Any grind, is in your mind.

[Jex =TE=]

Se my other reply to you as to what i think the problems are within the game.
And I have never watched TV when playing. I pretty much keep myself buy when in SC.

Yes but you are not the the player base. How you play is not where we judge if a game is grindy or not. We need to look objectively, not subjectively. This game has a name for itself in "Shallow", "Grindy" and "Netflix" - this is what masses of people have described it.

Why are we ignoring that?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Se my other reply to you as to what i think the problems are within the game.
And I have never watched TV when playing. I pretty much keep myself buy when in SC.

Oh another thing I wanted to ask you, would you play the game if you didn't have VR - how do u think you would rate it then?

 

[Vorxian]

It's a three headed cow that keeps coming back for more. The word 'grind' means something else to different folks.

For me: I don't mind positive grind to obtain a cogent and meaningful outcome. An outcome subscribed to by the reward being absolutely attainable.

What royally irritates me is the negative grind, or absurd amount of double-grinds you find yourself having to do i.e. grind rep to buy an upgrade that makes your ship a little bit more efficient to bypass further stealth grinding. AKA grind farseer so you dont have to grind so much jumponium to enjoy something out in the fringes. I don't mind grinding rep OR materials, but both, a double grind just wears out the brain, and for want of a better expression it quickly saps the enjoyment out of being able to do XYZ because you need ABC to make it less tiring.

Another example was rep grinding for say, the Cutter. I used pre-patch methods to do a grind to King (as i was seeing tangible results) as a future investment because I know something cool will come along and effort vs will power would have made it unobtainable post-patch.

TLDR;
When grind puts a barrier between you and fun for the sake of 'content'... then it isn't the player doing something wrong.

Otherwise, some great conversations here on both sides.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

Except the mountain doesn't feature a moving walkway that's slowly going the opposite direction you're trying to climb.
Nor does it include the guy at the top telling you that you don't have the qualifications to ski said slope so you've go to go back and redo what you've already done.

You never tried to walk up an icy hill, falling down and sliding back down as a kid with your parents telling you that you are too young…?
OK, the analogy is not perfect

Back to the game.
I agree that there is a difference between doing something repeatedly while knowing that after doing it for X times you will get what you want and doing the same thing again and again without knowing if the RNG will give you what you want and maybe having to do it again.

Engineers really should have much less RNG. Not only the modifications, but also the acquiring of materials should be less RNGy. My opinion only obviously.

 

[Itaki]

Yes but you are not the the player base. How you play is not where we judge if a game is grindy or not. We need to look objectively, not subjectively. This game has a name for itself in "Shallow", "Grindy" and "Netflix" - this is what masses of people have described it.

Why are we ignoring that?

If lots of people say it's grindy, then there CANNOT POSSIBLY BE A GRIND ISSUE HERE!

edit: Instead of Netflix, EDflix.

 

[Chrysophylax]

For me: I don't mind positive grind to obtain a cogent and meaningful outcome. An outcome subscribed to by the reward being absolutely attainable.

What royally irritates me is the negative grind, or absurd amount of double-grinds you find yourself having to do i.e. grind rep to buy an upgrade that makes your ship a little bit more efficient to bypass further stealth grinding. AKA grind farseer so you dont have to grind so much jumponium to enjoy something out in the fringes.

I think very much the same.

I don't mind putting in the work to get results - or I wouldn't have played Diablos 2 and 3. My problem with Elite, in particular with the ranking up mechanism, is that, well, it's not one. It's something that is a side effect of doing missions for a certain subset of minor factions, but those missions don't represent any sort of military progression. Literally all you do is thousands of missions to unlock game content. The ranking itself is not content, it's just a gigantic time sink.

Since there aren't alternate ranking up mechanisms, it fits the description of a grind.

Edit: Especially compared to a game like Elite 2, where you had a specific military contact that gave you specific military missions. Even though that was a grind itself (lots of mule work at first), you had a few quite hard missions acting as a skill check for your rank. E is missing that. You can very well get up to a Corvette and Admiral without having a lot or any combat rank.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Reason why people complain about the grind is quite simply because there is a lack of compelling content and the shortfall is picked up by creating a glacial pacing which requires us to perform the same tasks over and over again, hashing out generic mission templates and so on.. This sort of thing is used throughout the game, particuarly with gaining access to the engineers and collecting the stuff to mod our ships.

So an example of a grind in ED is raising ones Fed or Empire rank. Rather than some sort of in depth military/science career, missions, storyline and engaging characters or variation of high feature experiences we instead have to repeat the same actions over and over, stacking missions, repeating mundane tasks, using mode switching. The only indication anything changes is a little up or down arrow and filling up xp bars. Upon getting your rank up mission its no different to any of the other missions and its no sense of irony that to get to Marquis I delievered some fruit and vegtables.

I personally find argument "it just lacks depth" argument very tired and not true at all, *especially* in context of grind.

You can't even define what "depth" really means yourself, "Some sort of" really won't fly here. Grind is a grind. If you repeat steps and you don't like those steps, it is a grind. Despite how much content would FD put between you and that ship, it still will be a grind for you. Pure example - passenger missions. People now complain that wanted passengers will make your life difficult. Or that passengers with specific destription will want something more than delviery from point A to point B. It is not depth? Then what it is depth?

Or maybe depth is just a scapegoat here? It is just an argument of game not being overall awesome and not giving you cool parts WHICH YOU LIKE outright out of the box?

I like ED content, I find it compelling enough to play this game repeatedly on weekly basis. Your opinion might vary. It is just not an universal truth, not having more content somehow it will do magic trick and players will enjoy game more if they find repeated steps tiresome and not liking moment-by-moment gameplay.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I think very much the same.

I don't mind putting in the work to get results - or I wouldn't have played Diablos 2 and 3. My problem with Elite, in particular with the ranking up mechanism, is that, well, it's not one. It's something that is a side effect of doing missions for a certain subset of minor factions, but those missions don't represent any sort of military progression. Literally all you do is thousands of missions to unlock game content. The ranking itself is not content, it's just a gigantic time sink.

Since there aren't alternate ranking up mechanisms, it fits the description of a grind.

Edit: Especially compared to a game like Elite 2, where you had a specific military contact that gave you specific military missions. Even though that was a grind itself (lots of mule work at first), you had a few quite hard missions acting as a skill check for your rank. E is missing that. You can very well get up to a Corvette and Admiral without having a lot or any combat rank.

That's because you play ED because of that ship you want to get. That's fine, but that's not ED is about, obviously.

 

[-Pv-]

I'm just going to stop you right there because your entire theory is based off of multiple assumptions.

1: That Frontier designed ED to be played like it was in the 80s.
2: That the majority of people complaining about "the grind" are impatient "want it now" types.
3: That your way of playing the game is the absolute correct way of playing the game.

1: It's just not true or we'd have true Newtonian flight like the original games and not a trumped up arcade flight mechanic with artificial limits on speed and maneuverability to keep things equal. It's not a single player game, though it can be played solo, it's designed in such a way as to encourage the use of all facets of the game while not meaning to punish you for skipping out on any single one, though engineers has proven that it will do just that.

2: There are "want it now" types in here but that's not who's doing the majority of the complaining. People play games to enjoy them and some people require a sense of achievement to reach that enjoyment. Spending 5-6 hours of your week looking for parts that may or may not show up randomly in a handful of places does not lend itself to either a sense of achievement or enjoyment. Personally, as someone who spent years training skill books in EVE Online, as well being very open about my distaste for the grind in this game, I am well acquainted with the amount of patience required to wait years to have what I want, while openly building my reserves and meeting my "joy" needs in other areas of the game. So you can kindly shove that line of thought where the sun doesn't shine.

3: None of us are ever right where this kind of thought is concerned. Everyone plays their own way. To berate any one single player for not playing the game the way you do or the way you think it should be done is asinine. Some people want the biggest and, by perception, best ships in the game as fast as possible just because. Some people think they need them to be better at BGS/CG activities (Though, arguably, the Cutter is pretty much the best CG ship). Others want the ship that best fits the current DPS meta, the best ship for the exploration meta, trade, mining and so on.

Like I said in a post yesterday about rank grinding. If we only had one grind, I wouldn't mind it at all, but we have grind on top of grind on top of grind in this game. Anything you want to do outside of RP or basic mission running, comes with a grind.

EXACTLY.
"Any grind, is in your mind"
It's certainly in my mind over a year since I started. I played the original Elite on Commodore and Elite: Frontier on Atari ST.
The current Elite is a grind lovers game sold to a generation of players who have played grind power up games all their lives. It's a cheap way to make a game.
Those who love grinding (the majority obviously) have the certainty if they do A, B or C often enough, they get predictable results from performing extremely short term identical quests over and over.

Those of us who prefer adventure as opposed to grinding such as Canonn are enjoying a more adventure kind of satisfaction by solving very long term puzzles through exploration and data gathering.
Those of us involved in Power Play and supporting Power strategy through BGS manipulation get a taste of group strategy type play. Still a small amount of grind involved, but as the strategy changes, so do the tactics.

I personally like to see more adventure layers. There are far too many grind layers and not enough adventure layers in this game.

-Pv-

 

[Chrysophylax]

That's because you play ED because of that ship you want to get. That's fine, but that's not ED is about, obviously.

What?

Who is the arbiter of what ED is or isn't?

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Maybe FDEV is trying to do something new and people are just resistant to the change or just don't buy it as a workable system.

Its a not-MMO-MMO, adventure-ish space sim-like

LOL


IDK, I think it is fun but I also walk from city to cit in Skyrim.

This.

What I take away from games with goals and targets and MMOs and stuff - they are predictable. In turn, I find those games very repeatable with repeatable results. I understand people want certainty they will get what they want to get. That's not why I play games. I have real life and real life goals and games are for pure atmospheric escapism.

And that's what ED is for me. It's random nature allows me not to rush to calculated "credits/hour", but enjoy adventure. Yes, people will moan and ridicule this but you have to let that "I WANT DAT SHINE" in ED. It is not designed that way. There are many posts from players "I grinded, got bored, quit, came back and realized what ED is about". I will get to Anaconda - some day. Personally I am still not looking forward that, because it is big ship with it's serious shortcomings and sometimes smaller ships just fill right for those roles. However I will get it one day.

I understand it is perfect anti thesis for those players who just want shine, who just want constant barrage of excitement. Yes, this is simulator of *life* of space commander - not excitement/space adventure game a la as you see in Star Wars. You guys have tens of games out there which fit perfectly what you are looking for. This game is for those who look for different experience.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

What?

Who is the arbiter of what ED is or isn't?

Developers. And if you have followed their gameplay design, it spells out quite clearly how and why this game exists.

No game exists for everyone, nor it should be.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Also yes, despite all I wrote, more interesting surprises between activities are welcome. Make passengers requesting more interesting things. Make BSG more detailed, PP more engaging, more interesting rewards.

 

[Chrysophylax]

I understand it is perfect anti thesis for those players who just want shine, who just want constant barrage of excitement. Yes, this is simulator of *life* of space commander - not excitement/space adventure game a la as you see in Star Wars. You guys have tens of games out there which fit perfectly what you are looking for. This game is for those who look for different experience.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



Developers. And if you have followed their gameplay design, it spells out quite clearly how and why this game exists.

No game exists for everyone, nor it should be.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Also yes, despite all I wrote, more interesting surprises between activities are welcome. Make passengers requesting more interesting things. Make BSG more detailed, PP more engaging, more interesting rewards.

I also like to walk to places in Skyrim, and one of my favorite activities in ED is to jump tall mountains in my SRV. It doesn't mean I can't look at how bad the rank grind is and have opinions on it.

Weird tho, I did follow their gameplay design and I didn't get the memo about the current state of rank grind. Mind pointing it out to me?

 

[SimplePlayer]

I like the game but looking back what I done ? Trading, mining, trading, mining [endless loop] get better ship get better modules...

After Updates oh wow materials now trading, mining, materials collecting [endless loop]

Hmm, started think about it.
I'm about to buy a cobra or something cheap and just have fun and break out of the loop.

 

[Deadspin]

That's because you play ED because of that ship you want to get. That's fine, but that's not ED is about, obviously.

Yeah, you're pretty wrong with that statement.

This goes right back to assuming your way is the right way to play the game when, in fact, there is no single right way to play the game.

ED is not a sim. It's more arcade than anything else as the only accurate "sim" type representation is the galaxy itself, not the content delivered to the players or how we pursue it.

 

[BigBANGtheory [VR]]

'the grind is in your mind' has some merit, maybe I'd even go so far as to say for the majority of the game. To claim there is no grind is not credible imho sooner or later there will be some game objective that requires you to either perform something against your will and or needlessly repeat it many times.

The trick imho is to avoid 'grind traps' which may or may not be self-imposed but when it is unavoidable just accept it and sprint through it.

You'd have to be a pretty niche player to say otherwise [alien]

 

[Monk]

I also like to walk to places in Skyrim, and one of my favorite activities in ED is to jump tall mountains in my SRV. It doesn't mean I can't look at how bad the rank grind is and have opinions on it.

Weird tho, I did follow their gameplay design and I didn't get the memo about the current state of rank grind. Mind pointing it out to me?

My thoughts exactly. There is nothing wrong with wanting a specific ship. There is nothing wrong with liking grind.

FDev be damned if they designed it one way and someone pushes it in another way.

What I think are mistakenly doing most of the time here is arguing over whether there should be grind...no...there will always be grind. However, the activity of grind should be rewarding in itself. This is another place where I think ED falters. Grinding lacks feedback, it begs for some kind of reward other than credits and pointless ranks. Achieving ranks should give more back than ship unlocks and useless permits. Access to special crew, weapons or cosmetics would be a start. Deeper analytics on commodity trade and system states would give you a running tally of your impacts...and other things, I'm sure...I'm no game designer...but I do feel the need for a more involved interaction with the game.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Yeah, you're pretty wrong with that statement.

This goes right back to assuming your way is the right way to play the game when, in fact, there is no single right way to play the game.

ED is not a sim. It's more arcade than anything else as the only accurate "sim" type representation is the galaxy itself, not the content delivered to the players or how we pursue it.

I am not here argue is ED sim or not. Gameplay design speaks usually for itself.

* Goods movement - simulated;
* Political factions - simulated;
* Outfitting avaibility - simulated;
* Missions - simulated via BGS;

Etc.

I can go on. But that's not the point. My point is that ED banking heavily on well defined, easy to understand yet requiring time to master features, gameplay loops. Many people say why gameplay loops aren't more detailed, and they argue that it is reason why ED is grindy. I disagree, because people already complain about such simple complexity as passenger transportation quirks. Essentially, people will find arguments why they find game grindy because they want to access that sweet content they desire, and rest of the game to be damned. My friend said that mistake is add any goals in such game in first place, as any such goal will be grind by players who don't know any better.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I also like to walk to places in Skyrim, and one of my favorite activities in ED is to jump tall mountains in my SRV. It doesn't mean I can't look at how bad the rank grind is and have opinions on it.

Weird tho, I did follow their gameplay design and I didn't get the memo about the current state of rank grind. Mind pointing it out to me?

But rank grind don't exists within context of the game - at all. It is term people describe as way to get access to major faction aligned ship. It is their game goal, good. But then don't complain it is hard to get because it is supposed to be available for people doing good deeds for major factions. For you it is barrier to get that shine. Ergo, grind.

 

[Chrysophylax]

But rank grind don't exists within context of the game - at all. It is term people describe as way to get access to major faction aligned ship. It is their game goal, good. But then don't complain it is hard to get because it is supposed to be available for people doing good deeds for major factions. For you it is barrier to get that shine. Ergo, grind.

You haven't made an argument as to why we can't complain, you just proclaimed it so.

 

[Theodrid]

Yes but you are not the the player base. How you play is not where we judge if a game is grindy or not. We need to look objectively, not subjectively. This game has a name for itself in "Shallow", "Grindy" and "Netflix" - this is what masses of people have described it.

And neither are those that constantly claim 'grind' Je,x there is, unsurprisingly, a mixture of people and opinions here. The grinders isn't where we judge the game either, why you believe your side of the argument is objective and not subjective baffles me. Despite your claims this game also has a name for itself as an innovative, beautiful and varied space game/sim, I guarantee that for every voice screaming grind that I could show you 2 maybe 3 having a blast. Is the game for everyone?, No, is the game flawless?, not by a long chalk. If folk decide to keep banging the same nail into the same bit of timber that's their call, but please, don't tell those of us who occasionally hit the nail but do plenty besides that we must be grinding too, we're not.

 

[Deadspin]

I am not here argue is ED sim or not. Gameplay design speaks usually for itself.

* Goods movement - simulated;
* Political factions - simulated;
* Outfitting avaibility - simulated;
* Missions - simulated via BGS;

Etc.

I can go on. But that's not the point. My point is that ED banking heavily on well defined, easy to understand yet requiring time to master features, gameplay loops. Many people say why gameplay loops aren't more detailed, and they argue that it is reason why ED is grindy. I disagree, because people already complain about such simple complexity as passenger transportation quirks. Essentially, people will find arguments why they find game grindy because they want to access that sweet content they desire, and rest of the game to be damned. My friend said that mistake is add any goals in such game in first place, as any such goal will be grind by players who don't know any better.

But rank grind don't exists within context of the game - at all. It is term people describe as way to get access to major faction aligned ship. It is their game goal, good. But then don't complain it is hard to get because it is supposed to be available for people doing good deeds for major factions. For you it is barrier to get that shine. Ergo, grind.

I'm sorry, I couldn't resist.

* Goods movement - simulated;
* Political factions - simulated;
* Outfitting avaibility - simulated;
* Missions - simulated via BGS;

Those do not make the game a simulation. In DCS F-16 everything is simulated behind the scenes but the simulation comes from the operation of the aircraft, the detailed mechanics of flying it and the way you have to manipulate those controls in a realistic manner to achieve mission completion. A simulation is about immersion into the content at a level that bypasses normal arcade style gaming.

Elite Dangerous is not a simulation of any sort.

The only mechanic in this game requiring any amount of time to master is docking (an assumption I've made based off of how easy it is to fly a straight line but also by how many people seem to have issues bringing their ship in onto a pad without crashing). Perhaps a bit more in depth is dog fighting, though only a handful of players actually get close to mastering that because a vast majority prefer to fight NPCs, which are in no way able to hold a candle to fighting another player.

People are complaining about passenger transport because missions with wanted passengers are ending instantly with people blown apart by the stations before they can even depart. This shouldn't be happening if the station couldn't pick that wanted criminal out on their own while they were apparently chilling on it. Mark that one up to poor scan mechanics in general.

Your friend is daft. I'm not even going to get into how this game has no real developer defined goals to begin with and why that statement alone is only worthy of the most severe eye rolling this side of the Mississippi.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

You haven't made an argument as to why we can't complain, you just proclaimed it so.

I didn't say you can't. Free speech. I say don't.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Those do not make the game a simulation. In DCS F-16 everything is simulated behind the scenes but the simulation comes from the operation of the aircraft, the detailed mechanics of flying it and the way you have to manipulate those controls in a realistic manner to achieve mission completion. A simulation is about immersion into the content at a level that bypasses normal arcade style gaming.

Game's setup is simulated. That was my point. I didn't say it is sim in any classic 'flying sim' sense. It is not, not I want it to be.

Elite Dangerous is not a simulation of any sort.

Sorry, but I will have to disagree. Already pointed out that quite important parts of the game ARE simulated.

Your friend is daft. I'm not even going to get into how this game has no real developer defined goals to begin with and why that statement alone is only worthy of the most severe eye rolling this side of the Mississippi.

And you obviously can't make any comment without insulting people He said it ironically of course. He pointed out that it is due of fallacy of some people ALWAYS looking something to complete or compete for in games. That's their mind set, which they can't switch even if asked. He argued that developers should know better and accept such players exist and avoid design games with uncertain paths to achievements (all RNG/Casino argument). I argued that no, people should know better, and if they feel threatened by such game, they should avoid it. In his mind such game as ED should not exist, as it is basically anti thesis of such player mindset.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Funny, I bought the game to have fun. Do you know what a fun is? Have you had one recently?

Clearly the point is missed. Virtual "jobs" can be fun. Real jobs can be too. I happen to very much enjoy what I do (which is mostly tell people "no" all day), but I do also understand part of what else is being raised here as well.

I have not confessed anything. I am not switching what I do because I get bored. You keep putting words into my mouth. I have not said any of that.

And yes I have mentioned stuff. As I said the game mechanics are not that bad in themselves, yes I have agreed they can all be expanded on. My opinion it is the reasons why we do the gameplay that needs to be addressed. All we do is do stuff for credits, rep and influence.

We need more compelling reasons to why we go trading or carrying passengers or go bounty hunting or go exploring. The basic activities are not that bad and in general fine, just give me good reasons why I am doing them. That is what needs improving in my eyes.

And that would be this.. There ARE more compelling reasons, if you WANT them - and that has everything to do with Powerplay and the BGS. We're not just running cargo to run cargo, we're doing it at the request of some faction, representing some power in the galaxy. Each mission we run for them strengthens them and weakens their opponents. IF that's how you choose to look at things, then the deeper reasons are already there.

But the same can be said for why we work our daily jobs too - do we just work for a paycheck? Or do we work because we believe in the companies we work for and want to strengthen them and see them grow? I've referred to this many times as the difference between a Job and Career. Jobs we work to pay our bills, Careers we work to grow ourselves and our chosen industries.

In Elite, we are small, the most tiny cogs in much larger wheels, turned by much larger wheels, turned by even larger wheels that make the galactic economy go.

Elite actually reminds me very much of the TV show Dark Matter. If you haven't watched it, you should, at least once. The long and short of it, in Dark Matter everything is run by and for the benefit of Corporations - at least three that we know of by name, The Mikkei Combine, Ferrous Corp, and Traugott Corp. These corporations rule space, for the most part, and when they go to war, entire solar systems live or die. It's really a great show.

And I do see more about the above point - there are no major direct rewards for our actions, other than a few credits and maybe some rubber hoses that make every pirate within a parsec interdict us. Not that there couldn't be, because there certainly could, and there may be in the future.

For all the hate it generates every time I do this, I'm going to do it once again:

One of my favorite "missions" in No Man's Sky involves using a Beacon on a planet to locate a crashed ship. Once you locate that ship, you have some options - you can interact with a device there that can net you some rewards, be they blueprints or materials and you can choose to repair the crashed ship and claim it as your own, or leave it there to rot. This happens to be the best route to go to upgrade your ship without having to spend a fortune on ships, as repaired wrecks are essentially free.

Similar missions could be given here as well - I love Tip Offs to find crashed ships, scan their data and clean up their cargo. But if we could recover new technologies for Engineers to create, or even salvage the entire ship itself and obtain a new ship to make use of, this would satisfy that lack of material rewards feeling, and give some deeper purpose behind the activities we engage in in Elite.