Article: "Elite’s Distant Worlds 2 expedition proves the game is wildly unbalanced, and that’s OK"

[Branithar]

This is in reference to DW2, and what was streamed. We got to see/hear their motive. Don't confused PvPer, pirate and people just having a giggle with what went on at DW2.

I’m not speaking about all people who ever engaged in PvP or pulled a ship out of supercruise and demanded Opals. I’ve been dabbling in PvP some, though I suck at it currently. PvPers are some of the most skilled pilots in the galaxy and I’ve met some cool people who are helping me out. When I was referring to the notorious scum of the galaxy, I was talking about the Distant Gankers (a few of whom I’ve had comms with in the past and seemed like human beings), not all PvPers and pirates. What I’m lost by is why somebody would want to make the salt flow, and I’ve read articles that say DG2 might be result of frustration of PvP and the good-vs-bad guys aspect being neglected.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

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.

That's how gta5 works. Someone destroys your vehicle, they get to pay the insurance. This actually would be a great idea Imo.

There are two problems with rebuy-based penalties in Elite Dangerous.

1) The tougher ships are more expensive - both with the same hull (military or reactive armour is extortionate, A-rated modules cost exponentially more than D-rated) and in different ship types. So someone with a billion credits in reserve can kill 50 battle cutters ... or at least 50,000 sidewinders ... before they need to start looking for money again. Similarly a trade Anaconda has a rebuy of under half that of a combat Anaconda ... there are enough complaints about the attackers avoiding fair fights without the game saying "and you totally should, because if you win a fair fight we'll charge you more".

2) Rebuy is nowadays a pretty poor proxy for loss - a core miner or an explorer can easily be carrying hundreds of times more than their rebuy in lost items.

This is definitely an aspect of the existing C&P where Frontier thought the incentives through pretty well - you get a higher bounty (much higher, at notoriety 10) for killing ships which are cheaper and less well-equipped than yours, and a relatively small one for killing the bigger ones which either are perfectly capable of defending themselves or at least are flown by someone who provably has the assets to make that an option.

 

[The Replicated Man]

I hope you know that I'm only teasing you; I know you're doing a good job. Just keep in mind that most of the guys you've encountered so far have been in mass-murder ships where jump capability has been prioritized over combat efficiency, so you can expect that after Sag A* (where we all know the real hunt begins) you can expect to see much greater parity between combat ship types between both sides. Personally, I'm playing the long game and very slowly bringing a nasty little piece of work with godawful range but hardly any compromises out there.

Thats exactly what I have done. Sitting at waypoint 4 (3) in my fully engineered and combat spec vette.

 

[ianw]

It is important to be impartial. Which is why it's important to be bias against bias. Which is why I dismiss Polygon. I did actually read the article, by the way. I did note how they called players 'bullies' without actually demonstrating any bullying. And then there's that 'angry PVP players' line, as if PVE players don't ever get angry, no, they're all precious angels. They haven't changed at all.

They didn't call them bullies the only mention of it was this :"Members of Distant Ganks 2 stress that, from their perspective, that doesn’t make them bullies."

So you are factually wrong...you also need to take into account that the strong picking on the weak then enjoying their upset is pretty close to being textbook bullying. Which is exactly what's going on.

Personally I wouldn't class it as bullying, I do think its pretty pathetic though. That doesn't bother me at all as I'll happily plonk anyone I don't enjoy playing with onto block or use modes to avoid them. A problem that's already fixed by FDEV's design.

On your second point about PVP'ers being angry, that's absolutely spot on 100% accurate. They've been raging against the modes since before day one and spend so much time calling other players names they've developed a conspiracy theory that there's actually mod bias against PVP. Whereas in reality they just regularly fall foul of the forums rules through losing their tempers and flinging terms like coward around.

Players angry at being exploded can be equally as bad, but the PVP anti-mode rage has been constant background noise since release in every thread they post in. That's why Hotel California became a thing they are so angry it derails any other thread unless stopped.

Stigbob you are correct on both points.

The article did not call them bullies and they've been angry for as long as I can recall - the other side has too - but with more reason to as far as I can see.

Void - if you're going to rattle on about bias in an article you really need to actually read the thing properly first.

 

[voidwalker]

Stigbob you are correct on both points.

The article did not call them bullies and they've been angry for as long as I can recall - the other side has too - but with more reason to as far as I can see.

Void - if you're going to rattle on about bias in an article you really need to actually read the thing properly first.

Assuming I didn't read it properly is the same mistake Stig was making. Words aren't the only thing in that article. There's also framing and context. They matter, and they are capable of saying a lot more than the words alone. In fact, words alone are meaningless without framing and context. I'm not going to explain what makes this article a problem when it's already been explained. Read Kaocraft's post on it, he explained it perfectly.

Dude that’s even worse. That phrasing implies that the correct default starting point is “they are bullies” to such a degree that it doesn’t even need to be asserted.

I could write a profile of Stigbob, where I described his history of dropping into discussions and posting provocative, dismissive statements which derail conversations and which the Frontier Forums community finds irritating, and ONLY describe him exclusively in those terms, and then I could throw in “Stigbob stresses that, from his perspective, that doesn’t make him a troll.” Followed by “To me, that statement is incredibly sad.”

If I did that, it would for sure be fair to say I was calling him a troll and that I wanted my readership to view him as a troll, but one could always dance around the topic the way you’re doing here.

And, y’know, it’s just video games, so it doesn’t matter that much, but Vox media does this for EVERYTHING, employing the “when did you stop beating your wife?” style of rhetorical misdirection at every opportunity. Which is why trying to glean anything of value from their publications is at best exhausting and more frequently infuriating.

The bias is there. Failure to see it only indicates your own parallel bias.

 

[ianw]

Assuming I didn't read it properly is the same mistake Stig was making. Words aren't the only thing in that article. There's also framing and context. They matter, and they are capable of saying a lot more than the words alone. In fact, words alone are meaningless without framing and context. I'm not going to explain what makes this article a problem when it's already been explained. Read Kaocraft's post on it, he explained it perfectly.



The bias is there. Failure to see it only indicates your own parallel bias.

Well that's your - and Kaocraft's interpretation of "framing and context that say a lot more than words alone."

You seem to be saying that anything anyone else says it subject to their bias but somehow the things you see in the "framing and context" are not subject to bias.

Is that really what you're suggesting - that you are the only truth seer or something?

I wouldn't neccessarily call it bullying btw - it looks more like trolling for laughs - because they can.

 

[jasonbarron]

Thats exactly what I have done. Sitting at waypoint 4 (3) in my fully engineered and combat spec vette.

Pulling people over for random sobriety checks?

 

[The Replicated Man]

Pulling people over for random sobriety checks?

In search of the ever elusive space loach!

 

[SkyB]

It's anarchy out there.

This is what anarchy is like.

You know the risk.

 

[voidwalker]

Well that's your - and Kaocraft's interpretation of "framing and context that say a lot more than words alone."

You seem to be saying that anything anyone else says it subject to their bias but somehow the things you see in the "framing and context" are not subject to bias.

Is that really what you're suggesting - that you are the only truth seer or something?

I wouldn't neccessarily call it bullying btw - it looks more like trolling for laughs - because they can.

Try addressing my points rather than attempting to discredit me as a lone 'conspiracy theorist'. If I was the only person seeing it, then I would be the only one arguing it. I'm not, but it's a moot point anyway because reality isn't a popularity contest. Framing and context are not subject to bias, no. They are generated by it.

 

[Stigbob]

Assuming I didn't read it properly is the same mistake Stig was making. Words aren't the only thing in that article. There's also framing and context. They matter, and they are capable of saying a lot more than the words alone. In fact, words alone are meaningless without framing and context. I'm not going to explain what makes this article a problem when it's already been explained. Read Kaocraft's post on it, he explained it perfectly.

The bias is there. Failure to see it only indicates your own parallel bias.

The bias is in your perception of it and anyone who disagrees with you. I get that you are outraged about polygon talking about DG2 in less than glowing terms, that does not mean I am though.

Its just people trying to be annoying and other people getting upset rather than just opting out of playing with them with the tools FDEV provided.

As for the article itself although I think its balanced I think the author doesn't really understand ED as where he see's it being broken I see multiple playstyles being catered to via inspired design.

The people upset about others playstyles on either side should be disregarded or told "no".

 

[ianw]

Try addressing my points rather than attempting to discredit me as a lone 'conspiracy theorist'. If I was the only person seeing it, then I would be the only one arguing it. I'm not. Framing and context are not subject to bias, no. They are generated by it.

Okay - just gonna take a wild stab here and suggest that neither you or Kaocraft were party to what was said in the interview and that neither of you have seen the original notes?

(you don't need to answer - I'll take as read - because if you had been you've have mentioned it already).

So maybe the interviewer said something like;

"Well that's kind of bullying isn't it - don't you think?"

Or maybe it was;

"So what was all that about then - blowing up all those defenceless ships?"

"Well from our point of view it wasn't bullying or anything - we're allowed to do that - PVP is allowed"

The simple fact is neither you nor Kaocraft know how that sentence about bullies came into being but you've both decided - based on your own bias or your interpretation of "meaning and context" that the interviewer called them bullies.

I have absolutely no idea what was said - but I'm not the one making assumptions about it.

Yet you're the one throwing allegations of bias all over the place.

ETA - interesting that you took "truth seer" and turned it into "lone conspiracy theorist" - more "framing and context?" Cause I can tell you for sure conspiracy theorist never entered my head.

 

[voidwalker]

Okay - just gonna take a wild stab here and suggest that neither you or Kaocraft were party to what was said in the interview and that neither of you have seen the original notes?

(you don't need to answer - I'll take as read - because if you had been you've have mentioned it already).

So maybe the interviewer said something like;

"Well that's kind of bullying isn't it - don't you think?"

Or maybe it was;

"So what was all that about then - blowing up all those defenceless ships?"

"Well from our point of view it wasn't bullying or anything - we're allowed to do that - PVP is allowed"

The simple fact is neither you nor Kaocraft know how that sentence about bullies came into being but you've both decided - based on your own bias or your interpretation of "meaning and context" that the interviewer called them bullies.

I have absolutely no idea what was said - but I'm not the one making assumptions about it.

Yet you're the one throwing allegations of bias all over the place.

ETA - interesting that you took "truth seer" and turned it into "lone conspiracy theorist" - more "framing and context?" Cause I can tell you for sure conspiracy theorist never entered my head.

Now you're just playing games, and still dodging my point. I don't have time for games, and I'm losing patience with the proliferation of intellectual dishonesty around here, so I'm just going to ignore you. Believe whatever you want to believe, mate, but Polygon are trash and have been since they've existed, this article notwithstanding.

http://www.accelerated-ideas.com/ne...gon--the-worst-gaming-journalists-around.aspx

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/

 

[Stigbob]

Now you're just playing games, and still dodging my point. I don't have time for games, and I'm losing patience with the proliferation of intellectual dishonesty around here, so I'm just going to ignore you. Believe whatever you want to believe, mate, but Polygon are trash and have been since they've existed, this article notwithstanding.

http://www.accelerated-ideas.com/ne...gon--the-worst-gaming-journalists-around.aspx

Its OK for other people not to hate polygon. I've googled gawker now and I'm wondering why you think here's a link between this and Hulk Hogans privates.

 

[ianw]

Now you're just playing games, and still dodging my point. I don't have time for games, and I'm losing patience with the proliferation of intellectual dishonesty around here, so I'm just going to ignore you. Believe whatever you want to believe, mate, but Polygon are trash and have been since they've existed, this article notwithstanding.

http://www.accelerated-ideas.com/ne...gon--the-worst-gaming-journalists-around.aspx

Dude - get yourself a proof reader - it's getting embarrasing now

Polygon are trash and have been since they've existed, this article notwithstanding.
Notwithstanding means "in spite of" so you seem to be saying that they've always been trash - in spite of this latest article (which was actually quite accurate - Polygon article - or innacurate Accelerated ideas article?)

ETA - how ironic - I spelt embarrassing wrong!

 

[Vedmo]

That's three ignores (damn that intellectual bankruptcy!) in the last hour or so, I knew I should've started a betting pool.

 

[ianw]

Actually ignoring people is absolutely fine.

But telling them on a forum you're ignoring them seems like the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears combined with "lalala I can't hear you!"

Really not a good look anywhere outside of primary school.

 

[Bill Clement]

That depends, what is it that you're looking for in your news? Reporting, or opinion? Most news is just fine, with nothing but reporting. Your BBC news is very impartial. BBC's morning talk shows, documentaries, etc, they aren't news, so they are not reporting. SKY is another good one. The problem is, the rush to put out this reporting can often result in mistakes as a result of poor fact-checking, and it makes it look biased.

The problem isn't entirely with the sources, though. It's chiefly with people who are LOOKING specifically for 'right leaning' or 'left leaning' news. That creates a demand, so what's a news outlet to do? Provide the supply. After all, the news isn't a charity. You want good news? Start giving your money to people doing it right, and right now, the fairest reporting is being done by a fellow named Tim Pool on YouTube. The right will tell you he's 'left wing', the left will tell you he's 'right wing'. That's how you know you've got a winner. To the partisan, impartiality always looks like the other side.

Here in Australia, we have the ABC. It's constantly being accused of bias by the left and the right, but it's actually very impartial, and often takes the entire political spectrum to task in its investigative journalism. They've certainly had a few.... incidences. But overall, damn good quality journalism, and I would argue, some of the best in the world.

For gaming, I like The Escapist, and VG247.

Just news, no bias, no filter, no lies or spin.

The BBC are a great example of what I detest- if they told me the sky was blue I'd have to check for myself and bring along an impartial third party for confirmation. They've lied far too often for me to take anything they say at face value. It doesn't have to be anything important or topical, they just can't help themselves.

An example. They did a hit piece on the new British aircraft carriers at the tail end of last year. Almost no-one in the UK really cares- ship spotters were delighted, 'rule Britannia' and all that, while lefties were appalled, 'war, what is it good for?' Everyone else lost interest when they found out it wasn't going to be called 'Boaty McBoatface'.

Almost every point the writer made was factually incorrect, or twisted and spun to make his argument that the carrier is a poor investment. It wasn't an opinion piece- that's fine, if he thinks the money should have gone on something else I'm all ears. But the piece was just anti, filled with snide digs and out of context quotes presented as even handed, factual reporting.
The damning thing is that if you don't know much about defence matters the article sounds entirely plausible.
Take 'The navy has still to work out how it will transport people and equipment on and off the carrier while at sea'.
Wow, that's a bit of an oversight, eh?
Except that it's a preposterous statement! That particular problem was solved in the bronze age! It's not only an outright lie, it ignores the fact that the RN have commissioned a brand new seaboat to compliment their existing designs specifically to safely transport people and equipment off the ship while she's at sea. If there's a sense of urgency, it's an aircraft carrier, she always has helicopters embarked! In UK waters there's even a civilian company on long term contract to the MoD to fly helos on and off warships. Then there's the fact that the RN have been resupplying at sea for centuries, passing stores, personnel and (more recently) fuel between ships. There are specialist vessels constructed entirely to transfer stores and fuel to the carrier. The muppet writing it even mentions them elsewhere in the article!

It's not just the military. I'm ex Forces, so it grates on me more than most, but it's everything, you know? Whatever the subject is, they have to put a spin on it. It's really, really irritating. On the subjects that I'm interested in I can usually see what they're lying about, but there are a whole host of subjects I know little or nothing about. I don't want to disbelieve and doubt everything I hear, read or see, that way leads to conspiracy theories and madness, but I don't trust them as far as I could throw a bull elephant!

I'm a little vexed, does it show?

 

[Rampant]

Well that's your - and Kaocraft's interpretation of "framing and context that say a lot more than words alone."

You seem to be saying that anything anyone else says it subject to their bias but somehow the things you see in the "framing and context" are not subject to bias.

Is that really what you're suggesting - that you are the only truth seer or something?

I wouldn't neccessarily call it bullying btw - it looks more like trolling for laughs - because they can.

The epiphany that keeps striking me is that void keeps *assuring* us that he is free from bias, and pretty much that he is the *only* one free from bias.

And yet, he's the one "reinterpreting" everyone's words. (Using context and framing.)

Anybody else smell fish?

 

[Bill Clement]

Honest question: people are bashing Polygon for what exactly? Bias? Bias how?

I wasn't one of the ones bashing them, but I stopped reading during Gamergate. Back then they were shills, took the industry standard 'Gamers are all toxic' line, laced with a good dose of racist, sexist bile directed at their own readership.

That's not 'bias', it's reading a title you once trusted call you all sorts of horrible things because you happen to think maybe they should show some honesty and integrity when members of their community, fellow 'game journalists', were caught being very naughty.

I can't speak about them now, because that article is the first thing of theirs I've read in about five years.

Hth!