Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
You'll be delighted to hear that Private Groups are in development for XBox One:
Should Elite Dangerous add clans/player factions in the future
- Thread starter dementia
- Start date
You'll be delighted to hear that Private Groups are in development for XBox One:
Rebuttal:
Do you think they will really get this:
[video=youtube_share;eYNCCu0y-Is]https://youtu.be/eYNCCu0y-Is[/video]
Or this?
[video=youtube_share;WuTfJHnz5kU]https://youtu.be/WuTfJHnz5kU[/video]
Or this?
[video=youtube_share;coWNNOslxlM]https://youtu.be/coWNNOslxlM[/video]
OR THIS?!
[video=youtube_share;QpvM9uwOcUc]https://youtu.be/QpvM9uwOcUc[/video]
Ok, that last one is pretty close, but they left out all the boring running around you do.
Last edited:
Complaining about the shifting definition of MMO, and the advertising is ridiculous. If you are sold based on your personal views of what MMO means, without seeing what you are getting, you have to take the blame for that. It's the same with the advertising. The ads are there to attract attention. There is ample information, right where you are lead to buy the game, explaining what E: D will be and do. Steam also lists E: D as multiple types. How should a person take that?
Somewhere the phrase 'the customer is always right' has put blinders on people. A little more 'caveat emptor' is in order. Trying to twist sales tactics into promises is pointless. In the end, Cults/Clans/Minor Factions are going to evolve here in E: D, as it does let's keep in mind; The best compromises leave both sides unhappy.
Somewhere the phrase 'the customer is always right' has put blinders on people. A little more 'caveat emptor' is in order. Trying to twist sales tactics into promises is pointless. In the end, Cults/Clans/Minor Factions are going to evolve here in E: D, as it does let's keep in mind; The best compromises leave both sides unhappy.
It's a fantastic movie, love it...but I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me, sorry.
It's a fantastic movie, love it...but I'm not sure what you're trying to tell me, sorry.
Willful ignorance much? What he is trying to point out is that trying to conflate advertising with promises is daunting at best. That all producers take the liberty to describe their wares with some license. It is ludicrous to base purchasing decision purely on Advertising. When you sell hamburgers, the only thing that has to be real is the product. Even so, does your "Baconator" ever look like the one you saw on TV? Weak argument is just, weak.
Last edited:
Yep. The Burger never looks like the one on the boards.
Except this:
[video=youtube_share;QpvM9uwOcUc]https://youtu.be/QpvM9uwOcUc[/video]
Because that is pretty close, but they do cut out all the running you have to do to get there.
Also, 5 Guys. They don't show pictures of the burgers.
Ah, it was edited. I was responding to a clip from "Falling Down" that the CMDR posted, and I wasn't sure what the message was supposed to be about.
Except that conflict is what they want driving the game...so sounds like their design is actually working as intended!
I realized that clip MIGHT be against the TOS, so I removed it
Depending on the benefits, and provided you need a clan to realistically do it, I support this idea as well. If the benefits are great then I'd still support it, but only if solo/small group players could get in on the action somehow.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
"... suspending insurance in those areas to facilitate conflict."
Alright that's a decent risk and should come with a reward. I think its a little too easy to high-wake right now, but that's still a good idea. The only problem is, and this is speculation on my part, people will just use pretty cheap ships so there is still no risk. Now if death imposed a 12-24 hour lockout it would really make things exciting.
I was thinking about a ticket system, where the battle is over when one side suffers enough losses and has zero tickets left.
I like the lockout timer idea also.
That works too. Either way it wont be an endless spawning war where people throw ships at one another and things rarely change hands.
I haven't asserted that you are complaining about the content you received. I'm discussing the definition of an MMO, and how convention can lead to preconception. I agree that it is lacking in certain tools for organising groups, but the game is still at an early stage, and hopefully some QoL changes are on the cards. I suspect it's not top of FD's agenda because there are lots of multi-player groups, some of them massive (
), that are making do without them. I too brought up these points pages back.I acknowledge that ED has PvE and PvP players together. I think that this is a good thing. The only way that ED doesn't fall into the conventional design trap, is that players who don't want to get shot at by other players have a choice, and can avoid PvP pretty easily if they so choose. Or is conventional PvP predicated on being able to shoot at someone whether they want it or not?
Yep.. I meant Mobius. Auto-correct, both a blessing and a curse.
What do you mean by non-contextual? There is a context. Drop into an enemy factions system, and shoot up their system authority vessels. This will affect their factions influence. It might be a good idea for them to try to stop you if they can. They may want to retaliate. It's not the standard, kill or defend your base stuff, but there is certainly a context.
Instancing is a problem, but maybe less so in a private group. More of a reason to open a counter-Mobius group.
What attitude? I'm calling it as I see it. Most of the "negative reviews" that I've read are exactly that, entitled rants. The WAB Guy rant being a prime example.
Here's as close to a citation as there is available:
It is Massive. It is multiplayer. It is online. If people have a tendency to think that MMO means forcing players to play with you whether they want to or not, then that's on them. I'll forgive them their preconceptions, because the industry at large has conditioned them into thinking that it means something different.
Confirmation bias has little to no meaning? It has a very clear meaning, There's examples of it on this forum every day. The fact remains that wherever it's quantified, there are vastly more positive review than negative, and yet there's any number of players willing to cite Steam reviews as clear evidence that FD are "doing it wrong". They zero in on the evidence that supports their preconception and ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
You aren't in fact reminding me that psychology, philosophy and semantics are your strong suits. You are telling me for the first time.
I agree that it seems the "PvP players" want at least a few soft targets. Willing or not. But can you please stop interchanging "clanners" and "PvP by force". I want clans. I don't want to shoot any player who's not down for it. I play solo a lot.
The clan and mandatory open issues are completely separate to me.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
You know what it generally means when you dismiss an argument because it's "intellectualizing", right?
You pretty much just said, "I don't know how to argue with your point, but I'm right".
Riiiighhht.... gotcha.
Hey, I'm not on the "get into Open or get out of my game" camp, I know a few that have this attitude and some even are my friends, but I think respecting gameplay choice is something admirable and noble, just that the consequence with it is fine-tuning the game design so both party are relatively happy.
But the MMO tag itself doesn't explain all this, which is what makes people freak out on the forum.
There are certain PvP player groups that go around just to have fights, the only thing they look for is fighting. Sure, some interpret it to be a certain RP, but I consider engagements like that non-contextual.
The problem is instancing is still a problem even in private group.
The problem is that if you actually read the reviews (I know, I'm insane, that's why I went through most of these reviews when I was bored, no kidding), is that the positive reviews rarely mention the game for being a successful MMO, but praise it for other things that loosely or are not connected to the said tag, while the negative reviews have a commonality in its criticism in the use of the MMO tag for advertisement.
Again, not me, and I think those that strictly want to force other players into a playstyle have already left the game/got their refunds, or as we can see are flipping out on the forum. The people looking for meaningful MMO features that bring people together and help them congregate on the other hand...
The issue with confirmation bias is the same as appealing to the logical fallacy of fallacy fallacy (weird just saying that in my mind), anyone and everyone can use it to try and discredit a certain perspective, accurately or not. Statistics can be spun usually in either direction as long as there is no decisive case/lack of controversy. I would like to go into perception for that matter and reference George Berkeley, but that's probably going to bore you out of your mind.
Last edited:
Hmmm that is what happens in Sandbox MMOs dude, besides do you really think that a minor faction can control either with out the resistance of other factions whom are dedicated to either faction?
I don't understand why people assume things before they even happen, the large scale of this game is ineveitable just like the Multiplayer aspect of this game, at the end Frontier will adapt and change the game according to the Sandbox side of it..
I'm Irish, and a philosophy graduate from Berkeley's university (Trinity). As far as metaphysics goes though, my standpoint would be more in line with Roger Scruton:
"A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is ‘merely relative,’ is asking you not to believe him. So don’t."
Statistics can be spun in either direction, only if the objectives and terms aren't defined. In this case they are. The objective is to determine if there are more or fewer of those who play, who prefer the game as is, or would prefer a more conventional MMO. Those who believe that most of the reviews are negative are either verifiably wrong, or unable to back up their claim. Either way, the claim is unjustified and they've based their belief on the evidence that supports their claim, ignoring the evidence that doesn't.
I would expect the negative reviews to cite this game's lack of conventional mmo mechanics as the foundation of their criticism. Whenever you try to step away from convention, you are bound to ruffle a few feathers.
I believe that to effectively criticise something, you need to also suggest an alternative. FD have provided an alternative. The alternative suggested by the detractors is essentially "give us more of the same". Personally, I'm a little jaded with the conventional mmos. I'm delighted that there's an alternative here, because honestly, I was a hair's breadth from giving up gaming altogether before seeing what they were doing here. Linear stories don't do it for me. The adolescent epeen waving of a lot of the PvP-centric mmos is long past stale for me. I really like that you can go your own way here, and still play in a galaxy that is influenced by people. Lots of people. A massive amount of them. In an epic evolving story. Online. You get my point.
Ultimately, what I think it comes back to, is why there are players who want open only, territorial pvp gameplay. And to my mind, the only reason I can see, is that they want to compete with players, whether those players want to or not. They quite literally want to shoot at people who don't want to get shot at.
There is PvP in this game. There is a context. It can be as big or as small as you want (the context, not the number of players in an instance, obviously). I really do think that an alternative to Mobius would be a great idea. If there really is an appetite for it, it will soon be apparent. 17000 players, who want to play territorial PvP combat in a predefined section of the galaxy, could be a lot of fun. And what if they grow to be twice the size of Mobius? Would it lend weight to their suggestions? Sure, they'd have to do it through the BGS, but it would certainly be possible.
I accept that instancing is a problem. FD accept that it's a problem. But as the game develops, I'm sure it will become less so.
Edit - You comparison of confirmation bias with Argumentum ad Logicam (Fallacy Fallacy just sounds too weird), doesn't stand up without creating a paradox. The comparison could only be drawn if the confirmation bias arises from ignoring a minority of the facts. In which case, the issue never arises. For it to ever be called a confirmation bias, it must ignore the bulk of the evidence in favour of those that support the chosen position. In this instance it's mostly irrelevant anyway, as we are actually talking about which side of the argument has the most supporters, the negatve or positive reviewers. We can actually count them in places with a fairly hefty sample size. My original point was, that there are actually people who make the claim that most of the reviews are false. They must be simply ignoring the good reviews, because they are in fact heavily outnumbered.
Last edited:
GluttonyFang has expressed his interest in the Hedonistic philosophy, so he only writes what makes him feel good...
Yes, finally someone with the proper credentials, I know a few professors you might be friends with depending on your age, ooo I'm so happy!
I actually haven't done any reading on Scruton, but from a rough search on google, it seems like he deals with aesthetics, do correct me if I'm wrong, but I am very pleased to have another author to read about aesthetics. Though it seems like the quote you used run opposite to Ranciere/Whitman/Schiller, who also wrote on aesthetics to various extents, I am more than happy to read Scruton's take on the matter. If there's a book or any of his work you can recommend to me, I'd be more than happy to add it into my collection.
The issue with having an objective is that the terms defined to reach the objective, or rather the instruments have to be objective in their ideal sense, but as we both know, that is impossible to an absolute level. Meters and measurements need standardization, and reviews are one of the more difficult ones to deal with considering the amount of personal desire/expectation and the appeal of the game to different people and their respective sensibilities and senses. This cause people to advertise something in their own vision, people perceive the product and advertisement to be things within their vision, and thus having reactions to various aspects to the game. This inaccuracy in both perception and conception is what cause people to have their expectation shattered or met. When this gap grows large and in large quantities regarding a single aspect of a multi-facet, interactive matter such as a game when compared to others of the same class, I believe we should be questioning the advertisement. Sure, there will be people satisfied with the unconventional approach and the gap between their expectation and realization, but it seems to be the minority in the case for those seeking a MMO experience. As for the phenomonon you describe, people tend to do that do various degrees, only the most severe can be clearly distinguished to be a strong case of "confirmation bias." Then to evaluate that adds another layer of inaccuracy.
I suppose, however, I would simply argue that the redeeming factor for the gap in players' expectation of the game and the reality they deal with is close to none for those coming into this game due to the tag of MMO.
Well, then we have to go into a debate in the likes of whether social commentary demands an alternative image or that mere criticism remains valid.
And yes, I think I grasp what you're trying to convey. However, at the same time, despite that the development time hasn't been long enough to put a definitive nail in the coffin for the case on ED being a MMO or not, the current mechanics provided for social interaction is indeed lacking, let it be conventional interaction or not. I haven't read Scruton so I don't know if he mentions reconciliation. The most difficult subject I'm dealing with right now in ED is how to reconcile between all of the players it accumulated of various conflicting types and still make a community out of them. The greatest issue in Whitman's imitation and reconciliation are fundamentally conflicting traits within people, like religions that inherently deny one another for monotheistic claims of different deities. So to apply some sort of commonality that brings people together like Ranciere proposes might be one of the reasonable solution, but I'm not sure how to apply that pragmatically.
That would be unfortunate.
I feel that BGS is definitely lacking. And the players that want to play territorial control via PvP will have a hard time due to the galaxy being shared in all three modes, which is why I find your approach with a private mode for territorial control might not gain much traction. While I understand the financial/design reason behind keeping only one universe, it seems to be one of the most prominent issue that some of the PvPers are not content with in terms of territorial control. I also understand the flaw of instancing, but it's the idea that there is no chance of stopping some people from entering a certain space to influence a system that drives those players nuts.
I have been brainstorming for quite a while as to what can FD/playerbase do to make PvP more meaningful than organized events and random encounters. Like I said before, it's like trying to reconcile two monotheistic religions without eliminating either nor converting either to one another and they have to share the same church, quite a conundrum for me.
I pretty much explained this in one of the quotes I answered above so I'll sum up the reason:
Individually people weigh certain issues more than others, which obviously is the text-book definition of what causes the Confirmation Bias, even when we have an objective oriented argument, this perceived goal is different for all parties participating in the argument, regardless of who initiated the argument. Intentions/desires lead and reflect in action, then action can reflect the intention, all we can do is infer the intention from actions that we can perceive, this inference itself is often times not entirely accurate or can even run opposite of the actual. Thus Confirmation Bias more or less exist in all of us, claiming someone having confirmation bias is usually not meaningful unless the claim itself has an objective to put relative terms into relative contexts, then when we actually do that, we might as well be accused of having a confirmation bias, as well, since we are carrying out our act with the intention and desire of showing another person that they have a confirmation bias. Then both sides provide evidence proving otherwise, either successfully convincing one another of having confirmation bias, one convinces another of having more of a confirmation bias, or both remain unconvinced and believe both to have confirmation bias. The only productive result is when one convinces another, but it either results in confirmation bias or it started from confirmation bias. This neutral state is always left to be challenged, and if we are to say that truth lies in this neutral state or that continuous pursue of the truth through this cycle will lead us to the truth, then I must ponder what is the point of it to begin with.
Anyway, as for your point, I mentioned the reviews in the context of those writing in relevance to the MMO tag/MMO content, which you find little positive reviews that comment toward the MMO factors within the game while the negative reviews have quite a lot of focus on them, which is why I mentioned that positive reviews by themselves, without categorizing, are indeed larger in pure number, but when you separate those praising the MMO factor of the game and put them together with the negative reviews relevant to the MMO factor of the game, you'll realize why the "MMO crowd" is not very content with what they received. Like many mentioned here, ED was a kickstarter aimed at mostly offline players, then it suddenly changed its focus in an attempt to incorporate online players, then slapping a MMO tag onto it, and it is the MMO tag itself that I am challenging in its advertisement, nothing more and nothing less.
But seriously, recommend a few books to me by Scruton, I cannot forgive myself for not knowing a philosopher/theorist dealing with aesthetics.
Edit:
From the look of it, you seem like a fundamentalist, which area did you study more in? Moral? Psychological? Law? Science? Which field of philosophy did you like the most
?- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Lol that is true, I only write what makes me feel good.
And I am feeling good right now because I found a philosopher on the forum!
I don't need Coffee for another twelve hours at this rate
Last edited: