And "validity" means what, exactly?
Anyone else thinking of asking for a refund?
- Thread starter m0rl0ck
- Start date
And "validity" means what, exactly?
Referencing the same poster's own words doesn't exactly define validity in context. Sorry.
If that was the case, I'd be free to define anything as I wish to see it.
Got my Prismatics with out a single shot fired.
Got my Packhounds, Imperial Hammers, Mining Lances and Advanced Plasma Accelerators the same way too.
Power Play doesn't have to be Pew-Pew Play. In fact, it is a show of superiority to play this political nonsense game without resorting to weapons at all.
I'm going to have to go all Cardassian here - it's not enough to simply beat someone, they have to come to realize why they were wrong to oppose you in the first place.
And if you can do it without ever firing a shot, that makes you the vastly superior opponent.
I've already pitched a proposal over in Focused Feedback as to how Power Play should be completely reworked, from the ground up, starting from what you do to join in the first place. And yes, I've left plenty of room for Pew-Pew Play too, but have included plenty of other options as well - all equally viable, all equally available to all players, in all modes, on all platforms. I dare anyone else to do better.
Its also specifically about the BGS, which is the backbone of the game, and not Powerplay, which is intended to create player-driven conflict. Its completely taken out of context by people. Which isn't that surprising, it happens with everything anyone from FD says.
Indeed. And my reference to the context is that the calls for "Open-only" to the game itself would be clearly changing not only the inherent nature of the game, but also to backpedal assurances made by agents of the company. The BGS is core to the nature of the game, instituted by FD before it was even released- that it could be affected by ANY mode, whether PvP or PvE by choice. Again, I'm not arguing against PP being moved to Open.
A 24 hour week, instead of doing it properly.
I'll go one step further: making PP open-only is a strong argument for keeping the BGS should be across all modes. If someone would argue it isn't fair they cant defend their BGS territory from solo players, FD could simply respond by saying that the BGS doesnt exist for defending your territory against other players; if you want that, go join a Power which would then explicitly exist for people looking for such gameplay.
The words referenced, my words, were me attempting to describe the meaning of validity in the context they were presented (that is, MBs quote).
MB's statement was made in reply to a specific question:
However, MB chose to reply to this with a more general statement, which you can determine/infer from his choice of words, specifically these:
So, MB was speaking generally about players choosing the mode to play in and stating that every choice of mode was valid, and by replying generally this implies he thought that his general statement applied to/covered the specific Q about BGS effects. Or, in other words, the BGS question was not an exception to the rule. Note, he wasn't stating that there wasn't any exception to the rule, just that this wasn't one of them.
So, the Q become, what does valid mean generally when talking about how players select modes to play in? The only thing I think it can mean, is that the content of Elite is generally meant to be played by all players in whichever mode they prefer and that they should not feel, nor imply to anyone else, that their selection of mode is the wrong one for consuming that content (sadly, this message seems to have been lost on most forum goers). There is, almost, some sort of ethical rightness/wrongness being implied by the word "valid" in this context.
To contrast this, in an attempt to make things clearer. If we changed both the context and the statement to.. say someone were to ask (after this open-only power play change goes through) if choosing solo mode was valid for participation in powerplay, then the answer would be "no". In this context "valid" actually means literally "correct" as-in the correct mode to enable participation in powerplay. The meaning of valid is not the same, in this context/statement.
Words don't always mean exactly the same thing, and sometimes the differences are subtle, and perhaps those subtleties are not well communicated because perhaps, as Wittgenstein believed we all have a different beetle in our box and there is simply no way to show someone it.
Last edited:
Wow, good job on taking all that time to research and respond to my reply.
Doesn't exactly change the intention of the post, nor its future implication- but I give credit where it's due.
As I've said before, simply including an EULA does not preclude wrongful doing nor intent. If a customer feels like they've been cheated due to advertisement of a product and change of said product after delivery- they have legal recourse, end of story. You may disagree as you wish, as to fulfill your immediate gratification of a forum-fu "win", but the reality is much different.
Plus, MB probably was just answering some questions without assuming years down the line, when he had left the project, people would write hundreds of pages of posts about the exact meaning of his words regarding a proposal made years later that he wasn't talking about or involved with in any way. I doubt he intended it to be taken as Holy Scripture. He just, IMHO, tried to say that people could influence the BGS in all modes. Which they can. Which Sandro literally confirmed days ago FD still has zero interest in changing, regardless of what people ask for. I dont think we need to take it any further than that.
Last edited:
The foundations for Bad game design was laid right at the begining when they decided to create a multi-player game and then implement a solo mode that A) affects the multi-player universe, and b) can be moved between at any time.
I really can't be bothered to go into the details because it has already been discussed ad nauseum and the debate always becomes polarized.... Suffice it to say that I for one don't want to play a game that works that way because for me I feel like i'm working against ghosts and the cheat potential is huge.
We all kknow the sort of things that happens eg : player group A is trying to flip a system and group B is trying to stop them, so group A go into solo mode leaving group B powerless to do anything about it.... Makes the game pointless, and frustrating.... that is a big part of the reason that I stopped playing Elite and won't play it again until this is fixed...
Except Group B has exactly the same ability to counter such actions, they just choose not to utilize them and instead play victim and call the waaaaaambulance.
Now, who's "weak" exactly?
Another example
Player A plays as a pirate and takes out a whole bunch of innocent traders.....
Player B plays a s a bounty hunter and hearing about player A decides to go after him....
Player A realising that he is being hunted by player B goes into solo......
The whole foundation of Elite as a multiplayer game is completely ruined by this ability to swap modes.... it has to be fixed.
Player A plays as a pirate and takes out a whole bunch of innocent traders.....
Player B plays a s a bounty hunter and hearing about player A decides to go after him....
Player A realising that he is being hunted by player B goes into solo......
The whole foundation of Elite as a multiplayer game is completely ruined by this ability to swap modes.... it has to be fixed.
Please, just stop... while you're still behind.
I honestly think their mindset was the opposite of how you see it. The game evolved from an SP game, and the modern version ofc required MP added in some capacity as it's asked for in practically everything because 21st century, so they threw some of it in there. Not very well certainly, or we wouldn't be on a raft in a sea of brown to discuss this in the first place.
Same results however; two polarized game community factions seeking fundamentally different experiences, neither of which feel like making any compromises but rather would murder all the "others" till there's no need for compromise. (disclaimer: yes this isn't everybody, but you know we gots faction warriors on both sides looking for blood instead of better Pretend Spaceman)
I think FD badly underestimated the requirements of decent MP-based gaming from the outset and are only now realizing that they need to make this part of the game not suck so hard. Whether that's within their ability is yet to be seen.
^
All of that too. Hopefully there will be hints at developing the capabilities to better manage that situation by Christmas, when Beyond ends.
But make no mistake FD, you need those capabilities first...then do something to transition to a new design paradigm.
Not t'other way around.
All of that too. Hopefully there will be hints at developing the capabilities to better manage that situation by Christmas, when Beyond ends.
But make no mistake FD, you need those capabilities first...then do something to transition to a new design paradigm.
Not t'other way around.
Last edited:
Again, the referenced quote was in a dev update thread for CQC- an exclusively multiplayer feature. At that time wings had already been released- an exclusively multiplayer feature. Since that quote, multicrew has been released- an exclusively multiplayer feature. It is ABUNDANTLY clear now, and was clear at the time, that the referenced quote did not mean "all modes currently and will always have equal feature sets." Having a single player mode and a multiplayer mode have exactly the same feature set is technically impossible (no matchmaking netcode need for multiplayer), and a foolish thing to aspire to in the first place. Single player and multiplayer have different needs. Trying to make them exactly the same just guarantees they'll both be sub-par.