This game needs to impose itself upon the player.

[Leper Messiah]

The reward for me, as a player, is the challenge.

Handing my CMDR more money or materials may suit his goals, but does very little to satisfy my desire to play a character that has to face credible challenge in the Elite setting.

Indeed, in my system you can have 100%, and I can have 50% or 75% and I will get less rewards for having an easier game then you. That's fair, the fact you don't want the reward doesn't negate me having less reward for less effort.

A level playing ground is a rough equality of opportunity, nothing more.

I disagree completely, and this thread proves that you cannot have a global difficulty because:

player A...the game is too hard
Player B...the game is too easy

both are correct, yet both are wrong.

The game isn't supposed to simulate an organized sport, but the lives of our CMDRs.

My point is Sports have various levels for the different skill levels of the participants, games should do similar. What you seem to want is to have an open league say the Euro Champ league, but the under 11s team of some small village is in the same league and has to play Real Madrid. Or some pub team of amateurs playing Liverpool, or some semi pro's playing Man Utd. There's a reason why that doesn't happen. Lumping various skills levels together is not good.

 

[Brrokk]

Anyone who skimmed the manual and spent 45 minutes doing the tutorial missions isn't going to make most of these mistakes and it sure doesn't take thousands of hours to learn the core mechanisms inside and out, even by pure trial and error.

If the game has to cater to lazy illiterates who can't even be bothered to learn their own controls, it's no wonder the bar is set so low.
...

The two near-death experiences I wrote about were after I downloaded and read the whole manual, did the training exercises and watched some videos on YouTube. They weren't the only two either. If you're saying this game isn't hard to start in, sorry but I just can't take that seriously.

New players are literally the life of the game. You and I aren't valuable to FD because we've already bought the game. (OK, I'm one of those who try to make sure to buy something in the Store each month). New funding for the game mainly comes from more people buying it. If that dries up, our game will go into maintenance or worse.

For this reason I wish FD would improve the documentation, put even more effort into training, try to make features of the early game make more sense and make starting areas safer even in Open.

 

[Morbad]

My point is Sports have various levels for the different skill levels of the participants, games should do similar. What you seem to want is to have an open league say the Euro Champ league, but the under 11s team of some small village is in the same league and has to play Real Madrid. Or some pub team of amateurs playing Liverpool, or some semi pro's playing Man Utd. There's a reason why that doesn't happen. Lumping various skills levels together is not good.

Sports analogies are always poor when talking about something that's not intended to resemble a sport.

What I want is what Braben is talking about in link in my signature. Dynamic difficulty levels, based around player skill rather than character action, are as gamist, and as contrary to that original vision, as it gets.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

There is more to difficulty and challenge than combat!!!

 

[Leper Messiah]

Sports analogies are always poor when talking about something that's not intended to resemble a sport.

What I want is what Braben is talking about in link in my signature. Dynamic difficulty levels, based around player skill rather than character action, are as gamist, and as contrary to that original vision, as it gets.

I'll try again...I'm ONLY using sport because it's the only place where there is a system to make things fair, I'm not comparing the "game" itself to a "sport". Making the game be hard for one player can make it too hard for another...that is not fair. Elite is a GAME not reality.

 

[Phisto Sobanii]

There is more to difficulty and challenge than combat!!!

Gank Drive charging.

 

[Leper Messiah]

There is more to difficulty and challenge than combat!!!

Yes we know, how about FD add a device to your PC/console so that on ANY kind of ship destruction (not just combat related) your PC/console blows up, would that make you happy? Would that be enough "difficulty" and "risk" for you? How much risk/danger is too much how much is not enough?? (yes I realise it's a silly premise regarding the PC blowing up, but it leads nicely into the last sentence)

 

[Morbad]

But the argument that proper difficulty scaling can't be done

My argument isn't that it cannot be done, but that it's improper to do so.

The game should not be catering to me as a player, but reacting to the character I'm playing. If I'm playing a mild-mannered Joe Blow type, who minds his own business and never sticks his nose into any dangerous situation, most of the game should be pretty easy, barring the occasional random misfortune.

If I want to play a character who can single-handedly shift the course of galactic history...well, I had better be in the top 0.01% of all players in overall ability and determination, otherwise their is no reason for my character to stand out.

Not everyone can be a main character, or even a local protagonist, in a story with a hundred thousand regulars in the cast, and it shouldn't even pretend to try.

Elite is a GAME not reality.

The Elite setting should present itself as reality to the characters that exist within it.

A system to make things equal, despite differences in player ability, would not make for a better game. Certainly not in the case of ED, where much of the core gameplay deliberately avoids abstraction.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Gank Drive charging.

Gankshift Drive, Phisto.

Sigh

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Yes we know, how about FD add a device to your PC/console so that on ANY kind of ship destruction (not just combat related) your PC/console blows up, would that make you happy? Would that be enough "difficulty" and "risk" for you? How much risk/danger is too much how much is not enough?? (yes I realise it's a silly premise regarding the PC blowing up, but it leads nicely into the last sentence)

Again, you're talking about ship destruction. I'm talking about the game world imposing itself upon the player, so that we have to live in it, rather than it living around us.

 

[Riverside]

There is more to difficulty and challenge than combat!!!

The broad concept that some systems should be difficult (but worthwhile) to trade with is one every contributor so far seems happy to accept.

Let's assume I'm a meek, risk-averse trader that wants to get some of that sweet reward (profit, or some rare good only supplied by the station that's hard to reach).

There is an obvious difficulty angle the game could add - combat. The game can throw lots of attackers at me (as the original game did) or it can throw fewer but more capable attackers at me (as the current game does, relative to the original game).


If more of the same as we currently see were added, I would reach a point where I can no longer carry enough hit-points to survive while still carrying enough cargo space for the trip to be worthwhile. This is where your higher skill in not being hit & TTK becomes more of a factor. I can no longer make the trip at all (because it would not be worthwhile) but you still can.

But still the reward is only that you are a successful trader, and however the scenario plays out it is still only a battle of attrition that will have an optimal approach to outfitting & technique (a meta). It will become routine once it has gone past the initial puzzle-solving challenge.

This is where I feel the BGS is a winner. I am competing against, negotiating & allying with other players regardless of mode. I am able to do so because while I may not be the best, I am prepared to put the time in, or to throw money at a problem and maybe run missions & trade routes at a loss for the sake of increased influence.

The ongoing challenge is against other players. Kill them in PvP, dominate via the BGS, get your name on that system & get back before they do. PvP rewards skill, the BGS rewards co-operation and social skills, exploration rewards tenacity, and all of them are optional and only as relevant as the player thinks they are. Skill is not the only factor, arguably so far skill being a factor has not been good for the game, although personally I feel it is more about the negative attitude towards 'lesser' players than the actual level of ability itself.

 

[tafkabb]

This is the least engaging game in modern gaming.

Thousands of players have thousands of hours played. You can't just make pronouncements without thinking about them first.

 

[Ryan P Bodfirst]

Yes I agree - these are some of things that still disappoint with ED. Its disappointed me from the start (pretty much day one of playing the game) that anarchies don't stir an ounce of concern in me (and they still don't.) I'm in a situation where no NPC can get close to interdicting me (I haven't failed one in over about 2 years at least and I'm not exaggerating) if I don't want them to - so any difficulty scaling in missions where I get sent tougher enemies is completely irrelevant and I just don't bother looking at the difficulty - it shouldn't be this way. Risk is exciting.

I agree with you that its not really about combat - that can still be tough - its the fact that's its all opt-in. That's not to say that some aspects should be opt-in - they should - but its so one sided. The no grudge factions is also something that really should be worked on, and NPC behaviour.

All in all it doesn't create a sci-fi world I really believe in as much as I'd hoped it would.

 

[Gully Foyle]

Everything in this game is too forgiving.

You can escape any NPC simply by boost-boost-jumping away.
NPC Combat is a joke.
Pirated NPCs will literally just sit there and let you pirate them.
Markets are so stable that it's virtually impossible to lose money when trading.
Factions will pay you to find worthless space rocks far-far away that no faction should ever care about.
You can be wanted, with a hold full of the most ludicrous contraband, and you can slip into port just be going silent for a moment (and the traffic controller is like "meh".)
Authority ships are reactive only (they should be all over bounties like stink on...).
Stations are totally passive unless you provoke them.
Thargoids are caged inside USSs, and pose no threat unless you choose to engage them.
Factions hold no grudge(You can descend on a faction like Ghengis Khan, then run a few missions for them and they're like "meh").
Same with superpowers - there is no risk-reward factor when working with/for superpowers (i.e. You can be top rank in both, and they're both like "meh".)
Powerplay is just bad and needs to be completely redesigned.

What did I miss?
In what other ways do you feel that this game fails to impose itself upon you?
How would you like to see this game impose itself upon you to make PvE gameplay more interesting?

Vin

I would like it to be tougher and more unforgiving, without the need to call it 'imposing'. More like ... harder.
There could be more logic for sure Vin.
The AI is a work in progress; as it should be.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Yes I agree - these are some of things that still disappoint with ED. Its disappointed me from the start (pretty much day one of playing the game) that anarchies don't stir an ounce of concern in me (and they still don't.) I'm in a situation where no NPC can get close to interdicting me (I haven't failed one in over about 2 years at least and I'm not exaggerating) if I don't want them to - so any difficulty scaling in missions where I get sent tougher enemies is completely irrelevant and I just don't bother looking at the difficulty - it shouldn't be this way. Risk is exciting.

I agree with you that its not really about combat - that can still be tough - its the fact that's its all opt-in. That's not to say that some aspects should be opt-in - they should - but its so one sided. The no grudge factions is also something that really should be worked on, and NPC behaviour.

All in all it doesn't create a sci-fi world I really believe in as much as I'd hoped it would.

That was such a good post, dude. Bolded and highlighted that very key closing statement.

Big reps.

 

[waylork]

easy rememdy: just scale the difficulty in open. make Open more challenging and more complex than solo. that way the Elite: Harmless CMDRs can have their empty theme park, and Open players can actually feel challenged by the environment.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

I would like it to be tougher and more unforgiving, without the need to call it 'imposing'. More like ... harder.
There could be more logic for sure Vin.
The AI is a work in progress; as it should be.

I feel like the galaxy is just play-doh. Totally malleable, non-toxic, and goes right back in the can when you want it to.

I still want us to influence how the galaxy develops, but I also want the galaxy to influence how we play. We should have to adapt to it and its changes. Right now there is virtually none of that.

Hell, a great example is when some engineer required rare goes into lockdown and people start screaming about it. Even though that's PvP driven, it's a good example of the game imposing itself on the player.

easy rememdy: just scale the difficulty in open. make Open more challenging and more complex than solo. that way the Elite: Harmless CMDRs can have their empty theme park, and Open players can actually feel challenged by the environment.

I think the whole game, the game as a whole, needs to be more imposing. It should force us to adapt. Right now, there is no adaptation. We just get to do whatever we want.

 

[Sysmon]

I would not be against a somewhat more dangerous ambient environment. For example, all ships should need a minimum of shielding to avoid hull degradation through normal use, and to stave off radiation. It should be possible to fly without, but hull should degrade at rates depending on where the ship is travelling (through asteroid belts and planetary rings: fast degradation, through deep space: slower degradation). Radiation could build up and would need be purged similarly to heat (or allowed to cool off).

But now we can fly near black holes and neutron stars, well near stars in general, with no real issues. And DW2 has built a station at Sag A*! That must be the worlds biggest microwave oven - nothing should be able to live in there. But space is just a pretty backdrop really.

And I miss the more volatile economics of past, and even the more expensive fuel. There was a lot of crying about the hardships of finding viable trade routes back in the days, though, as well as over how short a time they lasted before demand was met.

S

 

[Gully Foyle]

I don't own an Anaconda either.

But I see your point. And my point is that once the beginner gits marginally gud at combat and survival, the game ceases to impose any risk upon the player whatsoever. They are effectively free to just fly around the galaxy in god mode, bending all things to their whim.

I'm a casual player and cannot grind quickly for engineering. Those that have ground to godboats, more power to them. Most can't fly and Super Meta Killas hunt those with dockin' comps LOL

 

[Brrokk]

easy rememdy: just scale the difficulty in open. make Open more challenging and more complex than solo. that way the Elite: Harmless CMDRs can have their empty theme park, and Open players can actually feel challenged by the environment.

I thought you were on to something, until I got to "theme park".