback on a game because they're heated at some (genuinely, at times) poor design choices that make them want to stop playing the thing that developers want them to keep playing, be discounted out of hand? Of course not.

What the OP went through was a traumatizing experience that was compounded by the logic-seeking neurons firing off all at once going "but, based on the construct presented to me, none of this makes sense!" Things can always be "worded better," however, the frustration that the OP was expressing is a mechanic that doesn't align with the intuited narrative and rule set that players are presented with. The brain tries to reconcile at this point:

- Bounties against you are instant, traverse the entire galaxy instantaneously.
- You automatically lose all bounty data of destroyed ships if your ship is destroyed.

The first part suggests an internal logic of "there's this vast, all powerful, instant database that can keep track of every interaction between ships throughout the galaxy," which doesn't align with the second "but if you do something right, it has to be delivered by hand and if you die before you deliver it, your deeds are gone forever."

There are all sorts of logic holes in this because the developers are trying to be both a "game" and a "sim" at the same time, and are picking and choosing their priorities of internal logic. This is going to lead to quite a bit of "this doesn't make sense" moments, which so far, a month or so in, the dev's have generally responded with "It's just a gameplay decision." I think a little bit can be blamed on the presentation, as this is presented as "The Galaxy" we all live in, and "in the future" where some impossible technologies exist and don't apply to current possible technologies, like how our ships can travel at faster than light speeds, but our data cannot, except when it can. Money is digital and can be transferred instantly, except when it has to be handed over manually.

These impossible reconciliations lead to moments where the game player starts to realize that gameplay design decisions are literally stacked against them to induce fear of a "failure-state." Because all these impossible technologies exist in the future to make the construct of the game world viable, logic gaps basically have to be there in order for gameplay to happen. The more of these gaps they can close... the less players fully immersed in an intricately designed game world that banks on the "full-immersion" factor of a simulation, have to be reminded "nope, btw, this is a game... thanks."

 

[GerminVermin]

Would you give it a bleeding rest already? The devs have basically said that you're WRONG and that it WON'T change. Get used to it.

 

[norcus]

Very idealistic of you...

... however you're basically saying all feedback given without "respect" is null and void. That's not how software developers really work... they don't aggregate data on design issues based on how "nice" someone is; and if we're really being frank, the OP was pretty tame on the "disrespect" scale. Should people be more respectful? Sure... everyone should, you'll get no argument there... but should people giving feedback on a game because they're heated at some (genuinely, at times) poor design choices that make them want to stop playing the thing that developers want them to keep playing, be discounted out of hand? Of course not.

What the OP went through was a traumatizing experience that was compounded by the logic-seeking neurons firing off all at once going "but, based on the construct presented to me, none of this makes sense!" Things can always be "worded better," however, the frustration that the OP was expressing is a mechanic that doesn't align with the intuited narrative and rule set that players are presented with. The brain tries to reconcile at this point:

- Bounties against you are instant, traverse the entire galaxy instantaneously.
- You automatically lose all bounty data of destroyed ships if your ship is destroyed.

The first part suggests an internal logic of "there's this vast, all powerful, instant database that can keep track of every interaction between ships throughout the galaxy," which doesn't align with the second "but if you do something right, it has to be delivered by hand and if you die before you deliver it, your deeds are gone forever."

There are all sorts of logic holes in this because the developers are trying to be both a "game" and a "sim" at the same time, and are picking and choosing their priorities of internal logic. This is going to lead to quite a bit of "this doesn't make sense" moments, which so far, a month or so in, the dev's have generally responded with "It's just a gameplay decision." I think a little bit can be blamed on the presentation, as this is presented as "The Galaxy" we all live in, and "in the future" where some impossible technologies exist and don't apply to current possible technologies, like how our ships can travel at faster than light speeds, but our data cannot, except when it can. Money is digital and can be transferred instantly, except when it has to be handed over manually.

These impossible reconciliations lead to moments where the game player starts to realize that gameplay design decisions are literally stacked against them to induce fear of a "failure-state." Because all these impossible technologies exist in the future to make the construct of the game world viable, logic gaps basically have to be there in order for gameplay to happen. The more of these gaps they can close... the less players fully immersed in an intricately designed game world that banks on the "full-immersion" factor of a simulation, have to be reminded "nope, btw, this is a game... thanks."

This boils down to:
- I lost all exploration data and bounties I earned when I died. I think it is unfair and illogical since all data can be stored in the escape pod.
- Therefore I suggest that [part of the ] exploration data and record of my kills are retained.
- The response is: Death penalty is there for a reason (risk vs. reward). Data is not stored in the escape pod.

Look at that this whole thread summed up in three lines and no one got hurt

 

[GerminVermin]

This boils down to:
- I lost all exploration data and bounties I earned when I died. I think it is unfair and illogical since all data can be stored in the escape pod.
- Therefore I suggest that [part of the ] exploration data and record of my kills are retained.
- The response is: Death penalty is there for a reason (risk vs. reward). Data is not stored in the escape pod.

Look at that this whole thread summed up in three lines and no one got hurt

Except his ego

 

[Armchair]

Yes and there is the hypothesis of quantum entanglement which leads to the possibility of instant communication across any distance. However, the game universe is clearly not designed with such possibilities. One thing is suggesting an improvement or shift within the existing framework, but to change the framework itself is like changing the way pieces move on a chessboard. Good luck with that

It isn't even a matter of possibilities. We have ftl sensors right now. Even the welfare sidewinder has them.

 

[norcus]

It isn't even a matter of possibilities. We have ftl sensors right now. Even the welfare sidewinder has them.

How so? Are you referring to sensors and exploration scanners? We don't know how they work. Maybe they analyze the em spectrum, gravitational field matrices and various FSD wake data locally to discover stellar bodies and ships that use the FSD. The images you see when flying in SC can be the ship computer simulating a real time vew of the data analysis.

 

[Commander Dini]

... however you're basically saying all feedback given without "respect" is null and void.

...

The rest ignored because your starting premise is completely wrong.

I am not saying that "feedback given without "respect" is null and void".

What I am saying is that feedback given without respect is not constructive.

 

[GerminVermin]

The rest ignored because your starting premise is completely wrong.

I am not saying that "feedback given without "respect" is null and void".

What I am saying is that feedback given without respect is not constructive.

I can see what you're saying. I think the concept of "constructive" comes down to how the person deals with the information they've been given, not whether or not it's polite. If you scream at someone rudely about how dumb they are and they take that input and cry about it, that's obviously not constructive. However, if the person shrugs off the rude bit but extracts what was originally intended as a notification of their lack of intelligence and they do something about it, like pay more attention, and they learn and grow from it, then I'd say that even rude advice can be constructive.

On the flip side, you can have people who very politely correct someone's argument but the person giving the initial argument to be corrected entirely rejects the polite correction in which case you have criticism that was not constructive at all.

Life isn't polite. Life kicks you in the teeth. If you're going to cower from it then you won't learn and you won't grow. If you can grow some thick skin and shrug off the unforgiving nature of life then you'll find yourself in a far better position to reap the benefits. This attitude can conform to every facet of life, every situation, every game, every objection, every interpersonal relationship, every struggle at work, literally everything. That's what I expect out of readers.

While his original post in this thread was flippant and angry, you can still see what his main point is and why he believes what he believes. It's not a well thought-out point, but he still made the point. Then, in come people like me and others who read through the anger to address and deconstruct the crux of his argument and show him why he's wrong. Instead of reading the replies and accepting them in a constructive way (which, again, is ultimately up to the receiver on whether the point is constructive or not), he just cries foul because the replies in his thread don't match his own opinion.

 

[Adyaphede]

I have not seen any hate.

The warning you got makes me disagree.

Anyway, in my opinion, death penalty is already properly balanced. If a large group of players encounter the same issue over time then maybe arguing a change might have merit. However, this post is based on a single event that happened to a single player once: OP lost some bounties and exploration data when his ship blew up and he "suggests" that because this is obviously a flaw in the game, a change must be made so that some exploration data remains along with bounties earned.

I disagree, and have argued why. I still have not found any counter arguments except that it sucks to loose stuff when you die.

You have an obvious English language comprehension skill lack.

I am FINE with the loss of bounty.
I am FINE with the loss of cargo.
I am FINE with the loss of scanning data.
I am FINE with having to pay for insurance.

I am NOT FINE with losing ALL the bounties.
I am NOT FINE with losing ALL cargo.
I am NOT FINE with losing ALL scanning data.

And all that while I RETAIN all the bad crap like bounties on MY head, the fines, etc.

I feel there should be means to RANDOMLY diminish the death penalties. Make a percentage of those bounties I collected fizz out. The same can happen to the scanned data. We're talking about fragile electronics evidently. The cargo that I was carrying? Part of it that didn't explode with my ship will remain there for a while if it hasn't been picked up by my enemy.

THAT is what my post was about. How you did not understand that without me having to spell every little detail is beyond me. Apparently others got the message...

One way or the other, my opinion is as good and as worthless as yours. You've made your point and if the above hasn't changed your opinion, fine. I respect that. But your presence here isn't really necessary anymore.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Would you give it a bleeding rest already? The devs have basically said that you're WRONG and that it WON'T change. Get used to it.

I'll tell you the exact same line: Just leave the thread. Give it a rest mate.