Need to change your avatar to a White Star and give those that jumped you the Shadow Vessel. ^,^
Oh.. and I saw Citizen G'kar flying around yesterday ^,^
- Status
Need to change your avatar to a White Star and give those that jumped you the Shadow Vessel. ^,^
Oh.. and I saw Citizen G'kar flying around yesterday ^,^
I completely fail to see why the developer and publisher of the game has to justify any design decision to the userbase. There was a time and place for it, it was during the kickstarter, when they actually asked for people's faith in them without having a prodcut to show for. Now that Elite is released this whole matter goes into the category of "crying over spilt milk". Especially if all that information is disclosed beforehand and all it requires is the ability to understand written words. And I would also say this wording would mean that Frontier sees this as a problem, which they don't, as far as their contribution goes on this matter.
Seriously, this notion that the owner of the intellectual property has any kind of responsibility against the people buying the product in regards of decisions they make is pretty hillarious. Is this reserved for games only, or do people demand Microsoft to give a statement why Windows 8 had tiles and no start menu? And have them apologize?
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
I have to admit, I am normally the 1st to lambast the supposed "griefer" but, (and maybe it is because it is pre coffee in the morning) but i am not sure what he/they did wrong to be honest :/
A few people dislike how easy it is for attackers to follow and harass people constantly.
There seems to be a growing feeling that, interdiction is fine, being attacked is fine, but once someone has had their fair crack of the whip that should be the end of it.
If the person being attacked escapes through genuine means, then that should count for something. The attacker has "lost" and should not be able to to harass over and over and over.
I trade in private groups, so it is not something I've given that much thought to.
I have noticed though, that NPCs will have a couple of cracks at me and if I get away, they seem to magically appear at the station "in wait" for me so I have to make a mad dash for the no fire zone.
Last edited:
As hunvagy already said, FD do not need to provide any justification on why they designed the game the way they did.
The fact is, when you handed over your money, you bought into the design as it stands. You have no right to no suggest the game is changed to meet your needs.
Suggesting improvements is one thing. Suggesting altering the fundamental structure of the game to alienate a large percentage of the player base is not.
I sincerely hope that FD employs one or more people in a communications/community-engagement role and that they are capable of better responses than "You paid for it so tough luck. Get over yourselves."
And Microsoft have explained (in response to community reaction) why they decided to dump the Start menu. Funny enough, in response to community reaction, it has come right back.
I wouldn't think of that as "griefing" as described - more of a mismatch of requirements.
They wanted to blow him up - he didn't see any value in a 2 v 1 so opted out.
Especially since shields stopped repairing in SC it makes serial interdictions more of a PITA. I used to have lots of fun with pirates with serial interdictions - made some friends that way - now the auto shield regen in SC has gone it's become stacked in their favour unless I strap on a ton of SCBs and that seems pointless.
So from my point of view that change was entirely negative it turned interaction that was fun into interaction that became pointless which I now avoid by interdiction avoidance and/or high waking which also means fewer interactions for pirates.
Yay FD!
Of course what he could have done was high wake and lose them completely.
Last edited:
fair enough. Personally I am not sure i agree but to each their own. in such a situation (and due to how i play it is not one i am likely to encounter often) if losing a fight i defo want out of, i would high wake twice, quickly.
but from what i could tell, OP was asked to drop cargo, and they chose not to, and instead to engage. At that point imo all bets are off.
but as I said, that is just me, and it is not something I am gonna argue the toss over
It's not a case of you paid for it tough luck though. The solo/group/open mechanic was known for a long time, yet people act as if FD put it in there as a stealth nerf. That is what rubs people the wrong way. Some people being obstinate about this point don't really help with the discussion at all. And no amount of communication could change that. And I don't feel that FD has any obligation to phrase any explanation of this feature in a matter like you described, what suggest they perceive its existence as something prone to problems. It's only the users who make it a problem.
EDIT: That reminds me, after the Xbone release, will people also complain that Xbone users are cheating by playing on the console? Because afaik it will use the same universe, but you'll never see the console players on the PC and vice versa.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
As well as that, Xbox One players who do not have Xbox Live Gold access will only be able to play in Solo - but will be able to play in Open if they upgrade to Gold - mode mobility helps those players.
Last edited:
A I said before. Play in open, expect confrontation from some elements. Those guys were not griefers. The conda deployed weapons and engaged. When the milk turned out to be sour, the conda combat logged thereby griefing the role playing attackers. You can HIGH wake out anytime to escape. If you LOW wake, you have a delay before FSD spools up and it only takes you to SC where they are free to interdict you again. Learn how the game works and you can escape any confrontation without griefing 99pc of the time.
If he exited legitimately using the timer that weren't no griefing neither!
Last edited:
Just because you cannot deal with the reality, it doesn't make it any less valid. Just because the truth of it doesnt meet your expectations neither does that mean it isnt the truth. It merely points out that you cannot accept it. If I pay no heed to information provided by a supplier as to how to use their product and it fails to do what I thought it might because I use it incorrectly or bought it without properly researching and understanding the product, then I take responsibility for that. I dont blame the supplier.
So failing at a 1 v1 one person decides to get help and gang up on the other and even after they escape, hound them.. so they take drastic action and of course you feel they are the one "cheating"...
What?!
I'm talking about a sensible company volunteering to communicate to their customers in a conciliatory manner because it's a smart thing to do and might help calm some of the tension.
And I think it is actually more like a customer purchasing a product from a supplier and that product does exactly what the supplier claimed. Unfortunately, the product - while effective at stated intent - has one or two minor side effects that were either unknown or undisclosed at the time the information was printed. Some people believe to have experienced these side effects and are understandably concerned.
Last edited:
Sorry I disagree, there are no side effects, there are customers who think the product should do things a certain way and not as it was advertised. Can it be tweaked.. of course, but the changes some want show clearly that they didn't look at what they were buying and want the product changed for their benefit.
I can't see that it would make much difference if they acknowledged that some people have an issue with the way things work.
It might placate some but others would just seize on it saying "Look, FD even admit there is a problem and refuse to fix it!"
There are many other things that were explicitly on the list of things to do that have gone missing in action that they should explain before they start explaining things that people have made assumptions about.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
With a stated, affirmed and re-iterated stance, the effect of any conciliatory statements would probably be to further aggravate those who disagree - adding words to "it's the way that we have designed the game and it's not going to change" does not change the message.
The game features do what was expected by those who chose to think about the ramifications of such an approach - blockades: don't work (unless players choose to play along); camping outside stations waiting for players to emerge: doesn't work (unless players choose to play along). That was before Community Goals and Powerplay were implemented. These last two have been clearly stated as being for all players, in all modes, and for all platforms. If either of these game features had been designed around PvP then there might be a point - however they do not seem to have been - there are no rewards for PvP actions (other than to stop the destroyed player gaining merits for their Power).
Yes. You're quite possibly correct. But in the context of why this particular issue keeps coming up (and doesn't look like stopping any time soon), I thought it would probably be worth trying.
There are always going to be people who will complain no matter what. There are always going to be people who praise no matter what. I have found that it's often surprising what goodwill can be gained by companies when they are open and honest with the public.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Last edited:
- Status