the negative community narrative and the confirmation bias effect.

[kofeyh]

I think issue is that ED is a journey game.

Sure; it's also a game that has a pretty flagrant disregard for time investment, and is also not shy about credits featuring strongly, either. I think there's a general desire to try and frame this as progression and a journey. Ostensibly, it's both.

A journey (of time and credits).

So what's solution here? I just enjoy ED for what it is, but I keep my play time at minimum. If I feel I want to put ED aside, I do that.

Solution? Recognise the realities, hopefully enjoy it anyway. I sure do. I know full well how frontier is pushing my buttons to keep me playing; but I play anyway. I guess this comes down to, really, whether one is prepared to understand and accept how the magic works, or elect to believe the magic and ignore the realities; it'll change how people perceive the outcome, but it's there, anyway.

The thing is, the game mostly works for those who want to shoot for that big ship up front, or stuff around for years having a great time in Cobra. That neither really understands the other's reasoning, leads to some fairly hilarious debates.

Frontier has managed to capture a bit of lightening in a bottle; that's always going to generate some competing ideas. Fly safe (or not, I don't judge) CMDR.

 

[Kvas]

Overwatch killed at least 2 games... Battleborn and Lawbreakers so yes it works like that. If the player base dwindles it gives less incentives for new players to join the game. Less players equals less cash shop sales.

I am not saying X4 will kill ED, but they definitely have to address the most important parts of the game to give it longevity, they've been avoiding issues like combat log for too long. Some drastic changes have to be made.

 

[Genus]

Overwatch killed at least 2 games... Battleborn and Lawbreakers so yes it works like that. If the player base dwindles it gives less incentives for new players to join the game. Less players equals less cash shop sales.

I am not saying X4 will kill ED, but they definitely have to address the most important parts of the game to give it longevity, they've been avoiding issues like combat log for too long. Some drastic changes have to be made.

Agreed. Good thing is, those changes have kind of been defined, at length, in many different ways over the last five years. Resources is all that's needed.

 

[M00ka]

To put it simply, if a large ship wasn't a relevant and strong driving goal in elite, why do so many shoot for it? I've streamed the game and interacted with a lot of people, and the universal take from that, is a large percentage of those people shoot for Anaconda. It happens far more than you'd think. This isn't something the game is ambivalent about. It funnels people into medium and large ships, via 'progression' (the same thing commanders swear by as being important).

It doesn't matter what I think, or want. That's pretty much irrelevant, actually. The game does funnel commanders into larger ships, and trying to claim it doesn't, just perpetuates the cycle.

Have you ever stopped to think why it it is that "too many new players set their sights on Anaconda, or worse..". A few people? Sure, coincidence. A bunch of people? Maybe. A lot of people? Hmm. A really big lot of people? Yeah look the developer is great, and I've no malice toward them, or commanders who elect to shoot for large ships, or not. It's all good. Folks are playing the game. That's enough for me.

But to continue to put forth the notion that the developer hasn't quite obviously stacked the deck here, and that there hasn't been thought put into player progress, really is missing the point; they have. It could have been any ship, really, that had the same distortive levels of value.

But if you want to have the community accept a stick, you still need a carrot. The community might perpetuate the value of the carrot. But it's still there in black and white, regardless of what the community says or thinks. And when you then look at module costs and other factors that are part of the game, it becomes pretty readily apparent what's going on.

We're all masters (and mistresses) of our own destiny, and can elect to a degree what we do; but don't for a moment suggest the developer doesn't have intent here and it's all just the forums. There's a very big part of the community that's never been here. Sometimes, the developer does things on purpose. Agree or not, doesn't really matter. It's there, regardless.

I don't particularly care either way, to be fair. But I do find it a little odd, that people still think this is entirely a manufactured thing, and not at least partly instigated by the developer. Because it's pretty evident, that it is.

I know we are never going to agree on this, but again, I personally think you are off the mark. Nowhere in any of the blurbs from FD does it state that the goal of the game was to own a big ship. Yes, there are big ships in the game, and naturally they are the most expensive, because, well they are big! And looking at the Cutter and Corvette, they are available only after doing a god awful amount of grind to get there. But there is nothing in the game that forces a player to aim for one of the big three, there are no missions that exclude all else unless you have one of the big 3.

As I said, the goal post have been set by the community, they (we?) are the ones spouting how a player 'needs' to have one of the big 3, or in act, all of the big 3, to be considered 'worthy'. Here is a an example of the mindset: I created a post a while ago asking for players comments on the FDS as a cargo ship, very specific in my wording and also added the rider that I don't have the funds, nor the inclination for a Python or anything bigger. Most gave very worthwhile advice on the pros and cons of the FDS except one idiot (and I am being polite in labelling his thus) who told me, post after infuriating post, that I had to buy a Python, or something bigger. No matter what I said, no matter how many times someone else pointed out that I didn't want one, he persisted in telling all and sundry that everyone has to have a big ship, and at bare minimum, a Python, otherwise they aren't playing the game properly. Now take some new player, seeing my post, and checking it out to see the comments about a ship he might want. What does he read - someone who professes to be good, professes to know everything (and this idiot sure as hell alluded to that fact), telling the community that unless you had a 'big ship' you weren't considered worthy.

In fact you just did exactly what I described, posted that every player has to aspire to owning a big ship, with no basis of fact apart from your own paradigm of the game (which of course you are fully entitled to have - just don't expect everyone to agree with you).

 

[kofeyh]

I know we are never going to agree on this, but again, I personally think you are off the mark.

No problems; I think perhaps you presume I beleive game forces people to large ships? This would be an inaccurate take. Game does encourage that outcome, though. You also seem to believe the forums penchant for saying "just get an anaconda?!" is the sole and entire reason, despite the forums or reddit not being the totality of the player base. Because it sure isn't; not even close.

It's the same thing that causes people to shoot for legendaries in other games, and re-run dungeons and raids eleventy-million times. The pursuit of loot and good times. Ostensibly large ships, and engineering, is the ED version of end-game 'loot'. You can't blame people for wanting to get in on that action, it's a natural part of progression.

Anaconda is a challenge; one of many. It's rather a good ship, though. So it's very much a player magnet. Again; I don't believe one can argue this isn't intentional. It's not people mistakenly shooting for larger ships because they don't want fun. Small ships are fun. They are also compromised compared to large and medium. This isn't accidental. None of this is accidental.

It's just how the developer has built the game. The reason a lot of people chase a particular class of ships, is simply reflective of how the mechanics work. Anaconda is very popular. Because of what it represents. It's still the way it is, because, frankly, Frontier couldn't change it even if they wanted to at this point; they have decided everything to follow will have rather stronger compromises, and honestly it serves the purpose it was designed to serve.

I feel we're just not going to see this the same way, though. That's okay. Been good to chat.

 

[B1rdy]

Anaconda is a challenge; one of many. It's rather a good ship, though. So it's very much a player magnet. Again; I don't believe one can argue this isn't intentional. It's not people mistakenly shooting for larger ships because they don't want fun. Small ships are fun. They are also compromised compared to large and medium. This isn't accidental. None of this is accidental.

The stats of the Anaconda support that claim, it just is better than most other ships across all activities in ED.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

No problems; I think perhaps you presume I beleive game forces people to large ships? This would be an inaccurate take. Game does encourage that outcome, though. You also seem to believe the forums penchant for saying "just get an anaconda?!" is the sole and entire reason, despite the forums or reddit not being the totality of the player base. Because it sure isn't; not even close.

It's the same thing that causes people to shoot for legendaries in other games, and re-run dungeons and raids eleventy-million times. The pursuit of loot and good times. Ostensibly large ships, and engineering, is the ED version of end-game 'loot'. You can't blame people for wanting to get in on that action, it's a natural part of progression.

Anaconda is a challenge; one of many. It's rather a good ship, though. So it's very much a player magnet. Again; I don't believe one can argue this isn't intentional. It's not people mistakenly shooting for larger ships because they don't want fun. Small ships are fun. They are also compromised compared to large and medium. This isn't accidental. None of this is accidental.

It's just how the developer has built the game. The reason a lot of people chase a particular class of ships, is simply reflective of how the mechanics work. Anaconda is very popular. Because of what it represents. It's still the way it is, because, frankly, Frontier couldn't change it even if they wanted to at this point; they have decided everything to follow will have rather stronger compromises, and honestly it serves the purpose it was designed to serve.

I feel we're just not going to see this the same way, though. That's okay. Been good to chat.

My theory is that people grind and drive for bigger ships because they see it as progression which they been pretty much programmed into thinking from games in the last 10 years or so. Someone mentioned a while ago that ED is one of the biggest progression games out there with loads of grind to gain that progression. I disagreed. For me the game is all about choice. As soon as you get to a Cobra, progression is out of the window. You don't need to go any further than that unless you are into PvP. But PvE wise, a cobra is pretty much good for everything.

Anything after that is all about personal choice. I have tried some of the big ships in beta and I really dislike them, so I don't fly them and have no wish to get them. I don't need them for anything so why should I bother. So what ships do I have, for exploration I have the DBX as I love it. Do I need it, nope, but I wanted it so I have it. For Combat I have the Vulture as I love the way it handles. Do I need it, again nope. And for Cargo/Missions I have my Keelback and Cobra Mk4. I also have a Python, but I don't use it much.

Maybe when/if NPC crew comes with good NPC crew management then I will get a big ship, as they could have a very different experience to the smaller ships. But as of right now, I prefer to experience the game world in the ships I have and have no need for the bigger ships.

The way I see it, end game is what you make it. For some it's getting one of the big three. For others it is something very different. For me endgame started when I first started up the game as I see the whole game as endgame content.

 

[M00ka]

My theory is that people grind and drive for bigger ships because they see it as progression which they been pretty much programmed into thinking from games in the last 10 years or so. Someone mentioned a while ago that ED is one of the biggest progression games out there with loads of grind to gain that progression. I disagreed. For me the game is all about choice. As soon as you get to a Cobra, progression is out of the window. You don't need to go any further than that unless you are into PvP. But PvE wise, a cobra is pretty much good for everything.

Anything after that is all about personal choice. I have tried some of the big ships in beta and I really dislike them, so I don't fly them and have no wish to get them. I don't need them for anything so why should I bother. So what ships do I have, for exploration I have the DBX as I love it. Do I need it, nope, but I wanted it so I have it. For Combat I have the Vulture as I love the way it handles. Do I need it, again nope. And for Cargo/Missions I have my Keelback and Cobra Mk4. I also have a Python, but I don't use it much.

Maybe when/if NPC crew comes with good NPC crew management then I will get a big ship, as they could have a very different experience to the smaller ships. But as of right now, I prefer to experience the game world in the ships I have and have no need for the bigger ships.

The way I see it, end game is what you make it. For some it's getting one of the big three. For others it is something very different. For me endgame started when I first started up the game as I see the whole game as endgame content.

Well said.

Funny, we nearly have the same fleet, except I use a FDS for cargo - had a Keelback and just didn't enjoy it, and for data missions I have a courier. Combat wise is normally my beloved Vulture although I do have a FdL when I just want mindless NPC farming. Like you, very impressed with the DBX, it has fast become my favourite ship, even finally started doing some exploring with it.

 

[ChiefRedCloud]

Yes, seriously. It's not just "concept art" at this point. They have been developing ship and ground fps modes and unifying it with space legs from the very start. That is why it's taken so long. I've been following SC development very closely for the past 1.5 years and the types of technical challenges they're solving are issues that other games don't even touch because they can get away with quick fixes or shortcuts instead. A good example here are the shortcuts used in most first-person shooters to distort the first-person and third-person perspectives rather than properly show an accurate head and hand position that properly reflects the in-game character models. Roberts is a bit of a perfectionist and doesn't want to release a feature until it does exactly what he wants it to. In this case he insisted on unifying the first and third-person perspectives in CryEngine so that everyone would see the same environment at all times regardless of perspective. No one has even tried to do that in an fps before because it takes too much effort and in most games the benefits are minimal. To do this properly however basically required re-writing the CryEngine fps engine to unify the first-person and third-person perspectives properly. Now that they've accomplished this it's at the point where you can actually read the HUD display reflecting off of the helmets. It isn't a gimmick or stand-in texture or a distorted perspective, you are literally seeing the information projecting onto the HUD of the other player that they are seeing on their own HUD display.

Here's an example:
https://i.imgur.com/9SvxEGT.jpg

This might seem like a trivial issue but it really isn't trivial at all from a technical perspective. It requires custom-building your own game engine to do that properly. It was an investment that was worth making given the need for the game to seamlessly integrate fps and ship cockpit perspectives at all times but it took a tremendous amount of time and effort to achieve. The issue here is that Roberts knew from the start that he didn't want to use any loading screens with any of the gameplay transitions. When a player is walking around or when they enter a vehicle or ship or when they take off and leave a planet or jump to FTL he wanted it to be a continuous uninterrupted gameplay experience. The core aspect of the gameplay was that everything would be experienced continuously from a first-person perspective regardless of what the character was doing. In order for it to all be seamless it was important to unify the perspective regardless of who was looking at an object and that's why it was necessary to design the game in this way from the start.



Some would argue that it's far from "full". The best we can really say about it is more in the category of "minimum viable product".

Do you own the game? Have you played it? Have you watched their events? Now in all fairness I bought the game and have been in it (as I do not believe the word PLAY is appropriate, yet). I like the concept of SC but, it has a long way to go before becoming a GAME.

And in all respect to OP and his thread, we should take this over to the SC thread. I'll look for you there.

Apologies to the OP & moderators.

Chief

 

[Sylveria]

To chime in regarding the "progression" thing-

It's much like RL, it is indeed a paradigm that some cannot possibly fathom that there are people out there who do not share "competitive" goals and are perfectly content with not making millions and enjoy life all the same, if not more.

The idea that the "big 3" is the "end game" and that everyone should be striving toward it is ridiculous at best. I've owned an Anaconda, and was not impressed. I still own a Python, I usually just use it for trading. I've owned a Clipper, and sold it, and bought it again, and sold it and bought it again- only because I'm not content with the ship being so large that it can't dock at medium outposts for trading and the Python can carry more with much less restriction. (hence the reason I still use the Python although I don't enjoy it as much) I usually just fly the DBX or AspX because I enjoy Exploration the most, but I do delve into combat with a Vulture at times, too. Owning one of the "big 3" doesn't mean squat, because in the end, you're still doing all the things afterward you were doing before you obtained them.

As some have previously mentioned in this and other threads, there is no "end game" or "goal" to meet, there's no "boss level" to beat to win it, you make the story as you wish it to be... it's all about the journey and not the destination. For those who feel there should be an "end goal", feel free to set one for yourselves, but bear in mind not everyone thinks/feels the same nor do they have to.

 

[Sylveria]

Do you own the game? Have you played it? Have you watched their events? Now in all fairness I bought the game and have been in it (as I do not believe the word PLAY is appropriate, yet). I like the concept of SC but, it has a long way to go before becoming a GAME.

And in all respect to OP and his thread, we should take this over to the SC thread. I'll look for you there.

Apologies to the OP & moderators.

Chief

I'd rep you again, Chief- but out of rep so here's some virtual rep ++1

I agree, I've also played (the Alpha, what's available) SC and it's a great concept but it's not anywhere near "release" in its current state, and find that people's frequent comparison is much more of an attempt to discredit ED as a fully playable game.

It's laughable to think that's possible. While some dream of playing SC- we'll be *actually* playing ED in the meantime!

 

[shadow133]

Based on what many already posted because I am late to work...

So with respect to the comparison of ED with SC I have only this observation: No VR support, no $$ from me.

And also Devari for president, I approve your messages! (not sure why this bold thing got stuck, but I cant remove it lol).

 

[jasonbarron]

To be fair, a significant proportion of Elite players choose to play in solo mode so the lack of multiplayer might not be as much of an issue as you might expect. I only play in Open myself so I probably wouldn't consider putting any significant amount of time a single-player space sim game but there are probably many players who would enjoy a single-player game especially if they are already playing Elite in single-player mode.

I have the LTP or whatever it's called now, and truly have loved Elite for 30 years. Defining game of my youth (along with Manic Miner) and will cross my space hoppers that it sees the other side of 2020 this time round and beyond.

But yeah, I'll be playing X4 to death.

Someone said the other day 51% of the ED player base never venture into open. That's over half of Frontiers customers.

The comments re: a significant portion of ED playing in solo or group which makes them potentially the target audience for X4 is actually a pretty good point. Personally I think that the X universe aims at a different enough experience that the two really won't be that comparable, but on the other hand, by the time X4 releases late in 2018 even more people will have finally become weary of Fdev pouring their resources into PC/Jurassic Park and ignoring ED that they'll be likely to defect. I'm just hoping that Egosoft learned their lesson from XRebirth.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

The comments re: a significant portion of ED playing in solo or group which makes them potentially the target audience for X4 is actually a pretty good point. Personally I think that the X universe aims at a different enough experience that the two really won't be that comparable, but on the other hand, by the time X4 releases late in 2018 even more people will have finally become weary of Fdev pouring their resources into PC/Jurassic Park and ignoring ED that they'll be likely to defect. I'm just hoping that Egosoft learned their lesson from XRebirth.

I agree with you that the X games are a very different beast to ED and are not really comparable. X games are more of a corporation management game set in space. Not my cup of tea. As to what happens at the end of 2018, I will wait and see myself but I doubt I will jump ship as I doubt there will be anything to jump to if I wanted to.

 

[jasonbarron]

I agree with you that the X games are a very different beast to ED and are not really comparable. X games are more of a corporation management game set in space. Not my cup of tea. As to what happens at the end of 2018, I will wait and see myself but I doubt I will jump ship as I doubt there will be anything to jump to if I wanted to.

Technically I've already "jumped ship" though I have to chuckle at putting it in such terms. Probably a more accurate description for me would be "played the game to death and currently taking a break." The challenge for Fdev (if they even care) will be to give me a reason to come back.

 

[Kvas]

I think some people do not understand what an end game is. ATM End game is to sealclub all new players. It's strangely unique that a game have such loyal community and FD should be thankful for that, but how long can they still retain them giving them more grind to do? From the perspective of a new player this is a ridiculous amount of time to become competitive.

 

[popuptoaster]

Thank you, that was an interesting read. One thing that surprised me was the kickstart value, the starting cost was only a fiver! Silly me, the way some of the 'ORIGINAL KICKSTARTER PLAYERS' (they always seem to shout that) act I thought they had to donate thousands, hence their sense of entitlement. And now I find it was less than a cup of coffee .....

I coughed up £200 for a game that I knew would have a retail value of about £35 for a year or so and then drop to almost nothing, I gave them money based on both written goals and promises and those made in the developer videos and the private design and development forum. The level I backed at gives me free DLC for the life of the game which was planned to be ten years, so even if they released one major update per year I'm still paying £20 each for them but it wasn't the monetary value that bothered me, I just wanted them to make a modern, updated version of the original game which is what they pitched at us.

I think that I have a RIGHT to get most of the stuff they promised us BEFORE they add in things they never mentioned, FD have let the backers down really badly even if they only put in a fiver almost ALL of their problems come from the multiplayer aspect of the game they could easily have built a single player game that worked and then added on the multiplayer aspect had they wanted to, their ambition has not been backed up by their ability IMO, game is OK when it could have been GREAT.

P.S. It also might interest you to know that back then i had to walk to work for a month on top of making other economies in order to dump that kind of money into a game, there was a passion amongst the backers that pushed us to give cash to the project, that is why people feel so crappy about it now, many player have loved Elite since the 1980s. It feels like a betrayal from one of gamings historic development heroes.

 

[babelfisch]

I coughed up £200 for a game that I knew would have a retail value of about £35 for a year or so and then drop to almost nothing, I gave them money based on both written goals and promises and those made in the developer videos and the private design and development forum. The level I backed at gives me free DLC for the life of the game which was planned to be ten years, so even if they released one major update per year I'm still paying £20 each for them but it wasn't the monetary value that bothered me, I just wanted them to make a modern, updated version of the original game which is what they pitched at us.

I think that I have a RIGHT to get most of the stuff they promised us BEFORE they add in things they never mentioned, FD have let the backers down really badly even if they only put in a fiver almost ALL of their problems come from the multiplayer aspect of the game they could easily have built a single player game that worked and then added on the multiplayer aspect had they wanted to, their ambition has not been backed up by their ability IMO, game is OK when it could have been GREAT.

They said that ED will be a multiplayer game during Kickstarter, so I am not sure if you are making a good point.

 

[iFred]

They said that ED will be a multiplayer game during Kickstarter, so I am not sure if you are making a good point.

Hey, Babel - sometimes you sound like an FD-employee. Repeating wrong facts doesnt make them right

 

[Genus]

expanded elsewhere