I gave up reading at this point. Dumbest idea I've heard in such a long time that I actually can't remember.
Been a few years now, and Elite still feels like an empty shell.
- Thread starter z33r0x
- Start date
- Status
I gave up reading at this point. Dumbest idea I've heard in such a long time that I actually can't remember.
Essentially the OP would rather be playing that OTHER space game where this is actually a thing with the Larger Capital Ships that can get stolen right out from under you while you're sleeping.
Or even your smaller personal ship if you get PvP'd and didn't leave your ship in a hangar somewhere "safe".
Indeed, the OP summary in fact.
OP, only two things I'd expand on.
Firstly your inference to wanting a player driven economy. Sure, would be good, but not with real money or any assets outside of the game.
Secondly, just wanted to mention your Universe section is spot on, in the context of FD not understanding open vs closed system theory. With the current approach, you'd be spot on. Splitting the generation of outcomes would be the answer and break the game design out of the downward spiral it's in. If they ever bring in the skills needed, the three modes remain a possibility of potentially changing the game industry. But not until then.
Other than those two, I think, would imagine, envisage, in my humble opinion etc etc, you've pretty much summed things up very well indeed.
Last edited:
What the game needs more than anything is people. NPCS in your ships milling about, people in the station towers etc. It would be a game changer for me.
I just can't understand why people, who clearly don't like the game, still play it maybe thousands of hours and keep coming back complaining on forums how bad it is, how bad the latest patch/update/whatever was and keep the door open saying "well, lets hope the next patch will fix the game".
I don't like EVERYTHING the game offers or decissions FDev has made. And I have big breaks in Elite, mostly because rl time constraints and other hobbies, but always come back and I really love the game as a whole, I like to try new stuff they have added, I like those guys waiting in the system and claiming they own it, I like "pretending" to be a spaceship pilot. If that makes you feel I'm sad, that's ok. But I'm having a blast, don't worry.
Just want to say: If you don't like the game now, you won't like it after the next big update. Please, play something else and stop torturing your selves.
I don't like EVERYTHING the game offers or decissions FDev has made. And I have big breaks in Elite, mostly because rl time constraints and other hobbies, but always come back and I really love the game as a whole, I like to try new stuff they have added, I like those guys waiting in the system and claiming they own it, I like "pretending" to be a spaceship pilot. If that makes you feel I'm sad, that's ok. But I'm having a blast, don't worry.
Just want to say: If you don't like the game now, you won't like it after the next big update. Please, play something else and stop torturing your selves.
Splitting the universe into more different modes is the worst thing to do. The player base is already too splintered due to the multiple game modes and lack of additional rewards for taking more risks by playing in open.
While a lot of game mechanics are being reworked and improved this year, you're talking about "downward spiral" game design. That's dishonest and insulting to the developers I think. They made mistakes, but seem keen to improve it. That's what the Beyond updates are for. Beyond doesn't fix everything (CQC, custom HUDs, Powerplay), but it improves a great many things.
Seconded, NPCs in stations and at planet starports would make a huge difference in making the galaxy feel alive.
Last edited:
I think we need to have a chat. I don't know anyone at FD personally, it's an opinion on assumptions that I class the Developers as the teams "doing the programming" and delivering the brief. The graphics team, the sound team, the stellar forge team and the like. I even think the Ship Designers are brilliant, even though they did the T10 and we should have 50 ships by now (which I'm sure we could have if those behind the brief wanted to). Those delivering the low level implementation of the brief. I believe the universe, sounds, looks and feels totally amazing.
I class the Design Team (ie the team designing the game), as the group behind the brief...BGS functionality, game processes, feature frameworks and high level thinking over how the game "runs". The boring closed system nonsense in other words. Also, those have decided 18 ships are enough.
It's not an insult, it's a comment on approach, and to attempt to label it as such is disingenuous and to be blunt, counter productive to the institution that is Elite. In that light, if you can pass on any information that highlights a flaw in my thinking or indeed roles and responsibilities at a departmental level that would enable a change of mind, feel free to pass it on. I have enquired to official sources, with no joy. Ergo, assumptions have to be made.
My opinion would be that we need to learn to separate "Development" and "Design" in the current approach.
Two completely different animals.
Evidently.
Last edited:
Has always been my opinion also.
I base it on my own approach to anything in life. It it sucks, and it isn't looking to get any better, and you have no power yourself to change it, then cut it loose and move on.
Life's too short.
Last edited:
I read the OP, and didn't respond until I saw someone else being flamed for disagreeing with the OP and labeled as a "defender". I actually agree with many points, although there are also a few I strongly and adversely disagree with.
So now the forums is only a place for people who have critical feedback? Really? I can't play and enjoy the game as well as come here to learn and teach? I can't be here to discuss the game with friends, because I enjoy the game? (please, re-read your statement here)
It's not the only reason the forums exist, however- and there will always be some who agree and disagree, but all views are equally privileged in the venue of expression, including disagreements and counters. I'm not upset in the slightest with the OP's post, and what I'm defending here is the right for everyone to be able to express, not just critique.
That said, it's truly a valid point that some echo the same game is doomed mantra for years even as it continues to stare them right in the face. The game does have issues... the game can use improvement, but repeating that it's doomed all the time because someone has a "cathartic critique moment" is insanity, sorry. For some who think FD is going to somehow tap ED with the magic fairy wand and turn it into EVE Online, is also insanity. The network codebase alone is the biggest reason- it will never be what they want, regardless of how long they want it, and FD isn't going to toss the baby out with the bathwater just because a few disgruntled players want it to be something different than it was designed to be.
Last edited:
It's getting to the point where I'm feeling if that flavour of critical feedback was taken more seriously, rather than whitewashed by banal programmed responses, we wouldn't be in the situation we are as customers.
As far as I'm concerned, with Open, FD have taken four years to achieve what CCP managed in 6 months after release. The cultural aspects of Open are literally ignored in favour of a misplaced confidence that you can herd humans with technological fixes. The White Knights and The Clique add leverage and support for the current approach, making them believe it's competitive.
In Solo, I'm still waiting for Elite 4 to feel like a game.
It is gorgeous though.
The biggest trick the sound department have missed on these forums is the constant background noise of mutual back slapping by the Fanboi's. Someone write a memo!
Last edited:
This comparison implies only negative feedback should be accepted as positive feedback is somehow "defacto" as always accepted. (it's not, it's equally even if masked with creative sarcasm just as disagreed with)
As far as the rest goes- I'm not "telling anyone how they should be spending their time", only suggesting perhaps it would be more wisely spent doing something other than being repetitive with (apparently) incorrect assertions that the game is doomed. If they want to continue, more power to them. Not really a constructive use of their time, but oh well- as you said "so what".
I don't "badger" anyone anymore than they "badger" me for speaking positively about things I like about the game. Calling people "toxic fanbois/fangurls" or "defenders" because they actually like and play the game but disagree with critique is equally offensive. I've also offered quite a bit of critique of my own over the years , too. I try to be as constructive as I can. IMO, telling the cook why you don't like the soup and how they could change the flavor is a bit more constructive than just telling them it tastes like it was drained through a cardboard filter.
I think everyone in general (discussion) could be a bit more "civil" in their approach not only with each other but also FD, but in the end it's really up to the individual, isn't it?
When you figure out the "why can't everyone just get along" bit, let me know. I've been working on it for years and still haven't solved the riddle.
Encouraging people not to "hit and run" with party line or shallow rhetoric, would be a good start I think.
Last edited:
The OP can be summed up in four words, the game isn't perfect. FYI we all know. But it is the best space game around, when a better ones turns up I will stop playing ED.
I agree- but that's also not always symmetric in practice. As I said, it's always up to the individual.
By its nature it will never be symmetrical, until there is a popular outcome that proves consensus. It's up to leadership, not the individual.
The identity politics of "which gang you're in" are redundant, especially when none of those gangs actually have oversight on any practical effect to the Design Process. Are we seeing the pattern? Until an acceptable outcome is provided which presents (for example) all three Aristotelian modes of persuasion, does not subscribe to the absence of them, or to the "Equality of Outcomes" nonsense we've been getting as an excuse for "Balancing the Game"...
...we'll keep going around inside circles.
Last edited:
True- but then again, leadership isn't always implied nor imparted.
I make my own choices as an individual- if others choose to follow, then they are free to do so. Likewise, if I choose to follow others.
I can't speak for *everyone* but I know personally I try to be the "better" person but I don't allow people to treat me as a doormat, either.
It is if you're a software company. We both are simply passengers in this process, as are the rest of the forum. While I agree with your "quote", practicably it seems high-level leadership is somewhat absent in this case.
I make my own choices as an individual- if others choose to follow, then they are free to do so. Likewise, if I choose to follow others.
Quite right. I tend to bribe everyone with biscuits and a nice vintage.
Not in your house (or mine).
Red or white? Rose is for doubters.
Last edited:
But he put more thought, and more words into his points than your emergency defense post it seems
Probably because OP's post is the same complaint over and over again. It's obvious that many don't get this game and they require a more structured "I don't have to think, I just shoot stuff" type game. Yet they want to come here and complain about ED. Like Dommarraa, I'm tired of lazy people complaining this game isn't space GTA
- Status