Page 37 of 40 FirstFirst ... 273334353637383940 LastLast
Results 541 to 555 of 589

Thread: The Juicy Feedback Fdev was wanting. The reason Open sucks for everybody.

  1. #541
    Originally Posted by Sole Hunter View Post (Source)
    The same way many of you care so much about your precious insignificant PVE NPC's interactions
    You know, if you want people to treat your choices with respect, you might want to do the same to others.

    Originally Posted by That90skid View Post (Source)
    Cause you used it to test a theory. And that is no one is using it because no one is there.
    And? Are you saying you don't see the problem with a blanket bonus for Open due to risk and that a situational bonus wouldn't actually be more reasonable?

    Think about it. Let's say we have a group of players running a faction on the edge of the bubble. The chances of any opposing player or even a random murder hobo coming by are tiny. On the other hand, you have a group of players somewhere in the center, with other player groups around, some of them possibly hostile. And yet, both groups would get the same blanket bonus just because they are in open, even though they are not facing the same risk? Don't we all want the same thing, greater reward based on greater risk. Not greater reward based on mode choice. They are two very different things.

    Originally Posted by Sole Hunter View Post (Source)
    You said it yourself other players may know better than you do. I'm a firm believer that you have a relatively poor knowledge of the BGS and PVP.
    Believe away, doesn't make it true.

  2. #542
    Originally Posted by GreyAreaUK View Post (Source)
    It was there right from day one, in the original design specification.
    I can't remember seeing that or hearing the developers mentioning it. I would need those original design specifications to take it into consideration. Until a proper response from Frontier development is issued in public your opinion is noted.

    Until then we will keep having these debates about the background simulation and the other glaring issues such as crime and punishment and all the other highlighted issues from the original poster.

    Originally Posted by Agony_Aunt View Post (Source)
    You know, if you want people to treat your choices with respect, you might want to do the same to others.



    And? Are you saying you don't see the problem with a blanket bonus for Open due to risk and that a situational bonus wouldn't actually be more reasonable?

    Think about it. Let's say we have a group of players running a faction on the edge of the bubble. The chances of any opposing player or even a random murder hobo coming by are tiny. On the other hand, you have a group of players somewhere in the center, with other player groups around, some of them possibly hostile. And yet, both groups would get the same blanket bonus just because they are in open, even though they are not facing the same risk? Don't we all want the same thing, greater reward based on greater risk. Not greater reward based on mode choice. They are two very different things.



    Believe away, doesn't make it true.
    I don't care about your feelings or how you perceive me. They are all irrelevant to this discussion. If you want to talk about how we should care about each other and how we should dance in circle be my guess but that's beside the point of this conversation. Your opinion is noted, doesn't mean I care about it.

    I care about the Elite Dangerous issues such as the poorly designed background simulation, crime and punishment and the terribly designed engineers. If you don't agree with it then that's fine but that doesn't mean I should be obligated to respect your desire to have different feelings about your silly opinion. If you cannot be open minded to these very glaring issues and understand them from a different perspective then there's no point to address these issues in the first place or even have a forum or this thread to discuss them.

  3. #543
    Originally Posted by Sole Hunter View Post (Source)
    I can't remember seeing that or hearing the developers mentioning it. I would need those original design specifications to take it into consideration. Until a proper response from Frontier development your opinion is noted.

    Until then we will keep having these debates about the background simulation the other glaring issues such as crime and punishment and all the other highlighted issues from the original poster.
    Oh, feel free. Just don't call people troll simply for disagreeing with you.

    But think about this: we've had responses from FDev about the C&P&K system, to the extent that they see a need for it. We've had responses from them about the beige issue, to the extent that it's a mistake that needs fixing. But I don't recall a single response from them that suggests they would ever consider separating the BGS on the three modes.

  4. #544
    Originally Posted by GreyAreaUK View Post (Source)
    Oh, feel free. Just don't call people troll simply for disagreeing with you.

    But think about this: we've had responses from FDev about the C&P&K system, to the extent that they see a need for it. We've had responses from them about the beige issue, to the extent that it's a mistake that needs fixing. But I don't recall a single response from them that suggests they would ever consider separating the BGS on the three modes.
    I never called you a troll for disagreeing with you. I understand your perspective on these issues.

    I called you a troll because of your previous posts and because they added no positive substance or quality to our previous conversation, which is just that.

  5. #545
    Originally Posted by Sole Hunter View Post (Source)
    I do remember destroying petty arguments from someone not being able to read my posts thought.
    You do realise that that is only happening in your head, right? You haven't successfully argued any of your points in this thread so far, as they are all based on fallacies caused by your very one-sided (and incorrect) view of how this game works.

    It was never envisaged that any one pilot could have that much of an effect on the game as a whole (or more accurately, it was specifically decided that one player should not be able to have that much effect). You are one pilot in a huge galaxy. Yes, blaze your own trail - just as everyone else is blazing theirs. Most of these trails will never cross.

    Originally Posted by Sole Hunter View Post (Source)
    Yeah just like the shared background simulation and crime and punishments, a huge mistake that needs fundamental redesign.
    At the point you are asking for a fundamental redesign of a game, you are playing the wrong game.

  6. #546
    Originally Posted by Sole Hunter View Post (Source)
    I can't remember seeing that or hearing the developers mentioning it. I would need those original design specifications to take it into consideration.
    Have you read the DDF archives? I assume you've read all of them, given your apparent knowledge of how the game works?

  7. #547
    Originally Posted by CMDR Crank Larson View Post (Source)
    You do realise that that is only happening in your head, right? You haven't successfully argued any of your points in this thread so far, as they are all based on fallacies caused by your very one-sided (and incorrect) view of how this game works.

    It was never envisaged that any one pilot could have that much of an effect on the game as a whole (or more accurately, it was specifically decided that one player should not be able to have that much effect). You are one pilot in a huge galaxy. Yes, blaze your own trail - just as everyone else is blazing theirs. Most of these trails will never cross.



    At the point you are asking for a fundamental redesign of a game, you are playing the wrong game.
    Is that supposed to be my psychologist speaking, an insult or someone with a deeper understanding of the game because so far you haven't demonstrated anything that debunked the reality that players interactions have an indirect and direct impact on all actions across the shared background simulation may it be as small as a grain of salt or as big as an event like killing "Salomi" in open play with thousand of commanders.

  8. #548
    Originally Posted by Sole Hunter View Post (Source)
    I never called you a troll for disagreeing with you. I understand your perspective on these issues.

    I called you a troll because of your previous aforementioned posts and because they added no positive substance or quality to our previous conversation, which is just that.
    do you care about breaking the 4th wall in ED? see for me this is the issue i have with many play styles in open.....
    IF you dont care about that then, what you see as irrelevant and unimportant, i will see as a huge issue.

    any player happily reaping the rewards of being a member of the pilots federation, whilst blowing up other members of the pilots federation is a massive massive problem for me.
    targetting a ship because "its a player" however is an out of game motive, and as such is a problem for me.
    using holes in games mechanics to get around the fact you can do crimes under the noses of the police and them do nothing, is a massive problem for me.

    now, i know you do not care about what is and what isnt a massive problem for me, and equally i do not care that you think me playing in solo or PG is unfair. It is an advertised feature that i am using, that IS what matters..... but this is the genius of the modes. I can play with a group of like minded folk who can stick to an agreed set of principles and not have our faces rubbed in people gaming the system, and we can still enjoy participation in the BGS.

    IF FD fix all the above - and open works as it was advertised from the get go in a lore friendly way then maybe some will go back to open... or maybe not.

  9. #549
    Originally Posted by CMDR Crank Larson View Post (Source)
    Have you read the DDF archives? I assume you've read all of them, given your apparent knowledge of how the game works?
    Yes, I've read them all including this very specific one on the background simulation and nothing indicate that they cannot separate generated events or the background simulation between the 3 different game mode.

    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...und-Simulation

    In fact it suggest that : "Events that affect entities can be injected into the game that can directly change an entity’s statistics. This mechanism can be used to add specific events to the game, like civil wars, economic collapse and major story items."

    Which imply nothing stop them to have a separate background simulation or non shared game mechanism in place for open.

  10. #550
    Originally Posted by Sole Hunter View Post (Source)
    I don't care about your feelings or how you perceive me. They are all irrelevant to this discussion. If you want to talk about how we should care about each other and how we should dance in circle be my guess but that's beside the point of this conversation. Your opinion is noted, doesn't mean I care about it.
    Ok, fine. Then don't get upset of people start talking about your precious insignificant PvP activities. It cuts both ways.

    However, if we are to have useful debates here, then its best if we do and try and treat other with respect. Otherwise there is no point if we are simply going to start being insulting the moment someone can't field a proper argument.

    Originally Posted by Sole Hunter View Post (Source)
    I care about the Elite Dangerous issues such as the poorly designed background simulation, crime and punishment and the terribly designed engineers. If you don't agree with it then that's fine but that doesn't mean I should be obligated to respect your desire to have different feelings about your silly opinion. If you cannot be open minded to these very glaring issues and understand them from a different perspective then there's no point to address these issues in the first place or even have a forum or this thread to discuss them.
    That's also cool, as long as, again, you understand it cuts both ways. I should not be obligated to respect your "silly" opinions, especially "if you cannot be open minded". Ooops.... it does cut both ways!

    And therefore, this whole debate might as well be closed, because its clear, you are not willing to respect the opinions of those you disagree with, and when you can't make your point, you resort to insults.

    I'd much prefer we have a mature discussion, where we can look at specific points and see if there can be a meeting of minds anywhere... and if not, doesn't matter, we get a good debate out of it.

  11. #551
    Originally Posted by Sole Hunter View Post (Source)
    Is that supposed to be my psychologist speaking, an insult or someone with a deeper understanding of the game because so far you haven't demonstrated anything that debunked the reality that players interactions have an indirect and direct impact on all actions across the shared background simulation may it be as small as a grain of salt or as big as an event like killing "Salomi" in open play with thousand of commanders.
    You seem to get insulted very easily, and yet like dishing out the insults. Ever thought about sticking to facts and opinion? You'll find that much more useful debates happen that way. Why would I try to debunk something that is true? Player interactions are meant to have a small impact on the galaxy. The Salomé event wasn't big. I was there. Most of it was a lot of commanders doing not a lot and wondering what was happening. A handful of commanders actually got to do/see something. What point are you trying to make here?

  12. #552
    Originally Posted by Mad Mike View Post (Source)
    do you care about breaking the 4th wall in ED? see for me this is the issue i have with many play styles in open.....
    IF you dont care about that then, what you see as irrelevant and unimportant, i will see as a huge issue.

    any player happily reaping the rewards of being a member of the pilots federation, whilst blowing up other members of the pilots federation is a massive massive problem for me.
    targetting a ship because "its a player" however is an out of game motive, and as such is a problem for me.
    using holes in games mechanics to get around the fact you can do crimes under the noses of the police and them do nothing, is a massive problem for me.

    now, i know you do not care about what is and what isnt a massive problem for me, and equally i do not care that you think me playing in solo or PG is unfair. It is an advertised feature that i am using, that IS what matters..... but this is the genius of the modes. I can play with a group of like minded folk who can stick to an agreed set of principles and not have our faces rubbed in people gaming the system, and we can still enjoy participation in the BGS.

    IF FD fix all the above - and open works as it was advertised from the get go in a lore friendly way then maybe some will go back to open... or maybe not.
    The story is not a very concerning issue for me because they've demonstrated in the past that it's almost unpractical and unfeasible to stay in line with the story due to in-game design flaws or limitations. I am far more concerned with bugs, gameplay issues and poorly designed features.

    A game can be incredibly well written and have beautiful graphics but if the gameplay is as deep as a puddle there's really no point to bother playing the game. I might as well look at paint dry on my wall.

    Originally Posted by Agony_Aunt View Post (Source)
    Ok, fine. Then don't get upset of people start talking about your precious insignificant PvP activities. It cuts both ways.

    However, if we are to have useful debates here, then its best if we do and try and treat other with respect. Otherwise there is no point if we are simply going to start being insulting the moment someone can't field a proper argument.



    That's also cool, as long as, again, you understand it cuts both ways. I should not be obligated to respect your "silly" opinions, especially "if you cannot be open minded". Ooops.... it does cut both ways!

    And therefore, this whole debate might as well be closed, because its clear, you are not willing to respect the opinions of those you disagree with, and when you can't make your point, you resort to insults.

    I'd much prefer we have a mature discussion, where we can look at specific points and see if there can be a meeting of minds anywhere... and if not, doesn't matter, we get a good debate out of it.
    I can't find any post I made in the last 10 pages that are to referring to myself being angry about how players are calling PVP an insignificant experience. All my posts are pretty much about the background simulation and how direct and indirect actions have a consequences on the entire galaxy. The post that reflect in the slightest what you just aforementioned is when I said "Insignificant PVE". I don't see how this is an insult, or insulting anyone. I'm talking about a feature in the game which I believe is very insignificant in the way we affect the shared background simulation. Social interactions in this game have a far greater impact on how we shape this galaxy.

    As for having a mature conversation, all my posts have been in line with the main subject unlike some other posts which I have reported many time but still seem to be ignored.

    Now all of this is very much irrelevant to the conversation so let's get back on track.

  13. #553
    Originally Posted by Sole Hunter View Post (Source)
    Yes, I've read them all including this very specific one on the background simulation and nothing indicate that they cannot separate generated events or the background simulation between the 3 different game mode.
    Of course they could separate the BGS. They'd just need to run other instances of it on other servers. But they have never said that this was going to happen. In fact, the intent from the beginning was to have one galaxy for us all to play in. Which we have. Your quote isn't even relevant to your argument.

  14. #554
    Originally Posted by Sole Hunter View Post (Source)
    I might as well look at paint dry on my wall.
    *Hands Sole Hunter a paint brush*

  15. #555
    Originally Posted by Sole Hunter View Post (Source)
    Yes, I've read them all including this very specific one on the background simulation and nothing indicate that they cannot separate generated events or the background simulation between the 3 different game mode.

    https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...und-Simulation

    In fact it suggest that : "Events that affect entities can be injected into the game that can directly change an entity’s statistics. This mechanism can be used to add specific events to the game, like civil wars, economic collapse and major story items."
    Also from that DDF topic...

    WHAT THE SIMULATION IS NOT

    • It does not provide faction command; this will be done by designers by injecting events.
      • Although the system should provide aggregated data to help guide these events.

    • It does not provide a fine detailed simulation of human space in the galaxy.
      • Note that it does provide the framework for a living galaxy as required in the goals.

    Originally Posted by Sole Hunter View Post (Source)
    Which imply nothing stop them from having a separate background simulation or non shared game mechanism in place for open.
    Tosh. What you wish for would require a large re-design and re-write of the back-end simulation code. Which we developers call out of scope of the design.

Page 37 of 40 FirstFirst ... 273334353637383940 LastLast