What the hell is a"fact for you"... Is that like gravity?
Risk vs reward IS the foundation of everything man does, be it work out play if you don't understand that then you have to learn some more "facts for you"
Players have forgotten a fundamental concept, and that's why they're complaining about the difficulty.
- Thread starter Windscreen Smudge
- Start date
What the hell is a"fact for you"... Is that like gravity?
Risk vs reward IS the foundation of everything man does, be it work out play if you don't understand that then you have to learn some more "facts for you"
See we can agree on something: I also think that the I-pod, looks good in Friday Black.
You've already been given all you need in the Prisoner's Dilemma, it's a fundamental building block of any video game. Don't blame me if you can't apply it to ED.
Running through the mail slot at 350ms in my Clipper: Wanted and carrying a hold full of illegal goods.
For the sight seers there is Space Engine. Not to be rude about it but a game is a game and it's meant to be played. It's defined as a game specifically because you can either lose or win. If there are no win/lose states, it's not a game. If you don't want the possibility of losing in your game then it's not a matter of whether or not it's the right game for you, don't assume that's what I'm saying.
The question you would ask in that position is "Why are you playing games at all?" because a game simply cannot be a game by the definition of not having a risk of defeat. It simply does not meet the minimum requirements of what a game is.
Now you've reminded me how much fun I had with that game. Might be time to fire it back up.
What is "fun" is subjective - your picture to me does not look like it would be.
Risk v Reward is 1 tool a developer can use (sometimes badly) to increase the enjoyment of a game but its not the be all and end all. I like Soduko - no risk in that but its fun to play all the same
Last edited:
There you go.
Now why were you flying at 350m/s through the mail slot?
Because the AI was good enough that if you didn't, you would've been caught and lost everything. You were playing a "game" and thus had the opportunity to have fun. You risked your payload and you were rewarded with a great experience.
Now, smuggling at high speed isn't for everyone just like combat isn't for everyone, but there are plenty of other ways to have fun in the game. Taking all of the opportunity for fun out of the game is counter-productive.
Taking all of the risk out of the game is the equivalent of taking all of the fun out of it.
How do I win in Elite? I mean, we can all agree there are plenty of ways to lose in this game. But what is winning?
And no, "Not Losing" isn't a proper answer.
What is "fun" is subjective - your picture to me does not look like it would be.
Risk v Reward is 1 tool a developer can use (sometimes badly) to increase the enjoyment of a game but its not the be all and end all. I like Soduko - no risk in that but its fun to play all the same
Enjoyment and fun are also different.
And make no mistake I can't stand amusement park rides. I puke everywhere. However I can't deny that everyone in that picture has a big honking smile on their face. Can you?
I suspect that if FD were to introduce an invulnerable ship many exploreres would jump at the chance. They simply want to enjoy and appreciate ED without the risk as for them exploration is fun. (whereas dying and being forced back to the bubble is not)
Risk is not required for people to have fun - its just a tool devs can use to enhance enjoyment for those who like RvR style play.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Irrelevant.
He's obviously not referring to the game as a whole, like it's some sort of single player campaign with a definitive end, but to the individual components within the game.
Actually it is. So long as there isn't a third state of "Nerp" or whatever you want to call it, any time you don't get penalized in ED you win. You keep your insurance payment, your cargo, and your objectives, all of which you stood to lose, and if the possible lose state was an interdiction or something similar you were given the opportunity for an exciting experience.
Some players don't like interdictions. If that's not your definition of fun then stop going out of your way to attract them.
I don't mine. It's not fun. I can't stand mining. As a result, one thing that I don't do in ED is go mining, and I certainly don't come onto the forums and write an "I quit" thread because mining is driving me out of the game since I don't enjoy it.
Whilst I am not an English major:
http://the-difference-between.com/enjoyment/fun
To me they are the same thing <shrug>
"
[h=2]As nouns the difference between enjoyment and fun[/h] is that enjoyment is (uncountable) the condition of enjoying anything while fun is amusement, enjoyment or pleasure."
Last edited:
It is relevant.
All of those faces on the ride that're smiling? They chose to ride. They chose to do what they specifically find fun.
If you don't like getting interdicted it's your responsibility to take the appropriate steps to reduce the likelihood. Frontier gives you that option.
If you don't like combat you can just stay out of combat. Still a 100% legitimate option.
How is that not an answer? I either succeed in a task or I fail, be it surviving an attack, getting exploration data home successfully, completing a mission contract, evading an interdiction. We are constantly dealing with win/lose states in this game, constant mini games. Only difference between this and many other games is we don't have a final boss level followed by the game ending.
Last edited:
Again, you have a very, sorry, imply, a very singular definition of 'fun'.
I go through the slot at 350, because I can. I don't have to, 200ms+, is enough, the extra 150ms, is me pushing the envelop. Not because I have too.
Your risk v reward parameters , state that I MUST, fly my ship at top spec. I have to have my ship set-up to top spec, for every eventuality; because any NPC that attacks me, will be at top spec and will kill me, in anything less. That is no longer a game; that, is a task.
It's not an answer because survival is not the same as success.
Game theory is there to help make sense of what the public would enjoy, not dictate the difference between entertainment and fun. You display a vital disconnect between what is theory and what is fact.
There is no reason to segregate what games are good for what, let alone assume what you say is true. You fundamentally are saying: My view of the issue is correct, everyone else has to agree. Nonsense on it's face.
If you don't mean to be rude, simply don't be rude.
There is no reason we can't make room for the noncombat oriented players. A great deal of the games design is based on being attractive to a broad spectrum of players. I just suggest the approach taken with the AI follow the same ideal.
Last edited: