Criticism of the Community

[Valo56]

Yeah, this is going to get some hate, I'm fine with that. Still, I hope you'll at least listen.

There's no shortage of posts on the forums and all across the internet about how Elite apparently lacks features. While I have a subtle disagreement with such statements, I find that they are generally true. Rather, I would say Elite has a plethora of features, but lacks both depth and replayability of those features, something that I am confident will be addressed in later patches.

There's also no shortage of posts talking about how people want to avoid certain things.
"No player owned bases/stations!"
"No corporations/guilds/clans!"
"No player decisions on systems/wars!"
"No capital/big ships for players!"
... and much more.

While I'm not saying the people who want more features are also the people who want to avoid these things, I find that the community is becoming increasingly polarized (think of the political parties in the US... yes, that is what this reminds me of), briefly placated by new patches only to pick up the whining and/or paranoia within a few days.

Personally I feel the above are integral to any good space simulator, but the specifics on them (as the people who rail against them actually do bring up good points) is debatable. However, that's not the focus of this thread.

It's to tell people to keep an open mind. That doesn't mean accept everything, but rather to try and incorporate someone else's thinking into your own as is appropriate.

For instance, if I say...

"Player run corporations and starbases with a degree of production capabilities seems like a wonderful idea." You might respond with "No! That's a horrible idea. Players will have too much power, this will become EVE all over again, and we'll be stuck catering to the will of corporations with no freedom." That doesn't invalidate the original suggestion, it brings up concerns about what it might lead to, though... concerns that ought be addressed either by proving them false or by suggesting suggestions on the suggestions (suggestception) to refine it into something where those concerns are meritless. It doesn't mean a ten page flame war with people repeating the same thing over and over again. -.-

So, I then respond...
"Well, a variable degree of player ownership on starbases, along with investments on the construction of new starbases and even the waging of war, with appropriate investment returns if successful, seems like a great form of endgame content that would be vastly rewarding, fun and entirely realistic. Additionally, players with high influence might have additional capabilities in determining the economy of a station by influencing what commodities are produced, but we restrict hard decisions to prevent a true player oligarchy, which would be bad. Why is it bad? Because NPC's put there by the devs are there for our enjoyment and to challenge us, players have no such concerns."

Then we have something of a refined suggestion, that acknowledges the other side without giving up the fight.

Not that I expect suggestions are too closely looked at.

Anyway, this has just been grating on my nerves. I await the tidal wave of ruffled jimmies.

 

[Darque]

I am trying to understand what you mean OP, or who you are targeting with your criticism. You state that you are criticizing those who complain about apparent lack of features, and then agree with them and go on to point out the lack of features. What are you trying to say?

 

[Galactic Midden]

Well I for one am hoping you don't get any hate. Thanks for posting Valo56
Discuss away...

 

[AtheosisX]

People who complain about people complaining are a special kind of annoying.

 

[andino]

For every one person posting my guess is that there are 20 just reading. Kind of like me.

 

[Titus Balls]

I don't disagree with you, sadly the man who has "the vision" does: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...en-Discusses-Elite-Dangerous-and-Space-Sims.3

The Escapist: Are you interested in seeing Elite: Dangerous move more into the Eve Online space?

Braben: I don't feel like that. The way I see it, the important difference between Eve Online and us is that Eve is an executive control game and Elite: Dangerous isn't. That's a big differentiator. What I see us doing is moving more into the richness of the experience and expanding the depth of space gameplay. I think the more games we have in the science fiction genre the better, because it's a genre that has been languishing for a bit. If you think about the way people work together in squad-type games like Battlefield 4 or even in Warcraft raids, the fun of it is in playing together and actually planning a little bit ahead. I've seen it a little bit in slightly more arcadey games as well, like Battlestations Midway, where a group of four players go against another group of four players and the difference in tactics makes a big difference. It's not symmetric. Someone might go in with a big Anaconda and essentially draw the fire, but then there will be other players in more nimble ships.

Of course I personally think he has it the wrong way round, as community goals have currently shown ED *is absolutely* an executive controlled game, and top down from the developers - not bottom up from the player. Levers and knobs, levers and knobs being controlled by the space Wizard of Oz.

For this game to survive as long I think it needs to fulfil the IKEA effect: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA_effect

The IKEA effect is a cognitive bias that occurs when consumers place a disproportionately high value on products they partially created.

Where I think it sits currently is more likely this though:

Additional research has shown that labor leads to higher valuation only when the labor is fruitful. When participants failed to complete a task requiring their own labor, the IKEA effect dissipated.

As the only people to benefit from this is truly the NPCs it's nothing more than a form of factional warfare and in it's current state a not-very-good-one. Only 1.62% of the current player base participated in Yembo.

If the numbers are to be believed and there has been 300k copies sold, even if 50% of them are solo players they are not the ones who will be here forever, the ones in open are. The way I see it that vision above will have to change to compete with other games in the field.

Visions change too, to the way the wind blows and if the direction is that what a lot of players want then they have to eventually consider it.

Personally, if it goes that way I'd be happy.

I'd also be happy with it being more Frontier + Skyrim for example, and just having more exciting content to be discovered leading to adventures.

As it is, has neither.

 

[Valo56]

People who complain about people complaining are a special kind of annoying.

I'm not complaining about complaining, I'm complaining about tunnel vision.

And I quote: "... the focus of this thread ... to tell people to keep an open mind."

By all means, complain. Complaints are great. I'm complaining about a lack of honest dialog. Instead I usually see people rant at each other without listening or trying to explore the possibilities. While I won't suggest we always side with the fallacy of the middle road, I feel we avoid compromise too much. Reservations about corporations are great, for instance, but they're not a reason to exclude them entirely.

Anyway, people who complain about complaining are mainly annoying as they themselves offer no suggestions on how to solve the problem, taking more issue with complaints than with the underlying cause. I don't believe that's what I'm doing at all.

I am trying to understand what you mean OP, or who you are targeting with your criticism. You state that you are criticizing those who complain about apparent lack of features, and then agree with them and go on to point out the lack of features. What are you trying to say?

I'm saying to try and understand all sides (even as I criticize all sides, lol).

Avoid strawman arguments and slippery slope fallacies.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/

 

[Darque]

I think I love you rather than hate you Valo56. In one thread you have complained about complainers, and now created a strawman instructing us to avoid strawmen. +1 for perhaps the greatest troll I have seen of late
All teasing aside, I think most of us here are on the same side you are. We have hopes, and in the case of those of us '84 types out here, dreams about what Elite could be like.
I believe Titus Balls has nailed it in his post above ours. I think most us are crossing our fingers and hoping for more of the squad-type play Mr. Braben references in other games.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

-- Deleted --

 

[Flyinpiranha]

I think the biggest issue to address is the "gated community". It's why I'm fine with the "vision" that has been proposed. The developers are in charge of the galaxy and no one 'guild' can control aspects.

I stopped playing MMOs, or most group based content after 20 years of playing that kind of stuff. I don't want to have to get together with 1-31 other players in order to see or do 'something' in this game. I like the fact that there is Open/Solo and I can switch whenever I like. Dividing content development to an already thin layer of content for 'group stuff' and 'single player' stuff will only hurt both of those options.

This is where the divide comes in the forums. People like me don't want player controlled anything, while others want to get their old EVE or WoW guildmates together and start taking applications for joining. I'm against that. I'll speak up against that. I don't think it adds to the game AS LONG as the developers keep good content coming ... and therein lies the issue. With "PVP balance" changes and the most recent Community Event, it's kind of laughable. Regarding ship balance I just don't get it. I thought better ships were better. Nobody complains that a Cobra/Viper can take out a Sidewinder fairly easily, but if a ship can take those out? Anyway, I'll not get into that here, it's been discussed and that horse is so beaten you can't recognize what animal it was. The problem is that their just isn't content. If there was something really cool for me to do, quest-lines, hiring NPCs to take on big ships that I couldn't beat by myself (or have players join), an explorers quest besides 'sell stuff', honestly ... anything! I'd be fine with them constantly spending time with the aspects I don't really enjoy (PVP).

But it's not there, I can trade, I can bounty hunt, I could pirate, I could mine, but let's be honest, even if the money was 'even' across the board for all professions (I don't think it should be, but it should be altered) all of those are very shallow experiences. There isn't anything 'connecting' me to the universe. It's a screenshot flight sim that I can't even take a decent screenshot because I can't see out of my ship!

I get that people want this to be some PVP Arena, player owned and controlled, kill-fest. I don't. I see what that attitude does to players and communities. This forum was actually really enjoyable before it launched. Then 'carebear' and 'ganking' and 'griefers' all appeared as the top buzz words and here we are. People saying they need to put the "Danger" in Elite: Dangerous by having others die often. Dying and spending tons of time trying to recover my time spent isn't my idea of fun.

The more I get told "just leave" the more I'm considering it. I still enjoy the game though. I still enjoy the base they have and I really, really hope that this last Community Event was truly just a beta test, because it was laughable. It reminds me of decade-old WoW 'collect the cloth' quests and I'd hope that stale gaming tropes would have been avoided. But telling people to 'leave' is the last thing anybody needs. The less people playing, the less this game will 'catch on' and continue to get content whether it's stuff you like or not.

Either way, no monthly sub so that's nice. My main beef is the lack of stuff that makes me feel like I'm part of the universe.

 

[pacino23]

When you deeply care about a franchise or game and aren't a self deluded fanboy, you do tend to be more critical than usual. You want the game to succeed and to be the best it can be, a bit like an overbearing father trying to push his kid through college. Some people play the game in a casual manner and enjoy the game for what it is and there's nothing wrong with that (I've been hammering the game but would still say I am casual compared to a lot of players here). Some are more hardcore about it and changes that I wouldn't necessarily notice can have a big impact on their experience. That's fine as well. We all bought the game therefore we are all entitled to express our opinions within the boundaries forum etiquette and rules. Complaining about people complaining is utterly ridiculous as chances our they care about the game a lot more than you do. They care enough to push the devs to do better and if the devs improve the game then that can only benefit everyone. This is why we have forums in the first place; The Frontier forums are a direct point of contact between the devs and their customers which enables them to gather large amounts of feedback quickly. Most of the criticism I see leveled at ED has actually been pretty fair. As much as I enjoy the ED it isn't a game I recommend freely, I always tell people to do their research before considering a purchase. You also have to remember that there is no demo for this game so the only way to try it (besides hoping a friend has it) is to buy the game and hope you like it. For some people such as my self that might work out. For others it will feel like they just flushed £40 down the drain. All the same they are paying customers and have the right to post their thoughts on their experience. Frontier may be able to fix some of these problems, retain more players and possibly attract new ones which means a livelier and more vibrant game world all round.

Sorry OP but I think you have failed to see the big picture. Besides, I've seen much, much worse communities. Visit IGN or the Steam Hub (any game, it doesn't matter) sometime and this place will feel like Centre Parcs by comparison!

 

[Titus Balls]

I think the biggest issue to address is the "gated community". It's why I'm fine with the "vision" that has been proposed. The developers are in charge of the galaxy and no one 'guild' can control aspects.

I stopped playing MMOs, or most group based content after 20 years of playing that kind of stuff. I don't want to have to get together with 1-31 other players in order to see or do 'something' in this game. I like the fact that there is Open/Solo and I can switch whenever I like. Dividing content development to an already thin layer of content for 'group stuff' and 'single player' stuff will only hurt both of those options.

This is where the divide comes in the forums. People like me don't want player controlled anything, while others want to get their old EVE or WoW guildmates together and start taking applications for joining. I'm against that. I'll speak up against that. I don't think it adds to the game AS LONG as the developers keep good content coming ... and therein lies the issue. With "PVP balance" changes and the most recent Community Event, it's kind of laughable. Regarding ship balance I just don't get it. I thought better ships were better. Nobody complains that a Cobra/Viper can take out a Sidewinder fairly easily, but if a ship can take those out? Anyway, I'll not get into that here, it's been discussed and that horse is so beaten you can't recognize what animal it was. The problem is that their just isn't content. If there was something really cool for me to do, quest-lines, hiring NPCs to take on big ships that I couldn't beat by myself (or have players join), an explorers quest besides 'sell stuff', honestly ... anything! I'd be fine with them constantly spending time with the aspects I don't really enjoy (PVP).

But it's not there, I can trade, I can bounty hunt, I could pirate, I could mine, but let's be honest, even if the money was 'even' across the board for all professions (I don't think it should be, but it should be altered) all of those are very shallow experiences. There isn't anything 'connecting' me to the universe. It's a screenshot flight sim that I can't even take a decent screenshot because I can't see out of my ship!

I get that people want this to be some PVP Arena, player owned and controlled, kill-fest. I don't. I see what that attitude does to players and communities. This forum was actually really enjoyable before it launched. Then 'carebear' and 'ganking' and 'griefers' all appeared as the top buzz words and here we are. People saying they need to put the "Danger" in Elite: Dangerous by having others die often. Dying and spending tons of time trying to recover my time spent isn't my idea of fun.

The more I get told "just leave" the more I'm considering it. I still enjoy the game though. I still enjoy the base they have and I really, really hope that this last Community Event was truly just a beta test, because it was laughable. It reminds me of decade-old WoW 'collect the cloth' quests and I'd hope that stale gaming tropes would have been avoided. But telling people to 'leave' is the last thing anybody needs. The less people playing, the less this game will 'catch on' and continue to get content whether it's stuff you like or not.

Either way, no monthly sub so that's nice. My main beef is the lack of stuff that makes me feel like I'm part of the universe.

Here in lies one of the rubs and greatest fallacies of the whole "player controlled thing". Player controlled doesn't *have* to mean lots of players controlling large areas of space. Player controlled can be as simple as:

* Having our own unique outpost in a system we choose to call home - only we, and friends we select can dock there
* Having the ability for players to be able to collect good and sell them at a price they choose
* Being able to install "crafting tables" so players can start crafting goods (weapons, ships, modules for players, or goods that NPCs require).*
* Players being able to set up offensive and defensive traps

People don't own counties, as much as players in this game will be able to own systems. But if we can't set up home and businesses there, then what's the point? Who drives the economy - have you seen what happens when we let faceless bureaucrats do that?

This is what I've always meant by ownership - not large blue doughnuts of force projection, but rather the player to feel they are part of something larger and not just a faceless cog in a giant machine controlled by the giant Space Wizard of Oz. Give players a face and a role in that machine to make it better and smarter.

* For example the "crafting table" - it would allow players to notice that a region of NPC space wants H.E Suits - but no where nearby sells them. Instead of traders having to jump hundreds of lightyears, enterprising players could spring up shop and create these - selling them directly to NPCs or to players to also ship.

 

[Flyinpiranha]

Here in lies one of the rubs and greatest fallacies of the whole "player controlled thing". Player controlled doesn't *have* to mean lots of players controlling large areas of space. Player controlled can be as simple as:

* Having our own unique outpost in a system we choose to call home - only we, and friends we select can dock there
* Having the ability for players to be able to collect good and sell them at a price they choose
* Being able to install "crafting tables" so players can start crafting goods
* Players being able to set up offensive and defensive traps

People don't own counties, as much as players in this game will be able to own systems. But if we can't set up home and businesses there, then what's the point? Who drives the economy - have you seen what happens when we let faceless bureaucrats do that?

This is what I've always meant by ownership - not large blue doughnuts of force projection, but rather the player to feel they are part of something larger and not just a faceless cog in a giant machine controlled by the giant Space Wizard of Oz. Give players a face and a role in that machine to make it better and smarter.

That's fine. Just allow that to happen for single players also. That's what I mean by 'gated community'. You're getting to see and experience content ONLY because you are in a group. I'm not even against joining a group or creating one either, but I don't like having the NEED to do that in order to see content in the game.

EDIT: I'd also like to add that I'm not against that type of game, I just didn't think this game would be that, it was all about the single player experience with 'MMO-esque' type features where you'd happen across other players, not be dependent on them to see content.

 

[Titus Balls]

That's fine. Just allow that to happen for single players also. That's what I mean by 'gated community'. You're getting to see and experience content ONLY because you are in a group. I'm not even against joining a group or creating one either, but I don't like having the NEED to do that in order to see content in the game.

That's exactly my point - this stuff can work in solo, where the other stuff can't. I've updated my post above to reflect that it should also work with NPCs and not just players.

In solo, the last point for example with offensive and defensive traps though is predicated on better and more aggressive AI. But if you don't want to play *that* kind of game (Really I'm talking Skyrim in Space here) then don't - just trade in the core systems and ignore it.

 

[dean0001]

Yeah, this is going to get some hate, I'm fine with that. Still, I hope you'll at least listen.

There's no shortage of posts on the forums and all across the internet about how Elite apparently lacks features. While I have a subtle disagreement with such statements, I find that they are generally true. Rather, I would say Elite has a plethora of features, but lacks both depth and replayability of those features, something that I am confident will be addressed in later patches.

There's also no shortage of posts talking about how people want to avoid certain things.
"No player owned bases/stations!"
"No corporations/guilds/clans!"
"No player decisions on systems/wars!"
"No capital/big ships for players!"
... and much more.

While I'm not saying the people who want more features are also the people who want to avoid these things, I find that the community is becoming increasingly polarized (think of the political parties in the US... yes, that is what this reminds me of), briefly placated by new patches only to pick up the whining and/or paranoia within a few days.

Personally I feel the above are integral to any good space simulator, but the specifics on them (as the people who rail against them actually do bring up good points) is debatable. However, that's not the focus of this thread.

It's to tell people to keep an open mind. That doesn't mean accept everything, but rather to try and incorporate someone else's thinking into your own as is appropriate.

For instance, if I say...

"Player run corporations and starbases with a degree of production capabilities seems like a wonderful idea." You might respond with "No! That's a horrible idea. Players will have too much power, this will become EVE all over again, and we'll be stuck catering to the will of corporations with no freedom." That doesn't invalidate the original suggestion, it brings up concerns about what it might lead to, though... concerns that ought be addressed either by proving them false or by suggesting suggestions on the suggestions (suggestception) to refine it into something where those concerns are meritless. It doesn't mean a ten page flame war with people repeating the same thing over and over again. -.-

So, I then respond...
"Well, a variable degree of player ownership on starbases, along with investments on the construction of new starbases and even the waging of war, with appropriate investment returns if successful, seems like a great form of endgame content that would be vastly rewarding, fun and entirely realistic. Additionally, players with high influence might have additional capabilities in determining the economy of a station by influencing what commodities are produced, but we restrict hard decisions to prevent a true player oligarchy, which would be bad. Why is it bad? Because NPC's put there by the devs are there for our enjoyment and to challenge us, players have no such concerns."

Then we have something of a refined suggestion, that acknowledges the other side without giving up the fight.

Not that I expect suggestions are too closely looked at.

Anyway, this has just been grating on my nerves. I await the tidal wave of ruffled jimmies.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=111672&p=1734383&highlight=#post1734383

 

[Flyinpiranha]

That's exactly my point - this stuff can work in solo, where the other stuff can't. I've updated my post above to reflect that it should also work with NPCs and not just players.

In solo, the last point for example with offensive and defensive traps though is predicated on better and more aggressive AI. But if you don't want to play *that* kind of game (Really I'm talking Skyrim in Space here) then don't - just trade in the core systems and ignore it.

So we're basically on the same page. I'm not against player-created content, I'm against content that requires multiple players to 'see'.

 

[Titus Balls]

So we're basically on the same page. I'm not against player-created content, I'm against content that requires multiple players to 'see'.

We diverge on that because I believe in both - but I'm an open mode player and as such want players to be able to see and interact with MY stuff.

But for solo players, they should be able to also do the same and NOT have it interact with the open world. On that we also agree because I see it as the solo mode interacting in a way that is not compatible with open.

The challenge for FD is to design that in such a way it can be done, or wait until the player base in solo drops low enough they can effectively drop it in a few years and focus on this (and you can't deny that *could* be a possibility if there is no engaging solo content added).

 

[StarTux]

I can't really see why anyone would argue with the points Titus raises (gleaning info from Braben interviews and newsletters I suspect this is something on their minds...), even starting out basic like this would add a lot of depth as I know plenty of people like to gather raw materials (MATS) together to create items. Frontier could add all sorts of depth that enhances the game, especially if coupled with the two big expansions.

Sure not for everyone, but if you simply don't care about leaving your ship and like the way it is now you're not really affected as that won't change, but could indeed still be enhanced as you'll have potentially more variety.

 

[ollobrains]

lets get the background simulator fully implemented and not rushed with lots of bugs, which is the current state of play. The devs have circled the wagons they need to be open about their inabiliity to get things going soon and or quickly. Ive got full faith in them they need to keep letting us know and stop the staggering silence

 

[Valo56]

lets get the background simulator fully implemented and not rushed with lots of bugs, which is the current state of play. The devs have circled the wagons they need to be open about their inabiliity to get things going soon and or quickly. Ive got full faith in them they need to keep letting us know and stop the staggering silence

They actually seem very open about their plans and, post-release, have been good at backing up their promises. I can't speak about pre-release as I am not knowledgeable enough about that. Either way, they've been good at communicating upcoming plans and keeping to them, from my potentially flawed perspective.