C'mon, this is faintly ridiculous.

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

If you give the game away for free (Epic) or almost for free (HB, Steam sales) then that tends to increase the player base quite significantly, and 2020 saw the introduction of Fleet Carriers i.e. new content. The announcement of Odyssey did its part, too.

Quite a leap to assume that player numbers went up due to making the game easier which seems to be your argument (that started well before 2020 btw, with the introduction of core mining and its associated credit fountains).

But believe what you want to believe if that makes you happy.

Getting players to try ED is one thing, but player retention is the whole point of course. We have two differing schools of thought here (loosely paraphrased of course).

1. If ED is too hard and grindy, players will just quit

2. If ED is too easy, players will eventually get bored and quit

Now you called me a "post truther" or whatever, even though I provided actual facts. You are free to interpret those facts, but in the long history of ED it's plain at this point that #1 has been a far bigger problem than #2. BY FAR.

Then there's the point that others have tried to make, to no avail, that the credit grind is no longer part of game difficulty as that's been converted into the Engineering grind.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

As YOU know it. I know the game from BEFORE players feedback got us in this fine mess (from my perspective).

Oh yeah people actually playing this game and enjoying it for a change. What a mess!

Seriously I will, as many others have, ask again: How does it affect you so negatively that someone can buy the ship they want without years of grinding for it?

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

Numbers rising .... You are right. Only FD know the answer to what they think is more important.... A small number of players paying £39.99-£150+ or a large number paying from nothing (price 3 weeks back) to £4.99 (current price) and relying on skins and the hope they buy DLC.
I can't answer that. I CAN say I wish these new players who are apparently saving the game were prepared to actually vote with their wallet back when the game was a gnats whisker of not getting made.

I respectfully suggest that if the super hard grindy version of ED was actually better, they never would have been put in the position where the game needed to be given away for free or discounted in the first place.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Oh yeah people actually playing this game and enjoying it for a change. What a mess!

Seriously I will, as many others have, ask again: How does it affect you so negatively that someone can buy the ship they want without years of grinding for it?

I am not interested if what other people do so from that angle it doesn't. It DOES effect me that MY enjoyment of the journey to elite is cut short however.
The solutions offer so far have been to deliberately play badly....... That is such a non solution.
If I want to play a racing game I want the AI to give me a challenge. Making them act like brainless plebs but saying "give them a 2 lap headstart if you want a challenge" is not a good solution.
I hit elite in exploration and yet I have not been more than. 6000ly from the bubble. I should still have a LOOONG way to go before I am elite in exploration.... But FD chose to make it quicker by upping the profit without moving the target.

Not to mention if I DO deliberately gimp my earnings, that does not mean that FD won't price future content based on the assumption that everyone exploits the game and follows the gravy trains.

 

[Troopi]

I'll say this again: what ED needs are "adventures". Scripted quests with several stages and one objective with unique rewards. Instead of focusing on earning money and getting better ships, ED needs to refocus players on the adventure and fun. More purpose, less grind.

 

[Morbad]

Oh yeah people actually playing this game and enjoying it for a change.

People have been playing and enjoying this game for seven years.

How does it affect you so negatively that someone can buy the ship they want without years of grinding for it?

A loaded question, strawman, and specious bit of rhetoric, all in one.

The relevance of playing by the same overarching set of rules in a persistent, shared, multiplayer environment has already been elaborated on, from multiple different perspectives. You may not find any of them valid, but you can't say they haven't been explained.

I respectfully suggest that if the super hard grindy version of ED was actually better, they never would have been put in the position where the game needed to be given away for free or discounted in the first place.

I don't think you have understanding enough of the game as it was to evaluate it's properties. Pre 2.1 Elite: Dangerous was less grindy than the current game, despite the relatively slower rate of material progression. It was also never very difficult, but what stood in for challenge wasn't so overtly effortless. You also don't seem familiar enough with it's release history to make convincing correlations between the level of grind or difficulty you suppose and it's sales or pricing.

I also find the implication that popularity is reflective of quality to be fallacious.

 

[Stigbob]

I'll say this again: what ED needs are "adventures". Scripted quests with several stages and one objective with unique rewards. Instea of focusing on earning money and getting better ships, ED needs to refocus players on the adventure and fun. More purpose, less grind.

They don't mix well with RNG games. Look at the X-series get the wrong spawn at the wrong time and your missions broken and you need to revert to an earlier save sometimes multiple times.

Pre scripted spaceship mission arcs are for an entirely different type of space game, they can be just as much fun but in a different way.

 

[Troopi]

They don't mix well with RNG games. Look at the X-series get the wrong spawn at the wrong time and your missions broken and you need to revert to an earlier save sometimes multiple times.

Pre scripted spaceship mission arcs are for an entirely different type of space game, they can be just as much fun but in a different way.

I don't agree with that. If it fails in the x-series, it's because it was badly programmed/scripted.

 

[Deleted member 182079]

Getting players to try ED is one thing, but player retention is the whole point of course. We have two differing schools of thought here (loosely paraphrased of course).

1. If ED is too hard and grindy, players will just quit

2. If ED is too easy, players will eventually get bored and quit

Now you called me a "post truther" or whatever, even though I provided actual facts. You are free to interpret those facts, but in the long history of ED it's plain at this point that #1 has been a far bigger problem than #2. BY FAR.

Then there's the point that others have tried to make, to no avail, that the credit grind is no longer part of game difficulty as that's been converted into the Engineering grind.

What facts are you referring to? I've seen nothing but your (ill-informed, in my opinion) opinion. If I've missed them in a previous post, feel free to quote them.

 

[Morbad]

I'll say this again: what ED needs are "adventures". Scripted quests with several stages and one objective with unique rewards. Instead of focusing on earning money and getting better ships, ED needs to refocus players on the adventure and fun. More purpose, less grind.

I've had plenty of adventures in Elite: Dangerous. However, they weren't scripted, they were organic, arising from the convergence of the goals I endowed my CMDR with, the spectrum of convergent and divergent goals of other CMDRs, and challenges presented by the setting itself.

They've also become fewer and futher between as the game has striven to undermine the mechanisms that allow such a convergence of circumstances.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

I am not interested if what other people do so from that angle it doesn't. It DOES effect me that MY enjoyment of the journey to elite is cut short however.
The solutions offer so far have been to deliberately play badly....... That is such a non solution.
If I want to play a racing game I want the AI to give me a challenge. Making them act like brainless plebs but saying "give them a 2 lap headstart if you want a challenge" is not a good solution.
I hit elite in exploration and yet I have not been more than. 6000ly from the bubble. I should still have a LOOONG way to go before I am elite in exploration.... But FD chose to make it quicker by upping the profit without moving the target.

Not to mention if I DO deliberately gimp my earnings, that does not mean that FD won't price future content based on the assumption that everyone exploits the game and follows the gravy trains.

Getting Elite in exploration is just a merit badge. I don't even remember getting anything for it. So what's the point in stretching it out into a grind? Maybe if the Alliance gave unique badazz ships to Elite Explorers, okay cool, make it some long grind sure because then it would be worth it. But it serves no real purpose, so why do we care?

What I DO remember from getting Elite Explorer is, well, EXPLORING. Seeing new worlds, making unique discoveries, etc etc. That was it's own reward. ED is a journey, not a destination.

If you 're bored, or burned out, cool. I get it. I've been there with other games. But just why is the fix for that some grind everyone else will be subjected to? I do NOT understand.

 

[Deleted member 121570]

I want to have a tangible, in-game, reason to care. I want to face challenges beyond what I contrive for myself.

Something like the aforementioned simulator or sandbox mode would allow you, and others who may not be concerned with the credibility of the setting's representation, to smash as many ships as they care to, without the overarching game having to remain some inconsequential post-scarcity Monty Haul gravy train.

Well, too bad I guess for you.

I don't particularly wanna be in a separate 'sandbox' mode either. I like meeting random folks at random moments and having fun flying around doin' whatever, bothering nobody.

The 'credibility of the setting' is utterly and completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. I don't care about what's going on in the galaxy, and I don't draw any distinction between the player and character.

ED is a sandbox game at heart, played by people, who are often good fun to play the game with without extra fantasy contrivance or 'storyline' getting in the way.

Of course, nothing wrong with anyone inventing their own ingame RP reasons and rationales too. Individual contrivance works just fine, in that it can be ignored if so chosen. I like that it doesn't affect my game, in either modes or made-up consequences that offer nothing to me.

 

[Stigbob]

I don't agree with that. If it fails in the x-series, it's because it was badly programmed/scripted.

In no Mans Sky the missions also break for the same reasons, they get round that by giving you the opportunity to reset the mission and restart but it happens all the same pretty much all the time.

It fails because of the random nature of procedurally generated games and an inability to control what you turn up with or where you go. You can have this stuff in Skyrim due to the tiny map size, very small number of locations and limited player options. In ED there are tens of thousands of inhabited systems and you could be in a courier or a corvette or at the uninhabited end of the galaxy.

When I want to do spaceship quest chains I play freespace 2 and loads of mods, which is exactly what it was made for. Or I crank up x-wing squadrons laugh derisively and uninstall it again.

 

[Riverside]

I've had plenty of adventures in Elite: Dangerous. However, they weren't scripted, they were organic, arising from the convergence of the goals I endowed my CMDR with, the spectrum of convergent and divergent goals of other CMDRs, and challenges presented by the setting itself.

They've also become fewer and futher between as the game has striven to undermine the mechanisms that allow such a convergence of circumstances.

You have achieved a great deal & helped a lot of people over the years you have played, and motivated others to up their game. FDev want players that create emergent content for others (if you already own the game in part you are the product they are selling to others).

But with no subscription model & no off-line version they are relying on people to buy the game, play for a while & leave with a positive view of FDev's games, or if they keep playing to become part of the sales team.

The leaving happy & encouraging others to buy is where it all falls apart of course

Still plenty of things for me to do

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

People have been playing and enjoying this game for seven years.



A loaded question, strawman, and specious bit of rhetoric, all in one.

The relevance of playing by the same overarching set of rules in a persistent, shared, multiplayer environment has already been elaborated on, from multiple different perspectives. You may not find any of them valid, but you can't say they haven't been explained.



I don't think you have understanding enough of the game as it was to evaluate it's properties. Pre 2.1 Elite: Dangerous was less grindy than the current game, despite the relatively slower rate of material progression. It was also never very difficult, but what stood in for challenge wasn't so overtly effortless. You also don't seem familiar enough with it's release history to make convincing correlations between the level of grind or difficulty you suppose and it's sales or pricing.

I also find the implication that popularity is reflective of quality to be fallacious.

Morbad your posts last night showed me that your idea of "difficulty" is so far beyond the average person's, I don't believe we can have any common frame of reference to debate this. You sound like the kind of guy who would complain that the first Demon Souls game was "too easy" or something. Or that vanilla 40-man end game World of Warcraft raiding didn't require enough organization.

But for my part, I do apologize for some of my rhetoric and comments. Just because you would completely DESTROY a game that I'm fully enjoying right now doesn't mean we can't be friends.

 

[Riverside]

Just because you would completely DESTROY a game that I'm fully enjoying right now doesn't mean we can't be friends.

There might be other reasons

 

[Morbad]

Well, too bad I guess for you.

Indeed. I was sold something with the understanding it would take one direction, when it's taken a radically different turn.

It's still the best (by virtue of being the only) game of it's kind that actually is, but despite all the marketing to the contrary, it seems to be ideally suited to a contextless play-style, where the setting is best ignored and the relative lack of player agency irrelevant.

 

[Deleted member 121570]

Indeed. I was sold something with the understanding it would take one direction, when it's taken a radically different turn.

It's still the best (by virtue of being the only) game of it's kind that actually is, but despite all the marketing to the contrary, it seems to be ideally suited to a contextless play-style, where the setting is best ignored and the relative lack of player agency irrelevant.

Yup. Never trust the marketing.
Live & learn tho! At least there's still fun to be had. It really does have a great flight model

 

[metatheurgist]

It fails because of the random nature of procedurally generated games and an inability to control what you turn up with or where you go. You can have this stuff in Skyrim due to the tiny map size, very small number of locations and limited player options. In ED there are tens of thousands of inhabited systems and you could be in a courier or a corvette or at the uninhabited end of the galaxy.

Skyrim's missions weren't random. The selection was random but they were all fixed and scripted. I guess with the "console, speedrun in 15 mins" generation you never hang around long enough to see the man behind the curtain, but I certainly did and boy was he fugly.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

[

I don't agree with that. If it fails in the x-series, it's because it was badly programmed/scripted.

Interestingly (or not) there were some video files left in a release a year or so ago which seemed to have some scripted mission templates.
So FD have definitely looked at it. Whether they are on the cards (maybe for ED:O) or whether they did not work so we're put on hold/scrapped I do not know. I admit it could be cool tho and maybe tied to going up an elite rank or promotion in military. Etc