Agree very much about tanks should never be agile or fast.
Article: "Elite’s Distant Worlds 2 expedition proves the game is wildly unbalanced, and that’s OK"
- Thread starter StuartGT
- Start date
- Status
Agree very much about tanks should never be agile or fast.
I'm not conversant about either of those groups. But to call anyone or any group "the best" there should be some sort of objective mechanism to measure that. And you're missing the point they were making--Iridium specifically tries to help the more helpless commanders out there against the mental midgets in the game whose solitary purpose is to kill for no reason other than their jollies. So, in that context, Iridium Wing may very well BE the best at what they do. Does 13th defend the defenseless?
Last edited by a moderator:
Board flipping...am I the only one who started a new commander from scratch and could buy and outfit a phantom in less than a month using regular game mechanics? (Missions, trading, exploration, rescuing people from attacked stations)
Well, unless you're claiming the algorithms are totally hosed, even with engineered thrusters the more you tank your ship the slower and less agile it's going to be. Every configuration is a choice. Every combination of engineering is a choice. If I had any complaint/suggestion it would be that the insurance cost that a victim incurs when a ganker destroys them be automatically deducted from the ganker's account. This is essentially how auto insurance works, so it's not a foreign idea. It won't stop them from killing other players, but they might be more measured in their attacks if it consistently takes huge chunks out of their account. Right now, the crime and punishment piece, while improved, relies on pirates/gankers getting caught in order to make them pay bounties/fines. If the insurance piece was automatic (and there's no reason why it can't be) then victims don't lose money unnecessarily and gankers feel the pain immediately. Victims still would have to respawn and would lose cargo, but I maintain that at least reasonable risk should still exist.
I hadn't even heard of that until LATE last year, when someone suggested I visit Dav's Hope. Out here in Colonia, there's no reason or opportunity to use such a tactic.
The irony of Spector making that comment in relation to Invisible War, one of the most disappointing sequels in the history of gaming, strikes me every time I read it. He'd have done better to state 'Every time you're thinking of dumbing down your epoch-defining PC game to shoehorn it onto a console, don't do it'. *
* Note - that's in relation to consoles at the time that game was in development (turn of the millennium) not today. Before any of you start.
Polygon secretly getting in on the ‘game is doomed’ train? Stay tuned.
I think this is their third or fourth attempt at this point.
Oh no! I’ve outed myself as a non-reader of Polygon. Whatever shall I do.
FD are lazy at worst and underfunding the game at best. Or clueless at the very worst.
You and me both. I just hear about their tripe here.
This is just the headline. If you read the full article its not quite this sensational, and is pretty balanced. It also comes to an interesting conclusion. Something about Open has to change if the game is going to be sustainable. Imo that means adding structured and meaningful PVP. Maybe Open Only PP.
I do wish that the article had covered the real effort to combat the Distant Gankers instead of the PVE role playing defense. But ah well. I'm pretty sure we've killed at least 10% of the active deep space Gankers so far. That % will matter more once the fleet passes the core.
Last edited:
Later in the article the writer explains why they don't really consider it an MMO.
So far as balance, many a good game has been ruined by the player base demanding balance that ends up homogenizing everything into slightly different versions of the same thing, which almost always is born of PvE/PvP disparity. I have yet to see a game do a good job of it without making PvE and PvP two separate things.
Last edited:
Read more than the headline? Ain't nobody got time for that!
I agree, a perfectly good solo game is ruined.
I actually think FD has done a pretty good job considering.
Last edited:
This is just the headline. If you read the full article its not quite this sensational, and is pretty balanced. It also comes to an interesting conclusion. Something about Open has to change if the game is going to be sustainable. Imo that means adding structured and meaningful PVP. Maybe Open Only PP.
I do wish that the article had covered the real effort to combat the Distant Gankers instead of the PVE role playing defense. But ah well. I'm pretty sure we've killed at least 10% of the active deep space Gankers so far. That % will matter more once the fleet passes the core.
I scanned through it pretty quickly because I'm on my phone at work, so I'll have to check it more thoroughly when I get home. But from what I could tell it was all pretty sensational, tbh. I agree that it would have been better to focus on the real defenders as opposed to the make believe defenders, because apparently you guys have managed 5.7 kills, so that's pretty good
Last edited by a moderator:
The modes are a horrible design decision.
I agree that it would have been better to focus on the real defenders as opposed to the make believe defenders, because apparently you guys have managed 5.7 kills, so that's pretty good
Ok just did the math. We've killed 28% of the gankers active fleet. If we keep up this rate past colonia, you guys won't last much past Sgr A*.
Last edited:
I'm guessing that Elite Dangerous is not a game oft covered in the publications people do read. Outside this forum, it really is a pretty niche game, though on occasion it does get mainstream coverage (like when NASA checked it out).
- Status