Dear FDev

Show me again which nasty mode broke power play:

PC Solo - PC Groups
PC Solo - PC Open
PC Solo - X Box Solo
PC Solo - X Box Groups
PC Solo - X Box Open
PC Groups - PC Open
PC Groups - X Box Solo
PC Groups - X Box Groups
PC Groups - X Box Open
PC Open - Instance greater than (X-1) Number of players
PC Open - Any player without a valid matchmaking connection
PC Open - X Box Solo
PC Open - X Box Groups
PC Open - X Box Open
X Box Solo - X Box Groups
X Box Solo - X Box Open
X Box Groups - X Box Open
X Box Open - Instance greater than (X-1) Number of players
X Box Open - Any player without a valid matchmaking connection

Bad mode, Bad Bad Mode. You're a very naughty mode and will be going straight to bed without supper if you don't allow yourself to be subjected to emergent gameplay* right now.


*Emergent gameplay not guaranteed, your quality of emergent gameplay may vary and may include, but not be limited to:

Juvenile abuse, derogatory comments about certain body parts or your parent/lack of/choice of pet. Being "shot inna face/inna da Asp".

To truly experience "Emergent Gameplay" may require membership of an external forum with an associated monetary cost in isolated cases. Membership of an external forum does not guarantee the ability to instance with forumites in the Elite game....... Yada....Yada.....Yada.....
 
Last edited:
"NEW FROM EA....Battlefield 5 now with Solo/Open........Tired of getting shot by other people but you really like capping flags? No problem, now, while others are getting shot to hell in open mode, you can go invisible, and capture the flags without worry and no one can stop you.............."
This again. ED is a open-galaxy game in which the loss of a ship, even one that's covered by insurance, can represent anything from a few minutes play to weeks of invested game time, especially for mid-tier traders who are maximising their returns or explorers who have tens of millions in unsold data. An unfortunately timed death can literally erase weeks of progression.

Battlefield and its brethren are squad-based FPS in which rank and XP are gained, rarely if ever taken away, and in which death represents at worst a short delay in progression before a respawn and the chance to carry on.

Any attempt to directly compare the two genres is utterly meaningless.
 
.
You mean it is a game for older people? You think they will put that in the Xbox adverstising? "Elite DANGEROUS: The slow, quiet, mature game, with no competition ......... the sort of thing you can do with a glass of wine while watching the TV or listening to the radio....".......

I resemble that remark. :)
 
If playing outside Open *was* cheating, why have Frontier kept true to their original design statement, over two and a half years ago, and still allow us to switch game modes on a session-by-session basis?

The truth is out. David Braben OBE is a care bear. He's certainly huggable like one.

/humour
 
It doesn't need to be addressed because there is no issue to address. Why?

Because Elite: Dangerous is not a competitive game.



LOL, even FDEV know it is, because they designed it to be competitive: killing (you) proof: Community goals rewards only for 5% of players, rewarding us for COMPETING.

Please...
 
LOL, even FDEV know it is, because they designed it to be competitive: killing (you) proof: Community goals rewards only for 5% of players, rewarding us for COMPETING.

Please...
Who do you think you're competing against? How do you consider other people's game to be competing against your game?
 
If playing outside Open *was* cheating, why have Frontier kept true to their original design statement, over two and a half years ago, and still allow us to switch game modes on a session-by-session basis?

Two and half years ago there was no SOLO, but OFFLINE mode where players were supposed to have OWN copy of galaxy. OFFLINE + separate (living) OPEN would be best (I still hope for it). Yet FDEV, probably too cut on cost, killed OFFLINE, and decided (IMO wrongly) to have SOLO mode influencing (this is 'wrongly' part - of course, just my (and hundreds others) opinion)) OPEN galaxy. Q.E.D. due to breach of promise and wrong decision we have this SOLO/OPEN thread, everybody is pushed into not to discuss, but to silence. It's indisputable fact that OPEN/SOLO is the biggest hot topic among players

The SOLO/OPEN thread, where players are pushed, is like you can't protest your government in a public gathering in capital city, but there is designated one remote location you can go and talk about. Or that there is only one newspaper which can critisize goverment, or only one TV channel. All others must praise the lord (read: faulty design) and behave like everything is fine. In real life, we would call it censorship. Sadly, here we have it. And bare with me, moving some clear discussions there, or merging them is fine, yet moving any discussion which slightly touches OPEN/SOLO is (IMO) silencing uncomfortable truth, that current OPEN/SOLO situation drives players mad.

Yes it drives me mad that for competitive reasons(sic!), players move to SOLO to grind (i.e. harm) other/own (sic!) powers, and you can't do much against it, while they're executing their actions specifically to compete, beat and sometimes purely to anger you (observe Aisling Duval 5th column of preparation discussion, happening for last 4 (four!)cycles). So we have SOLO mode, to prevent players harming players, and this SOLO is now used by players to harm players. Yes, in different way. VERY FUNNY!
 
Last edited:
Critical
You need to fix your core game.

-Instancing and Wings-
This needs to be fixed asap. Instancing issues and bugs with the wingman system means you're hemorrhaging players right now because we can't enjoy the game together with friends. When we do manage to get together, we don't see anyone or we can't get into the same instance as others. In my opinion you also need to make both the instance and the wings larger. At the moment this game cannot be categorized as an MMO, and more worryingly from a legal perspective this is an arguable case.

I haven't had these issues. At first I did, but I've seen none of it since figuring out the private group system. If it's happening a lot though, then yes, there should be fixes; it's probably caused on the client side though, with port forwarding and anti-virus issues needing to be fixed by the player.

-Missions and NPCs-
The galaxy does not feel alive, there is nothing to do on the face of it, which will be a crucial problem for your XBone customers. Missions need to be multi-tiered, deeper and more integral with the NPC system. They need to be far more rewarding and you need more variety. You need to be clearer regarding how the minor factions work and the benefits of supporting a minor faction. NPCs needs to have a level of persistence and sophistication (having them interdict you all the time is not the answer, it's just annoying). There needs to be pirate bases, mining bases, recruitment centres and other artifacts to fill your systems instead of just the same stations and planets. I think in general as well the focus needs to be less on mini-games, meta-layered concepts, we need additional game content to be integrated with the main game.

Strongly agree here. There needs to be much more to do in the Galaxy. Fleshing out is needed more than anything. CQC, planetary landings, etc. are great, but not what is needed.

-Open/Solo Dilemma-
This needs to be addressed whether you like it or not. You cannot have the situation to remain where a player can effectively cheat and jump into solo if they need to do something critical or outdo an opponent without ever seeing them. This is like playing a board game but you are allowing players to play the same board game in different rooms. Why can a player playing in solo affect what I'm doing in Open?

Here's my solution: The system is already split into Solo, Private Groups and Open - good. The type of player that wants to play in Solo does not care about the multiplayer aspect, there is no need to give them the ability to influence the players playing in Open. The 2 universes should be separated, I understand this is not hard to do technically. Either i) Separate Open and Solo/Private Group Universes or ii) Even better: Give us another universe for true multiplayer - let's call this Real Open. Get rid of the P2P architecture for Real Open, get rid of the instancing cap and give us proper servers so we can all see each other and experience the game as it's supposed to be. More expensive? Charge us for Real Open. You will not be going against your Kickstarter pledges as we will still have Normal Open/Private Groups/Solo which are free, you are just adding an option for the MMO universe. Funds from this will be used to improve the game for both Real Open and Normal Open/Solo. Everyone wins.

Strongly disagree on this one. This is unnecessary effort for no gain. This isn't a competitive game, and having FDev hosted servers would add a huge amount of overhead that would decrease the quality of the product. Solo is not cheating. The farthest I could see going would be to make solo and open separate from each other, but then this would require simulating activity by other players on the solo players in order to allow them to have an impact on thier own version of events. Wasted effort.

Less Critical but Important Additions
I'm not going to go into additional details with these as they're pretty straightforward and has been debated to death on these forums. They are just as important as the above issues mentioned above but are not critical right now. In order of what needs to be improved first:

- Powerplay mechanics:
- Needs to have less grind, more variety
- Powerplay weapons needs balancing
- Player controlled NPCs
- Player controlled stations/mini bases
- Co-pilots (Player and NPC)
- Mining needs to be retuned
- More Weapons
- More Ships (incl. Carriers, Cruiser class and Capital class)
- Planetary Landings
- Thargoids

These I can also get behind, though in the case of player controlled NPCs I have no idea what you're on about. NPC means non-player character. If it's player controlled, it's now not an NPC.

Also, players should never be able to fly a Capital Class ship. We already have imbalance issues at this point without adding in ever more powerful ships. Imagine the issues when new players in Sidewinders are being interdicted by a Capital ship. Unless they do a lot of work balancing out ship classes, we shouldn't be looking at anything bigger than a Corvette right now.
 
Who do you think you're competing against? How do you consider other people's game to be competing against your game?

Do you know what community goal is in elite dangerous and how bonuses are structured? Please read sticked thread about it.
 
Do you know what community goal is in elite dangerous and how bonuses are structured? Please read sticked thread about it.
That isn't an answer to my questions:

Who do you think you're competing against? How do you consider other people's game to be competing against your game?
because your game isn't competing against anyone. Community Goals are not a competitive thing, it's a team work thing, team work is not competing.

I'll read the stickied thread when you read two year's worth of forum posts to get up to amount of I've read about.
EDIT: I also consider your post to be insulting to other forum members (namely me), it is patronising and trolling a response.
It also breaks forum rule #1

No Abusive or Disrespectful Behaviour
The following forum rules are in place to promote the Frontier forums as a safe, friendly, and welcoming place for the community. Discussions and debates are greatly welcomed. However, not at the expense of common sense and decency, as exemplified by the list below.

You agree to not:

  • Be insulting to any person via obscene, offensive, hateful or inflammatory comments via the means of private messages, public messages and visitor messages in order to bait, harass, and lure other users into responding. This is also known as trolling or flame-baiting.
 
Last edited:
While I firmly believe that the core game needs to be fixed before releasing any new content, the question for content is moot. Content will come out eventually whether it is accepted or rejected is up to the personal tastes of the individual players. You may like it, you may not, just like PP. FD will release the content they want according to whatever their plan is.

But if the core is not fixed, and I mean very soon,, I am afraid to say that players will abandon this game in droves, I have seen it many times over the course of the last 18 years since online gaming was born. It is an online game, and it requires players participating to make it work. If it was strictly singleplayer game then meh who cares, shelve and move on to the next one, nobody would care.
 
LOL, even FDEV know it is, because they designed it to be competitive: killing (you) proof: Community goals rewards only for 5% of players, rewarding us for COMPETING.

Please...

Pffft, community goals are a minor addition to the main game, which you can play without ever bothering with a community goal. I have never touched a community goal, because it is set up as a ladder. You'll never get me to play a ladder.

IF Elite required me to play ladders in order to play the game, I would not ever have backed this game.

Elite has always been a PvE game and that was the appeal, aside from rendering our entire galaxy.


If a developer / publisher as much as mentions "emergent game play" the game is off my list.
I'd have to be to invite hoodlums to disturb me while I want to be by myself.
And that's how I like to play - alone.
 
Pffft, community goals are a minor addition to the main game, which you can play without ever bothering with a community goal. I have never touched a community goal, because it is set up as a ladder. You'll never get me to play a ladder.

IF Elite required me to play ladders in order to play the game, I would not ever have backed this game.

Elite has always been a PvE game and that was the appeal, aside from rendering our entire galaxy.


If a developer / publisher as much as mentions "emergent game play" the game is off my list.
I'd have to be to invite hoodlums to disturb me while I want to be by myself.
And that's how I like to play - alone.
Repped. Said it better than I would have.
 
Yeah, CQC is like small island in ED where you can be competitive. It's built around this idea. It also good decision business wise - people sometimes want quickie hull smashing against other players, no strings attached.

However ED itself will stay this slow burn, strategic scope with heavy leaning towards PvE.

I think CQC is more than just that. I think FDev have looked at the game, looked carefully at the solo/open debate, and decided that CQC will help resolve some of the issues raised.

I don't actually begrudge people looking for pew pew pew "gamey" space combat. There is nothing at all wrong with that if you enjoy it. I don't like it cutting into my game, that's all. CQC will give people an opportunity to get into fights quickly and easily, therefore giving PvE players who enjoy playing in Open more breathing space from the more combat-competitive oriented players.

It's a positive way forward. Instead of banning, issuing rules, allowing people to ban from instances or anything like that they've built something new for those who want to play Elite a little differently.
 
That isn't an answer to my questions:


because your game isn't competing against anyone. Community Goals are not a competitive thing, it's a team work thing, team work is not competing.

And having bonus only while being within 5% of cmdrs, and trying to beat them and keep yourself within it, is what? HELPING THEM? or competing with them? (you can check it happen multiple times in discussion in the thread I've given, e.g. around 540 page)

Sorry to be the one passing this cruel fact to you. This was engineered to make us compete. And we DID compete against each other. And judging by the size of the thread this was a great part of players activity. Also measured by bounties collected and tonnes hauled. You can't dispute the facts. Unless you don't agree on logic being decisive factor in proving right/wrong in discussion - I feel this is what happens.


I'll read the stickied thread when you read two year's worth of forum posts to get up to amount of I've read about.
EDIT: I also consider your post to be insulting to other forum members (namely me), it is patronising and trolling a response.
It also breaks forum rule #1

LOL - please read again my question if you read a thread explaining competition designed by fdev into game. Please read again *your* questions I responded to. It was perfectly valid, and calm and polite response. In opposition to yours patronising.

BECAUSE: I find your comment 'when you read two years...' as patronising and trolling. Now what?
 
Last edited:
LOL, even FDEV know it is, because they designed it to be competitive: killing (you) proof: Community goals rewards only for 5% of players, rewarding us for COMPETING.

Please...

1. Killing isn't the same thing as competition is it? Lions compete with hyenas on the African plains, they don't compete with zebras, they kill and eat them.

2. EVERYONE benefits when they involve themself in a community goal, not just the top 5%. The top 5% may get a bigger reward, but the better they do the higher the rewards are for everyone in the goal. If you see others doing the same goal as you it's not in your interests to try to kill them.
 
Back
Top Bottom