Still as Inconvenient as Possible to Play

[Noobilite]

Being a graphic designer I know all about that. It also depends on what definition of design you mean (there are many). I can look at a designed leaflet and think it is poorly by my own knowledge, when others love it.

Exactly. That is literally the same thing. Definition is the literally definition of that in logic. You have to gather info to apply to something else. Etc etc etc. That is why we like gather info naturally. It's the same thing as forethought/wisdom. We learn enough we can apply it further to other things. That is why sometimes it's good to learn one subject completely. Other times we need to learn others to gather more perspective/context.

It's because the brain is a machine and can only work with positive info like a computer. We can't use nothing to produce something. Unless there is a mathematical process to produce that of course. There may be to some extent in some circumstances. I think that is how raids recompile missing data. But I don't think it counts in the truest sense.. Although I think it's working from an actual bit being copies. Not some form of logical inference... So, my point may not be that good. The only way that could happen is the equivalent of an equation. Which means you need most or all info to deduce the answer...

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Either way, I think arguing about whether you're arguing and arguing about whether game design quality is subjective are both rated quite highly on the pointless things to argue about list

No it's not.

 

[lokvette]

Assuming one game a day, thats a different unique game every day for the last 5.48 years. WOW.

No, really. WOW.

Have you spent as much time offering your expertise to all those other games as well? You must be a very busy man!

Not knowing how old Jex is but for me whos is touching 50 in a few years i've been gaming since I was 7.

Arcades then had spectrum when they came out, used to play on my mates dragon 32, the early nintendo and sega machines, killed my Amiga playing Elite Frontiers 2, then the PS1 up to the PS2 and been playing PC games from the mid 90s so I must off played over 2000 games....

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Not knowing how old Jex is but for me whos is touching 50 in a few years i've been gaming since I was 7, Arcades then had spectrum when they came out, used to play on mu mate dragon 32 the early nintendo and sega machines, and been playing PC games from the mid 90s so I must off played over 2000 games....

I remember my ZX81 and my ZX spectrum 48K.

As to playing over 2000 games, for me, probably not. Probably somewhere between 200-300 games.

 

[Jex =TE=]

Are said his outburst was silly, which it was. I didn't say he was silly. But I wouldn't think calling someone silly as being insulting, as it is meant to imply a lack of judgement which it was. It was factual, not insulting. Now if I called him an idiot, then yes that is insulting, but I haven't done that.

Please try better next time.

So saying it was embarrassing, not trolling at all? Please try better next time - that needed to go on there did it?

 

[lokvette]

I remember my ZX81 and my ZX spectrum 48K.

As to playing over 2000 games, for me, probably not. Probably somewhere between 200-300 games.

On my machine as of now I have around 100 games across various formats (not all installed mind you)

Emm I might have a problem ......

 

[Jex =TE=]

Yeah, we agreed with that, but the others didn't think that was an issue, basically they didn't care. My biggest issue with that was that most mission requirements/restrictions would become meaningless. Ship choice would have no consequence.

It doesn't matter if people care or not. They were objectively wrong and we can prove that we were correct therefore, making it provably bad game design. So it isn't subjective like you initially said it was.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

It doesn't matter if people care or not. They were objectively wrong and we can prove that we were correct therefore, making it provably bad game design. So it isn't subjective like you initially said it was.

Except they would and still disagree. To them it doesn't matter about that stuff as they are not interested in it. They probably think that is all bad design too.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

So saying it was embarrassing, not trolling at all? Please try better next time - that needed to go on there did it?

LOL. I was baiting? I didn't think you would fall for it. Just a joke and try not to take me too seriously. Most of my posts are tongue in cheek. Most of the time I play devils advocate to try to get people to think more about what they write.

 

[Jex =TE=]

Not knowing how old Jex is but for me whos is touching 50 in a few years i've been gaming since I was 7.

Arcades then had spectrum when they came out, used to play on my mates dragon 32, the early nintendo and sega machines, killed my Amiga playing Elite Frontiers 2, then the PS1 up to the PS2 and been playing PC games from the mid 90s so I must off played over 2000 games....

LOL pretty much the same story! Had hundreds of games for my spectrum 48 and 128k. My cousins C64, my Amiga had more games than you can throw a stick at and then 2 decades of PC gaming. Played just about every flight sim that came out (maybe half of them actually, every month on Amiga Format there must have been 2 or 3 flight sims release LOL - where are they now!)

 

[Whitehair]

I'm older than 6 so what's your point? Oh, you don't have one.

My point is that you - as usual - are making overblown claims.

 

[Jex =TE=]

Except they would and still disagree. To them it doesn't matter about that stuff as they are not interested in it. They probably think that is all bad design too.

It doesn't matter if they disagree. They're on the wrong side of the argument in that case. When you can demonstrate facts and truth then who are these people fooling - themselves so they can have the game designed around them and screw everyone else? I don't powerplay but I wouldn't advocate something that I would like if it broke the game somewhere else.

Funnily enough, I don't think those people are even on the forums anymore. So now they've left the game, isn't it a good job they weren't listened too? They would have been long gone and we'd be left with a mess!

 

[GreyAreaUK]

LOL pretty much the same story! Had hundreds of games for my spectrum 48 and 128k. My cousins C64, my Amiga had more games than you can throw a stick at and then 2 decades of PC gaming. Played just about every flight sim that came out (maybe half of them actually, every month on Amiga Format there must have been 2 or 3 flight sims release LOL - where are they now!)

Tandy Model 1 (16k, 128x48 B&W graphics) -> BBC Micro -> Acorn Archimedes A310 -> Acorn Archimedes A5000 -> Mac LC475, more Macs, currently a bit of everything.

Still got a lot of it too...

Spoiler

 

[Noobilite]

The technical aspect of game design, at least for the majority of it, is natural dynamics.(anything you imagine that is from reality even in relationship to fiction is realistic created by those dynamics existing) those create infrastructures that make things for players and the game itself to work against. So making more in the game give more more ups and downs. Some of those things are convenience factors and simply make things easier. Although from a technical sense the convenience it being able to find information. One the side of adding more to that you then treat it as a placeholder and make it even more complex by making it more realistic. If the game advanced further hypothetically you could disrupt the signals in various forms of electronic warfare etc. But it's all about dynamics. Technically in game design more is better(this is becuase in many cases you are trying to make living/breathing worlds which is realism to as large a sense as you can get.). The only game where it's not are very mathematically driven(purposely simpler mathematics, assuming) like puzzles. I don't think a game designed around the premise of realistic space flight counts as that and naturally should have fairly realistic aspects to play out as well as possible. The elements won't fit together right and not be as good. As is I'm assuming this game doesn't have as many aspects as the originals or 80's -90's equivalent games yet. At least not on the overall scale of world design.

Am I typing bad or do forums auto correct badly without us knowing it?! >< I keep having to edit a lot. I must be tired or something.

Basically, they should add whatever the fiction dictates it should have. Unless they choose to change the storyline in one of any endless manor. They can always modify it later or if it's overly convenient add more depth to those parts to and other parts of the game to fix it if they do enough with it. It should ultimately work somewhat like in real life. And there are lots of downsides. Most of those are probably maintenance and technical issues with things like solar flares or other odd things. Or satellites failing or whatever. The game just doesn't have enough depth for those types of issues atm. And, BTW, it's always more interesting to fix things by adding. Most games today are ruined because they stop developing core issues and balance to what they have atm. This means, like an unfinished clay piece, it slumps to it's natural position and deforms loosing potential definition etc. Most games start with their original vision and start with factors as close to that as possible. When they decide not to go as far they start to let that slip and change the game as I just described. Fitting it to the now without thinking in a detailed enough manner what that really means in totality. This can then lead to the even easier and worse answer of removing things to fix this. This takes away even more structure to hold that clay up and it sinks further until it is unrecognisable and slumped and decays until it is thrown out like a bad clay pot.

That is another commonly noted thing. I don't think games are pushed to the limits of system ability like they used to be. I'm surprised they don't develop much more complicated models on separate servers and implement them as they become more feasible so they are way ahead of the curve. You could probably design stuff even if it can't run currently and then redesign it to current systems as needed as updated or game changes. Possibly making much more dynamic changes over time. Or is that not feasible atm. You could even develop them on small scale even if they can't run well. or maximize it in small scale and different things to get a grasp on it. You would just need to implement far enough ahead. And you might need small and large scale or just a really slow running piece of software... Something like a 100k computer for this task might not be a lot for an established company. Then game updates could be just rehashing data to ways a current computer and server could handle and then adding what can be added at the time. They could even get speciality hardware that gets rid of things like cross compatibility for design and much greater performance for the intended game for development purposes. Then you just need to know what you need for the maximized game or pay for better hardware later as time goes on.

 

[Darkfyre99]

I never understood the pin one blueprint thing. If you have that grade opened up, you should be able to see the requirements so you can effectively plan your engineering.

It is beyond me, too. I absolutely can't think of a reason why you can't access the info from everywhere. If unlocked, you basically have it anyway. But being only very limited available in-game forces you to save that info in some way, because you can't even be expected to remember hundreds of combinations of mats and data.

I think I read somewhere that the blueprints you have pinned makes it more likely for those materials to drop. Take that with a mountain of sodium chloride, though.

Still don't understand why we have to travel to the Engineer to pin it in the first place, let alone see what other blueprints need. I'm assuming that the Dev Team, when designing that interface, underestimated how willing some people are to grind away to min/max a stat.

I'm pretty sure that the way I approach engineering, visiting them once whenever I "unlock" a new module size, and engineering based on what I materials I have available, is how the envisioned how everyone would approach it. You'd think they'd know better by now.

 

[B1rdy]

I think I read somewhere that the blueprints you have pinned makes it more likely for those materials to drop. Take that with a mountain of sodium chloride, though.

Sandro stated something like that on this forum, but I think it was a suggestion.

You'd think they'd know better by now.

Had this exact same thought when Thargoids where solo'd, brought to a station or insta-killed.

Edit:

Please show me where?

I do. This is my personal point of view.

A lot of this stuff you can find out in your work lunch break. There is no need to look up stuff while playing in VR. I find a lot if these statements odd.

The mid sentence and especially the last sentence tries to invalidate the argument. It also triggered Rafe Zetter.

Well, I see no issues with that myself. Never had a problem with getting materials or data and with the update with us getting 100 per material, it will be even easier.

It tells you where to get the materials, I am unsure why people find that tough.

The number of threads on mats and data is evidence, that this mechanic is not working well. By only posting you haven't had those problems (and you do those posts often), while not responding to the potential issue, is kind of ignorant and not helpful. Imagine a user calling his admin saying her Outlook is freezing regularly and the admin responds he has no issues - that is not helpful.

OP states he can't find ships or modules, you respond: "I go to Jameson Memorial.". This is only a workaround and only working for Elite pilots. Again, you seem to dismiss the issue.

 

[Blackcompany]

No. If you don't mind spending 3 or more hours in a fruitless frustrating search, flying from station to station just to find that ship or module you were after; not required at all. If on the other hand you actually want to enjoy playing the game during the limited free time you set aside for yourself...

Could not agree more.

This really is the Crux of the issue for me. Hopping around in the vain hope of finding the ship or module I want, is not compelling Game play.

 

[Jex =TE=]

Could not agree more.

This really is the Crux of the issue for me. Hopping around in the vain hope of finding the ship or module I want, is not compelling Game play.

So do what a lot of us are doing and keeping up with what's going on, NOT playing whatever you want to call ED and waiting to see if Beyond cuts the mustard and gives us the depth we've been asking for 4 years.

 

[Blackcompany]

So do what a lot of us are doing and keeping up with what's going on, NOT playing whatever you want to call ED and waiting to see if Beyond cuts the mustard and gives us the depth we've been asking for 4 years.

That's what I have gone back to. Strictly hands off, pending actual results from Beyond.

Unfortunately, based on what I hear of Engineering"Improvement" it...doesn't look good.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I do. This is my personal point of view.The mid sentence and especially the last sentence tries to invalidate the argument. It also triggered Rafe Zetter.

I wasn't trying to invalidate anything. And was still not advocating poor game design. Rafe saw something that wasn't there as you are. It was a reply to someone who didn't like taking of their HMD to look stuff up which I sympathis with. I just stated you could easily look this stuff up before you start playing using a lunch break as an example.

The number of threads on mats and data is evidence, that this mechanic is not working well. By only posting you haven't had those problems (and you do those posts often), while not responding to the potential issue, is kind of ignorant and not helpful. Imagine a user calling his admin saying her Outlook is freezing regularly and the admin responds he has no issues - that is not helpful.

The fact that I find it easy to find materials, it even tells where to find them, planets give you a rundown of what is available on them is me not advocating poor game design. I hate the USS mechanic for instance, which you need to use to get certain materials. The USS mechanic is what needs enhancing or replaced with something better. But it still doesn't stop me from finding what I need as it literally tells you where to find them. You are seeing stuff which is just not there.

OP states he can't find ships or modules, you respond: "I go to Jameson Memorial.". This is only a workaround and only working for Elite pilots. Again, you seem to dismiss the issue.

No, that is no what I said, please stop lying. I was asked where I go to get my ships and I replied. As to the issue with ships I have said on a number of occasions having knowledge of ship stocks similar to what the new trading tools would be good. Is that not clear, as I do not know how else to write that down for you to understand.

As to what I would have done, I have already said: I would have flown to the place in a multirole ship and used that for combat while I have my dedicated combat ship transported over. If I have no dedicated combat ship, the multirole ship will sufice for combat. If I have gone over in a hauler, then that is my own stupid fault for using a ship that is not fit for purpose. It is called ship consequences, and would have had to make do with whatever was in the shipyard (I doubt there where no mulitrole ships at all) or gone to a neighboring system with the correct economy, tech level etc to get a ship that was more suitable.

But I have explained this a number of times already on this thread, but you seem to just ignore those to boost your own arguments. Nice one.