Well what I find extremely irritable is situation where I have mauled pirate to near death, and pirate jumps out. To return at full health mere seconds later. I'd like that trick very much for myself indeed. Okay if npc wants to try some more, let it return WITH the damaged ship.
This is a review I recently wrote and its a shame, it had so much potential and still does.
- Thread starter SkipRat
- Start date
- Status
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
it is all relative. I actually think "locking" all unmapped parts of the galaxy and us building out would have been great. so what if only now after 10 years we were making it to sag A. that was always the plan. listen to the Devs talk, going into deep space was meant to be a long term game goal.... explorers /stellar cartographers were planning pre launch huge expeditions planning to take months.n. when gamma launched people made it to Sag A in 24 hrs
just chewing the fat now but imagine if jumping to an unmapped system created a small amount of damage to your ship. some sort of "manual unguided jump" with a skill check before jumping (off top of head a bit like the interdiction minigame). explorer ships would take less damage &/or would be easier to perfect the jump and not take damage. (damage not repairable by a simple button press but need to dry dock)
on entering a new system IF you did a total system scan (probably not detailed surface scan) you can then do a jump to there in future without any damage (lore gravity wells mapped / what ever) ........now .... once you sell that data back to UC it would be uploaded to the nav beacon network.....
further more missions would then spawn to deliver a navn beacon to the newly scanned system to add it to the network.
imo that would make getting to new places in space much more rewarding. this is much closer to the original plan but I don't think it would happen as loads would hate it
Last edited:
Yes, I agree, that should be fixed.
Clearly not, as this wonderful game that released 8 years ago is still living rent-free in your head despite you having "stopped playing it, a long time ago".
This was my recent review of ED and why I stopped playing it, a long time ago.
please delete, the title got borked.
This is where you don't understand the game as well as you think you do. It doesn't matter if you are in a high security system or one with no security at all, the result is the same. And most of the trade mission I have ever seen always been to system with a security level.
Also, the interdictions only occur in the system you are delivering too and never in any of the systems that you actually travel too.
And you comment
Is also wrong on many levels and show a lack of understanding about the game.
Like I said, most of the missions are too systems that actually have a security level. Meaning they have police/security in those system. You proclaimed it as "Can I make it?" "Will my shields hold out?" and I call it utter garbage, as by the 20th interdiction the security forces in the system would have been over him like a bad rash a long long time ago.
This is why I say one or two interdictions as most, due to the response of the security systems.
That's why when you a pirate, in ED, in films, or TV, or real life, you general only get one or two chances at best, coz if you screw it once... The chance is gone.
The game has so much promise but ruined by ill thought-out mechanics and a million things that don't make sense, all because Fdev were scared of upsetting a tiny minority of community.
Should have done that when game launched, nowadays many would regard this as downgrade.
I think you need to git gud at cargo delivery.
Have you not played many games? This doesn't come close.
Your experience in reviewing games is in obvious doubt.
Couldn't be bothered with reading the rest of your review after an opener like that. You may or may not have good points. Who knows or cares.
You can read their mind?
The galaxy is 400 billion star, 99.999999999999999999999999999% isn't populated.
Consequences doesn't mean you will be locked out of huge chunks of populated areas either. Just because you are Federation player, doesn't mean you will be locked out of alliance space. It does mean that you will be locked out systems of faction interest though, like military and systems of faction interest.
It won't stop you from trading in those areas, passing through, landing at the vast majority of station etc. No unless you commit crime in alliance space in which case you are not docking at any imperial station as you wanted, it's a shoot on sight policy. Consequence of the actions you make I'm afraid, but crime and punishment is whole different subject that needs to reward and punish players at the same time.
What it means is, is that you feel the consequences of your actions for example. You land on a station of a rival faction and cost of repairs is a bit more expensive, more expensive, ships, goods, upgrades. It might be in some cases that they refuse to sell them items and it may mean you need to find these items in some backwater place selling them on the sly for a price.
It may mean that you can't get to King, Admiral or whatever the Alliance top rank maybe. But in doing so, it opens the doors for a proper faction progression system.
For example: So you're blocked from entering military system x under Federation control. So what, I joined the Alliance got myself a high-ranking mission (because now we have properly structured military careers and faction progression) to go into that blocked system under stealth (need to develop proper stealth and stealth detection mechanics) to scan and record and military activity in said Federation system. Playing the stealth game to get in and out before they break your cover and discover you or you make a mistake and boom, you got your burners on, getting your backside out of there (Maybe they even give chase in the hopes of taking you down before you get away with the info) and reporting back to base for a reward or a slap around the face depending if you failed the mission or not.
Fits in nicely with Odyssey too (which people are saying is failier). Stealth up to a military station in orbit or on a planet surface (You will need to, as they will blow you out of the sky if you get within a 100 miles of the facility), sneak on board and plant a bomb, steal some data, install a listening device in the communication equipment or assassinate a commander. Then get out of there.
See, just because there are consequences, it doesn't mean you are blocked off from anything. That kind of thinking is just for people who can't see pat the end of their nose (not saying that is you). What consequences do is open the door for richer more indepth gameplay, more options and choices for players, variety, it makes the universe feel alive, it gives.
The greatest fallacy of this forum, is that consequence blocks you off from things, it doesn't. If done properly, it provides players with unique and interesting ways to get around them.
The biggest argument against I hear on this form is from people who don't like getting rid King is "I don't wonna lose my Fed Corvette", the truth is, you don't have too. I mean if you work for someone else, someone else a crime boss, enemy faction may have stollen one that you can work up the ranks to obtain. this obviously come with consequences too.
Nothing is shut off, I hate the short sightedness of people ono this forum. It's all about them and not what is in the best interest of the game.
Best interest is open to interpretation, surely? It isn't all about what you think is in the game's best interest, is it? Of course, your opinion of what is in the best interest is obviously your own, but is just that, an opinion.
Not when things don't make sense.
For example, the biggest reason why we still have King Admirals is because people feel that they will end up having to choose between giving up on one of the ships they have earned. Right? The truth is, these people are all about them and are unable to see past the end of their nose.
Choosing a faction, doesn't mean giving up on anything. Why do you have to give up on a ship? Even if the Federation refuse to fix your ship and sell you parts, so what. Never heard of buying from back water systems and stations? What about Independant systems have strong trade links with Federation? They could sell parts. What about stollen parts sold at prate stations. Just because there are consequences that there are unique and interesting ways around it.
And this where it all goes wrong, people just don't think and they just can't see beyond the end of there nose.
I would prefer a game billion mils wide and hundred miles deep, over a game that is billion miles wide and inch deep, just because people can't think beyond the end of their nose.
So no, it not always personal interest, some it's actually what the game needs.
Nonsense. We don't have King-Admirals because anyone isn't seeing anything. We have them because FD made the game that way. OK, I understand that you think they shouldn't have, but I don't see why it's a big deal to you and I find no problem with it myself.
I'm King-Admiral. Not because I wanted to be, more because I could hardly avoid it with the number of missions I've done. I enjoy flying both Corvette and Cutter for different purposes. I can't for the life of me see how this inconveniences you in any way, how you think it's because I haven't seen something beyond my nose, or why you're steamed up about such a minor game feature.
If King-Admirals and mission-related pirates are the worst things you can point to in this game, I'd say it's doing pretty well!
Totally wrong.
We have them, because the game was released as bare bone system and that features and depth, would be fleshed out as time when on as mechanics were added to the game over time. Hence filling an empty room with furniture.
This was the biggest difference between Star Citizen and Elite Dangerous. It was the approach they made between to releasing the game. Fdev, released early and develop the depth and mechanics over time, Star citizen went with going for the full game on release.
And it is also known that Elite Dangerous was released early because they wanted to release the game on Elite's anniversary in December.
So with the bare bone release, people ranked to King and Admiral, because nothing was put in place to prevent this. Same with Exploring, FDev wasn't expectation people to get the great annihilator in an eagle in the first week. Which totally ruined it for people who part of The Great Expedition, who were expecting to have to organise supply chains, how to repair their ships and all the other factors that come with deep space exploration, based on the things Fdev were saying before and during the launch of the game.
So don't tell me nonsense, you have no idea what happened as you wasn't there in the beginning, and you weren't there when it happened.
And yes, King - Admirals are a very bad thing.
As I said, consequences provide depth, depth equals additional game play, additional game play gives players more things to do, more things to do is aways is always good. As players don't always like every, more = more choice = more chances of hit.
It really is not that hard to work out.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Reminder to all participants: please discuss the topic. Other participants are not the topic. Failure to comply will result in advisories, warnings, reply bans and / or thread closure.
Blast, I'm a "very bad thing" and I didn't even know it. That's because I missed FD's announcement that they intended to make King and Admiral mutually exclusive rather than just using them as labels to denote how far my reputation had developed with two powers.
Actually, though, I don't think they ever said any such thing.
I used the word "nonsense" for your assertion that people were becoming K-A because there was something they were failing to notice. As I pointed out, the real reason people become K-A is because they do missions.
Last edited:
Which year will SC have its full game ready for release, with all the promised scope, gameplay mechanics, and 100+ star systems? 2040?
In the meantime, I'll continue playing Elite Dangerous with all the gameplay it offers (and no account wipes): galaxy exploration, battling & researching aliens, faction warfare, economic shenanigans, FPS stealth & hacking, and a complete & robust combat-flight model.
Last edited:
Why the toxicity towards SC?
I want it to be a roaring success and what is wrong with that?
I also don't just want Elite Dangerous to be meh, I want it to be the best it can be. What is wrong with that?
I am glad that NMS, clawed it's way back from it's from depths of oblivion. Fantastic stuff.
Why are ED's fans toxic towards other games and idea of make ED the best it can be?
Just why?
- Status