found it for you
Ship Interiors!!
- Thread starter Marc13
- Start date
Three others also quote OP's post where it says "all users"
And this is what I mean by confusion OP, it just leads to arguing over what you originally posted and what you changed your post to, I won't bother pointing out the changes again, I am not against editing posts to correct minor errors like spell checking, but even when my posts are wrong I won't change them unless told to by a moderator, I will correct it later with an apology of necessary.
The fact is some payer do indeed seem to think they represent and post for everyone, I always try to point this out to them, they do not represent me or anyone else unless they are given specific permission to speak for me and them. Even "many" is pushing it, "I and probably others" would be more appropriate for a feature that was never put forward for the DLC in the first place.
Even if it was all, it's still to be taken with a grain of salt. Do you believe everything you see on the internet? You see a guy that says everyone in in Europe hates apples and you genuinely think this guy has done a mass survey of every person? Of course not.
Fact of the matter is that you are advocating for the deletion of posts because of the specific wording of "All". I don't really think it warrants a rule as drastic as scrutiny of the academic level of sources and evidence for a videogame forum.
Also shows how big headed you are if you are expecting an apology. How deluded are you?
And this right here is the issue. Where would you draw the line on the deletion? Some may be fine with the wording of "many". You think not. (Many actually describes the subgroup that want interiors very well imo). Game forums are a form of informal communication. It is not required to provide evidence or sources like a scientific journal. But you seem to be advocating for a need of permission/evidence/sources to be able to talk about a group that may include players on this forum. It is delusional to think this is a good idea. Let's imagine if that was the case for other forms of informal conversation. Imagine talking to a friend and you are required to recite sources and evidence if you make a statement that may generalise a group.
I think many players seem to take this forum way too seriously (to the point where the specific wording of a post is somewhat triggering) instead of looking at it for what it is, a game forum ...
What a strange hill to die on.
He's not generalising a group, he's claiming to speak for a group, two entirely different things.
Yes we could indeed just let it go and not bother to correct it, then FDEV might indeed think they speak for everyone and implement game feature that no-one except a few players want in the game, or bring forward features in advance of others in a way that actually doesn't prioritise what players want. No, if someone claims to speak for me then they get told they don't speak for me. It's far from a wording, it was a claim to be speaking for everyone, and yes you do need to present evidence if you make a claim. I also apply the same standards to regular conversations, call me petty if you will, but I don't think you actually speak for many people on these forums when claim that many people on the forums take the forums to seriously. These forums are essentially our only method of communication with FDEV, they are indeed serious.
Meh despite the nay sayers, ship interiors HAVE been worked on. Will they finish? Has it been set aside? Who can say for certain? Everything is a secret with Frontier.
The cargo bay of the type 10 and the SRV bay in the Anaconda are quite detailed. The bay in the 10 is a massive 2 story tall chamber.
The cargo bay of the type 10 and the SRV bay in the Anaconda are quite detailed. The bay in the 10 is a massive 2 story tall chamber.
Attachments
its a bit of a stretch to think that fdev would pull the trigger on implementing one of the game's biggest possible features based on a single post, but I guess we may seem them differently.
Never said to not bother correcting it. If the claim the OP made was false (the generalisation of "All" is obviously false), you voice your opposition as a comment, not advocate for the deletion of the post. Two very different methods of opposition, one being much more fair and "democratic", the other being a lot less fair and "authoritarian". For a forum that has been criticised by many to be an echo-chamber, this sort of policy would only degrade the relationship that many players have with this forum. Communication should be as open as possible, not regulated into oblivion.
Yes, we absolutely need ship interiors. As well as being able to walk through stations everywhere, even the greenhouse ring of an orbis starport.
But they will not be part of Odyssey.
But they will not be part of Odyssey.
I agree with this post. And did they not say that they would support the odyssey release for at least 2 years when it launched for they did another release? That being the case, it’s a dang shame they have had to spend the entire first year fixing it.
indeed, if ever interiors are released, it won’t be this year.
Isn't that the fighter bay?
I do no longer want ship interiors.
Too afraid it would be implemented like CQC or Powerplay, half finished and then abandoned.
Too afraid it would be implemented like CQC or Powerplay, half finished and then abandoned.
And it absolutely needs to be said as often as it needs to be heard for it to be implemented.
Someone managed to glitch themselves into one of those greenhouse rings. The strange part is there are skimmers inside.
Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDangerous/comments/sdi0hf/glitched_myself_inside_of_one_of_the_domes_on_the/
Be careful what you wish for, in the fear that it might actually happen.
Someone asked last year about what could be a Monday for community - it could be "a day without new thread about ship interiors"?
I don't quite get why anyone would oppose ship interiors.
Maybe not the idea, but the way FDEV might implement it.
And how much resources making them might draw from other areas of development of the game, if for no other reason than manpower costing money.