Vulture v Viper Mk IV-Ich Will

[grottomatic]

I think people really need to stop acting like this is World of Warcraft, with talk of "tiers" and "endgame". It just doesn't apply in this game, and forcing it onto it is only to the detriment of the game and your enjoyment of it.

Different ships are more or less effective at different roles than other ships, and ships have different flavors and are suited to different playstyles, but there's no "tiers" of ships other than what players choose to see. Similarly, there is no "endgame" The game is the game throughout. It doesn't change once you get X credits, or once you hit X rank in the Pilot's Federation.

The game is the game tiers and endgame are only in your head.

I agree in spirit, but as someone who has moved up in "tier" over the last year playing a variety of roles, it is very hard to go back to a lesser ship. For example, I now fly an FDL for combat - going back to the viper mk4 in beta didn't provide me a ton of advantages other than the lower rebuy. Other than the cobra or asp, which have distinct advantages of speed and jump range, many long time commanders have very little reason to use smaller ships within the current gameplay mechanics. This all could change with horizons and I am excited to find out.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

I agree in spirit, but as someone who has moved up in "tier" over the last year playing a variety of roles, it is very hard to go back to a lesser ship. For example, I now fly an FDL for combat - going back to the viper mk4 in beta didn't provide me a ton of advantages other than the lower rebuy.

And I think it's totally legit to have that opinion. That ships works for you, and that's awesome. Where I take issue is when people say things like "Anything below my 'tier 3/2.5' is probably going to be redundant in the lategame, except for nostalgia and perhaps smuggling / trading rares.", which to me indicates totally the wrong mindset.

I am, for all practical definitions, in the "lategame". I end up spending a lot of my hunting time, both via million-plus credit missions on the Bulletin Board and in HazRES's, in my Eagle (Mk II or Mk III) or my Viper (granted, my Gunship is a blast in Compromised Nav Beacons). I used to fly a Fer-De-Lance, and I liked it, but it just wasn't for me. Tried a fully A-kitted combat Python and hated it. Never felt an urge to buy an Anaconda. I am not saying that I am "right" in this, or that you in your higher-end ship are "wrong". Simply that it's just personal choice. I can do all my "lategame" tasks in my "lower tier" ships just fine because "lategame" is functionally the exact same thing as "early game", you just have more credits and a higher Pilot Fed rank.

If someone's preferred playstyle is to maximize credits-per-hour, then sure, ranking ships by imaginary "tier" and declaring ones with less shielding and weapons makes sense, but that's by no means the "right" way to play. Credits are a means to an ends, they're not an end themselves unless you make it that. The only "progress" in this game is that which you impose on your own gameplay, and that's a huge strength.

You could argue that this is therefore a pointless and semantic argument, and you'd be largely correct, but I think it's worth pointing out still for two reasons:

1) Games tend to create their own "culture" around the game, and I do not want the culture of "tiers", "endgame", and "progression" to become the norm for Elite, because in the long term, those cultures always end up creating a "grind" mindset and fostering a community of elitist snobs. It also would work to kill the "play your way" mindset that makes this game awesome.

and

2) New players often use forums as a way to learn the game from the more veteran players, and I think as a community it's a disservice to newer players to make them think that they need to "progress" from their current ship to a more expensive one, so they can then "progress" to the next one, etc etc. That's not the game. The game is nearly whatever they choose to make of it.

Getting into, say, a Cobra Mk III, and loving it and staying in one even though you have hundreds of millions of credits, is just as valid a gameplay choice as building a fully A-rated Battleconda, and having a Tradeconda and Exploraconda waiting in dock.

 

[Elyssaen]

And I think it's totally legit to have that opinion. That ships works for you, and that's awesome. Where I take issue is when people say things like "Anything below my 'tier 3/2.5' is probably going to be redundant in the lategame, except for nostalgia and perhaps smuggling / trading rares.", which to me indicates totally the wrong mindset.

Well firstly, hi. When I said it was probably going to be redundant, I wasn't saying that was great. Like I said, there's a necessary balancing act between the 'level playing field' state of mind and the 'progressing to more expensive ships' state of mind, which are both valid. It seems pretty damn tricky in this game to keep the earliest ships feeling just as good when you want to give players about four steps of "Oh my god, new shiny expensive ship!" since them. I've only seen this kind of gameplay done perfectly in Bastion, which was a completely different game. It achieved it by having the new weapons you unlocked be perfectly suited to deal with the mission you unlock them in, so you could feel you were unlocking something new and powerful while all the while staying balanced.

Smuggling, better handling and more affordable insurance claims are the best tools FD have to make players want to play the less expensive ships even when they can afford others. Those are powerful incentives, used correctly, and that's great.

I want to go slowly and try to be really clear here. I talked about tiers to express a completely real separation in ship cost, amounting to the fact that different players with different net worths have different sets of options. From a development perspective, thinking in these terms is extremely relevant when thinking about what new ships might be worth adding. The existence of the Fer-de-Lance, the combat Python, the Federal Assault Ship, as alternative combat ships means nothing to a player with about 10M in assets. Looking at it from that perspective, looking at what ships he can fly, you can see quite clearly a gap for a Vulture competitor to give the player more choice.

That's what I said, and you came in and told me I was acting like this is World of Warcraft. Please, re-read, and tell me if you really still believe that's even remotely what I'm talking about?

To respond to the numbered items:

1. I don't think a "grind" mindset in the gamers' culture is the only kind that creates an 'elitist snob' atmosphere. I think you could find just the same thing in the exact opposite culture, one that jumps at the merest suggestion that more expensive ships have generally higher capabilities (a straight-up fact) and that at different times in the game you can afford different things.

2. New players are not going to join this forum, see this thread and suddenly discover the concept of earning money to afford more expensive ships that they can't fly yet. They're already well aware of that, and in fact that game is designed to foster that already. Different ships are different content, and I haven't picked up a game that's mechanically required as many hours as E: D to access even a third of its content since Skyrim. And if you want to say different ships aren't different content, and you can do anything in a Sidewinder: also untrue, practically speaking.

Can we be clear here? If you're trying, as per your last sentence, to make the case that flying a Cobra is a valid gameplay choice… then you're making that case into a vacuum. No-one here's disagreeing with you whatsoever.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

If you are indeed talking purely about price points for organizational purposes, then yes, we have no major disagreement. Comments like "anything below this arbitrarily defined point are redundant in lategame" do somewhat obfuscate that point, however, hence my evident misunderstanding, and why I specifically took issue with that comment.

If your point was only that there should ideally be a large number of ships across all price points, then yes, I agree.

In all honesty though, it seems like we're both misunderstanding and being a little snotty to the other, so I'm comfortable to apologize for my part in the misunderstanding, try to not extend a pointless argument with clarifications of my intent, and leave you to go on your way.