I have a lot of Ubisoft games as well and am enjoying them a whole lot (Assassin's creed and farcry series). AC:Unity was a disaster at launch and Ubisoft had to pay for it, but they learned their lesson. A lot of the bad press is about their monetization schemes in their games, I guess. But those are optional, one doesn't need them to enjoy the games.
Big Elite Streamers Giving Up On Streaming Elite?
- Thread starter Decandently
- Start date
- Status
This is, at least for some, where the BGS and player minor factions come in. Staking a claim to systems, stations or ports, waging wars (either against non-player factions or other PMFs) and expanding into other systems is Elite's version of that late game MMO play. I understand it's not for everyone, and it can be a little opaque to newcomers, but it's definitely there if that's the sort of thing you're looking for.
It's kinda fun, at the least it's good to work with people that do things differently every so often. Teams spend literally the majority of their time going in circles due to poor management and process but the developers are usually way more passionate and driven. The kinds of things in a larger company that you schedule to take a month are things that might get done in a day in gamedev. Harassment is a meme though, those are takeover attempts like what happened to Mozilla, Linux, the FSF, etc..
![[VR] James Constantine](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/275/275309.jpg?1622437385){kind=avatar}
Not really what I was citing. Factions are ultimately NPC factions and while they can be influenced, what they can do or not is limited as they are not actually 'run' by players. In fact, it makes very little difference to an average player what faction is in charge of a system, as unless you make a concerted effort to alienate any faction, chances are you're going to be allied with all the factions present, once you've spent any amount of time there.
You'll hear similar complaints from other sectors in the IT industry, I don't think games software differs all that much in that regard. Badly managed software projects have become almost a cliche, and it is a common issue throughout the industry, and many of the cross disciplines that have grown around development - from project management, agile, CI and the like, to alleviate these problems are IMO largely attempts to put a band-aid on a deeper, more systemic issue and often introduce their own problems, especially when introduced (as often they are) by management who don't actually understand them.
The games industry, principally has a reputation for underpaying and burning out young, enthusiastic developers. How much of this is true or not, I don't know, as I don't actually work in games myself. Given this, games companies are hardly the only one's out there who will seek to exploit developers - my experience is you most often come across this sort of behaviour in SME's that have grown organically and often had to count every penny they spent or earned. Even when they reach a certain size and stability, they maintain the same approach, which often does not scale well.
That's essentially saying "if you aren't interested in the BGS, the BGS isn't interesting". While it may not make a difference to the average player, joining a squadron that has an active interested in the BGS can really open up some new meaning to the activities you do in game.
I fly with The Fatherhood, and a system we have a stake in was recently invaded by another PMF (through their players' dedicated efforts to expand) and a call to arms was issued across all our squadrons. It was fun to see players who don't normally get involved in combat drop what they were otherwise doing in game, wing up and engage the invaders. I played a very, very minor part in that, but I ended the week with a sense of achievement and purpose. See The Great Inti Summer War of 3307 for more colour.
All that said, I agree it would be great if there were some more tangible impacts of systems changing hands, especially if the new controlling faction is from a different superpower. There was an interesting thread posted recently suggesting changes to the BGS and ways in which the imacts could show up in game, but of course I can't find it now.
Last edited:
No, what I'm saying is that BGS mechanics are limited, as is the game economy as are many of the other sand-box-like game mechanics, which means that once one has finished grinding to a point where they have done everything to upgrade their own character, ship, equipment or whatever, there are few collaborative options left for game play. With some games it is possible to continue play, building player bases, economies, empires long after you've hit the 'end game', Elite offers limited options in this regard.
Viewing a game mechanic critically doesn't mean that someone is uninterested or against that mechanic. I do wish these discussions didn't continually end up with people seeing everything as black and white.
I understand this, but the faction you support is ultimately an NPC, not player, faction. There are limitations to how far this can be played as a result. That's not to say it's not fun, only that you're going to reach a point where you've 'done it all' faster.
i like watching paint dry its therapeutic...lol
Getting hard to find an area of space where you can BGS and PvE, without the PMF bit, not impossible, but hard.
I do think the last big change to the BGS (multiple conflicts), whilst welcome in many ways, put the death nail into the lone BGS player slowing down/holding up another PMF. These days its a war of attrition between PMF, and who can keep enough resource affecting the BGS even when this weeks CG looks tasty.
I feel the BGS is the domain now of player groups. So for me end game is reset and do it again. Whilst I have been a member of a few groups of squadrons, very few I can buy into, and even then gamestyle becomes limited, os I avoid it. I do not think I am the only lone wolf style player in the game.
Simon
My comment on interest or lack thereof in the BGS was directed at the "average player" from your previous post. In my mind the average player either isn't interested in the BGS or doesn't really know it exists, so of course they fly the galaxy taking whatever missions are on offer or selling commodities without really considering who they're working for.
Yes the BGS play is limited in that it doesn't involve base building etc. but it does allow you to "stake claims to systems" as per your post I originally replied to. A PMF left to its own devices would just bumble around making no meaningful progress, so the actions of the players are very much a controlling influence on that faction's destiny. Taking my previous example, without player-driven change EIC wouldn't have entered Inti, and without the game from The Fatherhood they would likely have gained a foothold in the system and slowly begun building influence until they were the controlling faction.
If you don't want black vs. white arguments, you might want to stay clear of absolute statements. Ultimately my point was that your assertion that there are no late game player group mechanics isn't true for those actively participating in the BGS. They may be more limited than in other MMOs (since I've not played any others I can't say either way) and I think we can all agree that they can be improved and made more visible, but they're most certainly there.
Last edited:
I agree. Even worse, is if one of the groups of Leaflet Pushers decides a different government type would be better for whichever figurehead they support. Next day you have 11 carriers in the system and the war stops going your way.
It doesn't allow you to stake a claim to a system; it allows you to influence systems so that an NPC faction can. That's not the same thing as staking a claim personally or for a player based guild, corporation or group. My point is those end game mechanics are very limited in Elite.
Oh, you want to be pedantic, OK. Good luck with that.
#ActiBlizzWalkout
When I'm in a squadron directly affiliated with that player minor faction, and when my actions have helped bring about that situaiton, what's the different between that and what you think would qualify for a player-based guild staking a claim?
Come on, that's hardly a fair representation of the contents of my posts. I called you out because you said A, I said something that wasn't A and then you bemoaned the A vs not-A nature of conversations. There's no moral highground to be had here; it's just different perspectives.
That the guild (I'll use the generic MMO term here) has control over the market, is able to create missions, has storage capabilities in a station, outpost or settlement. That they are both responsible and can set the security of a system (whether this is managed by NPC's or players is a further question), and are free to directly declare war with other guilds or minor factions. Or that a guild, controlling a system can declare intelligence to or independence from a power.
These sort of mechanics do exist in other games (I'd give examples, except we've already been told not to mention other games here) and they do keep players engaged and playing long after they've effectively reached the end of their character 'grind'. This is not to say there is not valid game play already in ED, but it is far more limited than you could find, and thus will result in player fall-off faster.
Maybe I did, but it should be clear that this is not what I have been describing and perhaps the above clarification makes this clearer. Otherwise going through my past posts to engage in a discussion on semantics, is not my idea of a fun Sunday afternoon.
- Status