On average, are Elite Dangerous players conservative?

[Bob McBobblehead]

It seems to me lots of players are adverse to change. It happened with the engineers and it's happening again with Guardian technology. Just look at the reaction to the Guardian power plant.

If we get new Guardian FSD or FSD boosting device to increase jump range people will complain again. The same thing will happen if we get our own Guardian ship.

Some players don't like the idea of technological advancement because they believe it harms their gameplay style.

I am all for advancements and new things.

 

[Numenor1379]

Perhaps some are. It could also be because they are gamers who have seen what power creep does to games over long periods.

I personally dislike ever increasing stats as a means of progression. I much prefer horizontal expansion of game options.

 

[Cmdr Ultra]

Some appear to be Luddite's.
Others not so much.

 

[Wasp0]

Conservative ??...Pah! Monster Raving Loony Party for me mate! [wacko]

 

[Eriseley]

On an American scale, I am the liberalist liberal that ever liberaled.

 

[Ziljan]

I don't know if it boils down to politics, but some CMDRs are definitely allergic to change.

 

[Maka Gucci]

Conservative ??...Pah! Monster Raving Loony Party for me mate! [wacko]

This, or at the very least pretty far left of the Ovreton window.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I really don't think it's a question being conservative or progressive, because most players are surely favour of progress.

It's more a matter of differences of opinion in what constitutes good change.

 

[Valorin]

Change is good... if it isn't bad.

 

[Hessfire]

Who are you?
What do you want?
Where are you going?
Whom do you serve...and whom do you trust?

 

[DeathStroke]

I can't speak for others, but I myself, am not adverse to change. I am, however, adverse to being given something shiny, only to have it taken away or nerfed to oblivion shortly there after. The guardian PP would have been a non-issue if FD had actually tested it prior to releasing it.

 

[babelfisch]

No, we just like to complain a lot.

 

[Darty]

This has got to be one of the most silly OPs I have read today. Even more so than all the "reinstate skimmer" threads and that one about how wing missions were an exploit for new players.

You are distilling the entirety of people's positions on this game (and on the entire world at large) down to simply a knee-jerk reaction to change. That has got to be the most narrow way of viewing things possible.

People aren't against engineers because they hate change. They are against engineers because they hate what they bring to the game. Is this really so hard to grasp? You don't have to agree with them, and if your ideal game is one where every year the devs double or triple to power-level of the gear in game and call it "content" then I understand why you would like engineers and guardian tech. But try to understand that not everyone sees things the same way you do, that some people enjoy different sorts of games and it's not just because they are scared of change, it's because they don't like the change.

Politics is the same way. "Conservative" and "progressive" don't really describe why a person holds their political views, rather it simply descries where their views fall relative to the current political atmosphere. A conservative isn't pro second amendment because they hate change, but because they like gun rights, just like how a progressive isn't against the second amendment because they are obsessed with changing things around, but because they don't value gun rights as much as safety.

Most of the anti-engineer arguments that I have heard include a bit about how engineers could have been added in a more positive fashion. I think I have only seen one person argue that the fundamental change engineers was supposed to bring to the game was bad. The rest have been supportive of the core concept of engineering, but critical of it's implementation.

 

[Bryan K]

Change is good... if it isn't bad.

Change is bad. Ask the dinosaurs.

 

[mossfoot]

Change is bad. Ask the dinosaurs.

I dunno... the ones that survived are birds, so....

 

[Iskariot]

It seems to me lots of players are adverse to change. It happened with the engineers and it's happening again with Guardian technology. Just look at the reaction to the Guardian power plant.

If we get new Guardian FSD or FSD boosting device to increase jump range people will complain again. The same thing will happen if we get our own Guardian ship.

Some players don't like the idea of technological advancement because they believe it harms their gameplay style.

I am all for advancements and new things.

Whatever FDev does there will always be a few opposed to it (it might even be me). That is just the natural way of the world.
Sadly many seem to voice this in a very negative and non-constructive whiny way (that will never be me ).

Sometimes it is hard to judge what changes really mean in the long term of gameplay.
In general I simply accept FDev's decisions. They are the ones developing this incredible space sim.

 

[Bryan K]

I dunno... the ones that survived are birds, so....

The closest living relative to the Tyrannosaurus Rex is the chicken. I wouldn’t call that a win.

 

[lokvette]

Im all for change, but its down to how that change happens and what it changes, then I might have a problem with it. Cant really speak for 3.0 or any of its changes as Im going on what I read here on these forums and as it is its a very mixed bag. For now at least my Cmdr will be staying parked up in Flya Dryai KG-J b1-3.

 

[Frameshift_is_Magic]

There is a subgroup that scoffs at everything that makes money or adds QoL. I wouldn't call it conservative, it seems more like a fetish thing.

 

[mossfoot]

The closest living relative to the Tyrannosaurus Rex is the chicken. I wouldn’t call that a win.

Extinction is preferable? For all we know once we nuke our asses off this planet they'll become the next donimant race . They're just biding their time. Sneaky buggers.

Eating chicken burgers=Patriotism