I've seen it before, but thanks for the offer.
Hence my comment...
Mine...
Of course, I'm a little less brutal these days, it is only NPC's and friends who have to face me. I'm slowing down a little now, age has its drawbacks.
Make the engineering grind remotely palatable
- Thread starter sprecdaddy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- engieering
Hence my comment...
Of course, I'm a little less brutal these days, it is only NPC's and friends who have to face me. I'm slowing down a little now, age has its drawbacks.
Interesting. It's almost impossible to get a 100% score without actively trying to. Still, I suppose it might be true.
Nonetheless, it demonstrates quite effectively how we have very different fundamental approaches to our gameplay. And again, that's fine! But devs can't afford to cater to one group at the cost of the others, especially not the Killer subtype, which typically make up 1% or less of the potential audience.
By contrast, the 'socializer' subtype is 80% of the potential audience.
I used to play quite "not very nice", WoW was fun!
It was very easy to score 100%, if there had been 100 or more better phrased questions I probably would only have hit 60-70%
ETA: I am in a squadron that is very much not Lawful (in as much as one might be a true criminal in this game) with a small group of like-minded players. Exploration isn't one of the things on the agenda, although travelling to Colonia & back is pretty common, it helps to burn off the notoriety.
Last edited:
So, after Beyond was released. 3 years out of the 8 years the games has been out, 8 years over which time it has changed considerably.
It's massively easier and better for the new player now than it was before you started playing.
it's possible you just want changes to the core of the game that the makers of the game don't want, and perhaps a lot of the players who have joined over those 8 years?
No, it's up to the developers to make the game they want to make. If just getting more people was the purpose, they wouldn't even had MADE Elite Dangerous.
Begging your pardon, but what core changes that break the game have I proposed? All I've suggested in this particular thread is making the scooping process for materials faster. I would hardly call that a core change to gameplay.
I do find it amusing that after 5000 hours playing the game, people are still saying I haven't played for long enough, though. When I was making suggestions 50 hours in, people were telling me that I haven't played the game long enough to make good suggestions. 4950 hours later, people are still saying the same things about the same suggestions, just like I knew they would. Still, thanks for that chuckle.
I find it amusing that people quote the hours that their ED application has been turned on.
Or have you actually played 208 days of actual gameplay? Anyway, its moot. I really don't care. Do what you please and feel free to continue ranting about how hard the game is and how much grinding there is.
There is a big difference between something that is hard, which is good, and something which is frustrating, which is not.
Engineering is not hard. It is simply frustrating. I don't want to make it easy, I just want to make it fun.
True
For some
Are you sure?
It is.
Different viewpoints, of course. I had plenty of mats before I even considered engineering, knowing that I would be looking at some very 'specialised' builds and that to G5 them would require quite an assortment of mats.
Oddly, I had plenty of fun collecting stuff, still do to be truthful, but collect 'stuff' doing things I enjoy (which is the only way to play) and find the traders incredibly useful.
No, it's what you keep telling yourself.
I absolutely agree that collecting things can be very fun. It just has to go along with activities that are fun. Which is why my number one suggestion is increasing the materials scooping speed, so that players can feel like they can afford it in a way they enjoy.
A few pages back, I demonstrated mathematically why players may feel compelled to ignore materials they find during combat, save the time, and grind some materials at a later date. It would only take relatively minor changes to collection rates to fix this problem, making the game enjoyable for many players who were previously annoying, at no cost to those who currently enjoy it.
Indeed - and if the activities are not fun, I wouldn't be doing them...
Now, obviously, the fun the game provides me (and equally obviously other players - else the game would have folded a long time ago) somehow provides an excess of engineering materials, just because I'm playing how I wish. It is transparently, painfully, obvious that there are so many aspects of this game that provide you with dismay and loathing, rather than excitement and enjoyment, and that you continue to make suggestions that it should be altered to bring itself in-line with what you consider would be massively improved.
Yes, I read that. I'll be polite and say nothing.
Just one tiny little bit of advice, which I am sure you will ignore: It is possible to be wrong...
I didn't say you had proposed breaking the game
I said perhaps the changes you think would streamline things for "noobs", to prevent the long horrible sounding gameplay YOU chose to do when engineering early on, perhaps those changes aren't what the makers of the game would want?I'm also not suggesting you haven't played long enough - you've played during a time when the game is simpler faster and easier for new players.
Engineering is indeed a long process, and the progression process is a choice by fdev. How different would ED be if new players had fully engineered ships within the first week playing? And to be honest some new players already speed run things to get a carrier without even playing the game, then wonder where the gameplay is.
I am not your wife and your wife is not your strawman.
Obviously anybody continuing to play the game in its current state is continuing to enjoy it. Your example of having fleets of fully engineered ships already serves a point about how the game becomes enjoyable when you no longer have to interact with Engineering.
Not wanting to do something we don't enjoy is why complaints about Engineering continue to come up, you know?
So playing any games that set forth any sort of grind or even make it a core/key part of the gameplay is irrational to play? I'm curious how you think these games continue to appear and sustain healthy populations of players?
Certainly, from a design point of view, setting up a game to be grind-centric is not a healthy recipe (see: anything created by Wargaming or Gaijin). It can be fine if the game is enjoyable and not otherwise flawed by imbalance, RNG-injection, and other such game design sins. As a term, 'grind' is neutral. The context surrounding it matters.
Only if they commit to repeating the same process and mistakes that resulted in these less-than-optimal results over and over. Fdev's shown signs of making shifts and changes in their process before. They are competent. The issue is in direction.
Now there's a Silicon Valley startup name....
You're not wrong to also place importance on the things they have neglected since release, which is considerable. I'm not making light of the plate-juggling act it's going to take to manage the complexities of the problems Fdev faces in improving this game.
But I do continue to view the Engineering issue as one of top importance.
Why only consider the two extremes? Why not permit the upgrading our ships to the maximum without obviously artificial gimmicks hampering our efforts? Why commit to the "5-grade" system? Why try to encourage players to 'settle for less' when upgrading ships as a goal (which I think should be apparent as rather contradictory)? Why place an emphasis on solely material hoarding in place of pursuing other gameplay loops as a means of progression?
One way I can take your train of thought here is that Frontier's designers have boxed themselves in with their thinking in such a way that they've trapped themselves; I'm hoping they will allow player feedback to perhaps pull them out of their box, in such a case.
I don't think there can be any denying that the credit situation has been a pandora's box of absolute mess - there's no dispute there, they have made credit earning trivial. The main issue is simply in informing the player on how to make credits, which in my view was the original problem all along. There are also several shifts away from the original vision with market commodities and values back during pre-release that I think contribute to the problem. Add on top of that a low quantity of ways to meaningfully spend credits, and it's not hard to see why dissatisfaction about the issue also continues to crop up. But I don't see it as analogous to the Engineering problem.
Funny, but definitely has no place in any shared-universe experience.
And I refuse to accept that "it's too late". The issue is rather one of being willing to endure the pain of ripping the band-aids and curing the root of the problem.
Wait, engineering the SRV? Is that a thing now?
Anyways, it's not correct to state "won't engineer more than a handful of parts". It's more accurate to say that you will only not engineer a handful of parts of your ship, all of which will be optional internals.
I don't see how adding complexity and quantity to the ship loadout screen will remedy any of the issues of Engineering in its current state. Adding more ways for imbalances to exist does not resolve the fact that there are gross imbalances.
Whenever discussion around a game devolves into "Don't like it, don't play", that's the number one sign you have a bad game on your hands.
I disagree. I don't think playing Space Vacuum Simulator 3300's Edition is much fun at all.
So Call of Duty is a bad game because I'm bored of the franchise? I don't like it (any more) so I don't play it.