They say that there is no end game. Winning at Elite, is simple. Each time you log off, you have made a profit. That is it. The bottom line has increased.
Players have forgotten a fundamental concept, and that's why they're complaining about the difficulty.
- Thread starter Windscreen Smudge
- Start date
Again, as you may have misunderstood - Fun is subjective .. the people in the picture you showed might be having fun, but that to me doesn't look like a fun thing to do.
See the difference
Notice you glossed over the other part of my post : if you gave an explorer an invulnerable ship I know they would have fun exploring the wonders that is ED. (0 risk - still having fun)
Last edited:
Difference in degrees. Surely that isn't lost on you?
If I say I'm enjoying myself at a party what is that likely to mean, in the context of a party?
Probably that I'm just above the threshold of being bored out of my mind. Likely the chips and dip is pretty good and that's the saving grace of the event.
If I say I'm having fun what is that likely to mean in the context?
That I'm mingling, mixing, drinking and comfortable with who I'm around, having good conversation with good people and getting something more beneficial out of the experience than a few extra calories.
Come on now, stop focusing on semantics and get back to trying to prove the OP wrong. I haven't had one person try to prove that the Risk vs. Reward ratio was correct in 1.4/2.0.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Again, as you may have misunderstood - Fun is subjective .. the people in the picture you showed might be having fun, but that to me doesn't look like a fun thing to do.
See the difference
Notice you glossed over the other part of my post : if you gave an explorer an invulnerable ship I know they would have fun exploring the wonders that is ED. (0 risk - still having fun)
No I didn't gloss over it. You ignore the fact that I addressed it directly.
It's not up to FD to make the game fun for everyone. They can put the potential for fun in the game but whether the player experiences that or not is entirely up to them. It's a sandbox. If you aren't having fun what you're doing, do something else.
You don't have to get interdicted and attacked constantly. It's a choice.
I win an interdiction, I successfully evade an interdiction.. I win a PvP dogfight with another commander, I was successful in beating another commander. Same damn thing to me, I win or lose, am successful in the task or I failed.
I understand where you are coming from, ED is about long term survival, that doesn't change the fact that it involves performing tasks that involve winning and losing.
I have a nice amount of cash tucked away, successful in most of my fights. I'd say I'm winning and surviving quite nicely.
Last edited:
That's the point.
For some players the RvR "ratio" you're harping on about was correct for them ... now FD upped the anti they will find the game too hard whereas people like yourself claim (I guess) that it's just right.
Honestly, it's not rocket science. Most things in life are subjective which is part of the problem when talking about it as people can't accept others' point of view as being valid, even though it differs from their own.
EDIT:
And there can't be any "proof" as the definition of RvR is subjective ... Most people in 1.4/2.0 claimed the NPCs were too easy but for me they were tricky. Subjective.
Last edited:
Misinterpreting the definition of the word "theory" does not allow you to dismiss it. It just shows people you don't know what you're talking about.
Game theory is used for calculating risk assessment in investment markets around the world. It's not just a rough guideline, it's a hard science.
If what I'm saying is nonsense, show me in game mechanics where ED doesn't create a Risk Vs. Reward situation for the player to gauge.
Noncombat oriented players already have room in the game, there is no reason to change the game.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I didn't say it was just right. As a matter of fact I said quite unmistakably in the OP that it was screwed up.
You did read the OP didn't you?
That isn't the complete picture though.
FDs role is to make a game that is fun for as many people as possible to ensure ED's survial long term as a commercail product. (Whilst they claim this is "the game they want" they aren't doing this for charity
)As such they need to balance the game to appeal to the most number of people - During 2.1 there was a bug that meant some NPCs would insta kill you. Some claimed the AI was now "perfect" whilst others claimed it was not.
Go figure!
You know there is a difference between Bugged, A reasonable challenge, and unchallenging ,right?
The argument here is that once the bugs are fixed a reasonable level of risk and reward should be the level aimed for.
You seems to try to paint it as there is only two options Bugged to be impossible and unchallenging, and anyone suggesting it should be more than unchallenging is wanting bugged and impossible.
And a reasonable challenge isn't only about what you can and cannot kill in an Annaconda.
It is about setting up cost benefit choices for the player.
Risk and reward, opportunity cost and choice.
Back in the pre-release beta Ships used to have different distinct running costs.
The Lakon Series were relatively dirt cheap to run, maintain and repair, giving them a distinct advantage in that area, over the more High performance ships.
but that was squashed so hard there was a point that retail Fuel costs for any ship were less than the galactic average on the wholesale market.
When is really sad as it is such a small thing but takes you out of the game, when you know it was player push back that got us there.
That lead to threads why fly a type 7 when the Clipper is so much better for such a little more, because the Lakon Type 7's strength was it had a tiny running cost to the Gutamaya Clipper.
There as been a constant push by the player base, and still is, to remove the need to make choices and just have one flat option, the one option for their profession that gives the most CR/HR and anything that adds choice and nuance is crushed by the constant push for "just give us one option that is the best"
People don't seem to want to have to make choices that have consequence
Every ship needs to have less costs, more jump range, more internals so every possible option can be installed, bigger PD to shoot and boost more, you should be able to buy level 5 engineering mods, so you never have to change the one activity you always do over and over and again and call it a grind but refuse to use any game mechanic that thries to change your route, and still demand it all be achievable with your grind.
A Challenge isn't about if a NPC is good in combat or not
A Challenge is if the game makes you break out of your patterns, try new things, make mistakes, learn, get better, not this isn't get good, it is get better, at what ever it is that you're doing, learning how to use the gal map to see import and exports and system states to find a way to bring in medicine after an outbreak on your own rather than just using an online tool to "find best trade profit in 20 light years of start point" and have some data base do it for you.
You could remove combat all together and still have a changing game.
But the sad thing is people don't see to want a challenge, they don't want a risk to earn reward, even if the risk is, oh this trade route did not turn out to be the most profitable option after all.
People seem to want a nice comfortable simple single option, the one option they know has been shown as the best, so they don't need to think about it.
No real choice, no opportunity cost, no consequences on the choice, just what ever filled the desired "progress bucket" the fastest.
And Hey don't knock the Sidewinder
Last edited:
Yep, and I accepted that evidence. I have seen no such evidence for these alleged "interdiction by elite pilots" incidents. Post video evidence here, or else don't expect me to accept it as a real thing.
Do you read your own posts as this:
is saying that for a long time the game has been too easy (subjective) and now that the Risk has changed this is a good thing (reason - emphasis)
All that post, and your subsequent ones, are opinions - not facts.
No.
No no no this is not how you make a game commercially successful in the long term. This is how you burn out early and get your development cycle cut short.
People buy the game, they get their quick sense of satisfaction and they leave. ED's player retention is horrific and getting worse. People aren't sticking around. Just look at the forums, most of us who've been here have been here over a year, meanwhile 10 times our number have come and gone, each staying a couple weeks or months. If nothing else, even if you don't take the numerous statistics available as credible, just looking at what happens here should tell you everything.
Every game that has tried to cater to everyone has failed in the end. Doesn't matter whether it's WoW or Call of Duty or Civilization, you cater to everyone you satisfy no one. WoW went from being the definitive MMO experience to being just more of the same because that's what was selling copies, and now they're at less than half their subscriber base, which started to decline when they started to change the game dramatically to satisfy this ephemeral "everyone" that doesn't really exist. Call of Duty sells less copies every year, they've just been bulldozing through on sheer marketing hype which also every year is met with more and more outrage by the intangible "everyone". Civ:BE was an attempt to draw in a larger crowd by simplifying things about a strategy game that many people often find awkward or confusing. Go look on Steam at how many people are playing Beyond Earth compared to Civ V.
Countless examples going back to the 80's showing that if you try to cater to everyone, you don't do much except get under their skin.
On the other hand, a good game is a good game. It becomes timeless and can be appreciated by anyone and enjoyed at any time. Games like Chrono Trigger, Super Smash Brothers, Sim City 4, etc.... have withstood the test of time and continue to be played by a large number of people 10, 15 and 20 years after their respective shelf lives. They don't get stale because they're good games that can be appreciated by anyone who finds that type of game fun. They're not games for everyone, far from it, but for the people who enjoy them they will never be bad games.
Elite: Dangerous can easily be a bad game if the wrong decisions are made. The most common wrong decision that gets made during ongoing development cycles such as this is catering to everyone.
Just make a good game, and your game will last forever.
Last edited:
Science calls them theories because it's understood that the ideas that form them are subject to constant review. Hard science is always behind accepted theories but, constant testing and adjustments are required to meet reality.
That game theory can, and is used outside of game design doesn't mean that the source you cited, or the interpretation you ascribe are good.
FD doesn't limit it's game design and features to the risk v reward calculation. The artwork and visual design are a strong attraction for many players, yourself included.
There may be cause to undo a change to the game. If enough players, customers, are dissatisfied with their gaming experiences FD should, and does, take notice. I suggest a middle ground, something other than 'take it, or leave it'.
By making all choices equally meaningless.
Those people were differentiating between the AI and the bug.That isn't the complete picture though.
FDs role is to make a game that is fun for as many people as possible to ensure ED's survial long term as a commercail product. (Whilst they claim this is "the game they want" they aren't doing this for charity
As such they need to balance the game to appeal to the most number of people - During 2.1 there was a bug that meant some NPCs would insta kill you. Some claimed the AI was now "perfect" whilst others claimed it was not.
Go figure!
The thing is just appealing to "as many people as possible" doesn't make a game great - are One Direction really a great band? There's a balance to be struck and getting that right will upset some people because it's going to end up too easy for some or too hard for others but the group it is aimed at will LOVE it and that will sell more than everyone being 'yeah it's ok i guess'.
Some of these requests cannot exist alongside each other - the invulnerable explorer's ship might appeal to some but it would utterly break any alien threat story or dynamic that develops and just make things laughable if some god-ship was floating around mid battles 'sight seeing' - the galaxy has to all work together. How would everyone else feel if someone ends up piping up "hey guys, been out here 6 months in my invulnerable explorer's special, just saying hi from thargoid home world - i've kinda done all that now without any challenge sorry" - it can't work.
The ways some have suggested of selecting the difficulty of what you encounter already exist - high-sec space and no haz-res or cz's and life is peaceful and quiet. By Low sec it's fairly lively - but catering for those who don't want to have to worry about that kind of thing just totally breaks that system too - how can the game work if the majority are trading around an area of anarchy and those on easy just glide right through? The problem is the sight-seers and those who don't want to worry about that stuff Don't Want To Worry About That Stuff - so..... they're here. Trying, unfortunately and not maliciously, to break the game.
There's a price to this galaxy... and it breaks it if people won't pay it even at it's minimum levels so we're all actually playing the same game.
There is however no harm whatsoever to people putting together a suggestion to FDev that they provide a potted offline 'static' galaxy that people can explore to their heart's content, if there really is that much interest and it's that big an issue then it'll get made - they pretty much have it in the bag.
*prepares popcorn*
When game theory stops being a cornerstone of the world economy that allows you to work at a paying job, buy food from the supermarket and put gas in your car, I'll be convinced that I should be a bit leery about the fact that it is merely a "theory". The only thing that keeps it from being accepted as a mathematical truth is the foil that it relies on human psychology to remain 100% predictable, and as long as there are people such as yourself who will argue that gravity is an illusion there is always the probability of game theory coming across someone that isn't 100% predictable.
The artwork and visual design is just window dressing. I play text based games, mostly because they're fun. If I'm watching the sun set in ED it's probably because I'm not having much fun and just looking for a means of entertaining myself.
Compromise has never ended in anything but failure for game devs. There is a 40 year history of this ineffable truth being proven again and again in this industry. FDev don't need to provide another example.
Why do you have to reach for wild exaggeration and insults? Ineffable? You are not to be reached. My point stands. It doesn't have to be 'my way or the highway'.
For your information, science's view of what gravity is, has changed quite a bit since Newton, and even Einstein. Expecting the psychology of humans to stay firmly as it is is ridiculous on it's face. Even game theory goes through revision.
Last edited:
I'm sorry, is recorded history too intangible for you?
Tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs, careers, businesses, etc... By doing exactly as you suggest. Go tell them they were just the victims of random misfortune.