Roughly 80% or more people who bought ED went away and stopped playing.
Where exactly did you pull those figures from?
Was it someplace dark, warm and damp?
Roughly 80% or more people who bought ED went away and stopped playing.
Another illogical conclusion.
If that were true, mobius wouldn't exist.
But why doe sit exist to that size while open is dead?
Mobius is just the inbetween of the opens major issues taken away. Going solo is not about going meta as hard as possible.
There is neither the reward nor incentive in open, because if it were there people would go open instead of solo, or even mobius. Your conclusion is s imply wrong, and thats prrofen by the players choices for these 3 offered possibilities and their acceptance.
You cannot say open is fine and it's for multipalyer fun, because Mobius is multiplayer fun, so where is that issue comign from that mobius works and not open? The answer is just what many don't want to hear or pretent to not being true - or lain out ignore.
But he truth is, there is no real incentive to go open, if it were there, people would go there. Claiming they are equal is not true as player behavior does counter this logic.
Open is also not like Mobius, nor like solo, if it were, people would distribute equally amongst them.
Multipalyer fun you spoke of is the incentive that works in mobius, but fails in open. So why?
CAN, is already the issue, it needs to be AT LEAST as good as solo otherwise it's not chosen
A >= B is not the same as
A <= B just becasue there is that case that in both being A = B
You remember correctly, indeedAnd that's not counting the development time before the game was released, either.
Gotta love all these people who can criticize the game, yet they have no such achievements to compare it to.
I say if you can do a better job- get your own Kickstarter going and let's see how successful you really are. Put your money where your mouth is.
The gameplay is slenderer than an anorexic tapeworm with bulimia. It's a nice tech demo, but not much more than that.
Not exactly Ziggy.
In the aforementioned example.
Player A is in the system trying to undermine it (by shooting Powerplay NPCs and Players while in that system)
Player B is trying to fortify the system (by delivering tokens)
Player A will carry on about their business undermining until they see Player B, at which point they interdict and kill them.
Player B's hasn't delivered their cargo, (resulting in 500t of fortification tokens not being delivered) and Player A has also accrued another batch of undermining tokens by killing B.
Is that clearer dude?
That it will fall off into obscurity is dead wrong cmdr...It ALREADY has.
The point of the thread is primarily to remind the game designers that it's important to make the sandbox deep if Elite Dangerous is to last another 5 years. It needs features that give players agency to create and control things rather than add superficial content. It doesn't need to be a full-blown sandbox game, but it needs more sand and tools. Otherwise it will remain a shallow sandbox which many people complained about for the last 3 years.
Ah, good. Can we all go home now?
In that case player B just gets interdicted and high wakes and gets interdicted and high wakes and gets interdicted and high wakes and... and everyone is busy not playing the game.
What could make the sandbox deep
Some suggestions:
- Player owned capital ships - this is believed to be coming as the Fleet Carrier in Q4 2018. Should be (very) customizable and act as a mobile base for PVE and PVP gameplay. Also expand the type of player owned capital ships: battleships, bulk carriers etc.
- Proper in-game guild mechanics - believed to be coming as Squadrons in Q4 2018
- Mining Extractors - player owned. It can be bought and placed on a planet. After a while the player would return to collect the mined minerals
- Storage Structure - player owned. This building is used to store the mined minerals.
- Processor Structure - player owned. This is used to process the mined minerals. Then players can produce goods such as modules and ships by themselves. It makes the economy more player driven and adds depth to mining.
- NPC Ship Crew Management - adds depth to interactions with NPCs onboard a ship.
- Player owned Stations - for Squadrons who have enough credits and resources to build or buy a station.
The point of the thread is primarily to remind the game designers that it's important to make the sandbox deep if Elite Dangerous is to last another 5 years.
So, in that situation, does Player B deliver said fortification tokens, seen as they're leaving the system? Does Player A prevent the submission of fortification tokens?
Have you considered FD are not trying to make a full on sandbox game? If they wanted to make a game with more sand, they would add more sand. They might have plans to add more sand over time, they probably do. Unfortunately, they can't just wave a magic wand here.
I mean, what is the point of this thread except to complain that FD haven't made the game you want?
I see no constructive suggestions from you in your OP about what FD could reasonably add in the coming months or years to increase the amount of sand that would be in line with FD's plans.
Either you enjoy the game, or you don't. You can tell FD they are not making a game you enjoy, and that's fine. It doesn't mean the devs will jump to implement what you want, no more than they would jump to make what i want (which is probably different from what you want).
Yeah, for me 2.4 hasn't been interesting either, but I still enjoy the game, and there are other games out there i can play when i do get bored of ED.
Time for the old infographic.
https://i.imgur.com/fgHr2bl.jpg
Every player's choices and actions can directly impact the balance of power in the ongoing battle for interstellar conquest and control that touches and enhances every aspect of the Elite Dangerous experience.
[h=1]400 billion star systems.
Infinite freedom.
Blaze your own trail.[/h]
2.4 was from ye olde molde called: now with 100% more toys.Wasn't 2.4 supposed to include an epic alien storyline? Touche!
I'm a bit peckish actually.Yes, but... but nobody wants that!
That was clear already. My question was with regard to the effectiveness off applied resources. Would he who aims to interdict token runners not be more efficient in running tokens themselves for the bottomline of his or her faction? But I already complained every thread is turned into a Pooperplay in Open thread so I'm dropping it.Not exactly Ziggy.
In the aforementioned example.
Player A is in the system trying to undermine it (by shooting Powerplay NPCs and Players while in that system)
Player B is trying to fortify the system (by delivering tokens)
Player A will carry on about their business undermining until they see Player B, at which point they interdict and kill them.
Player B's hasn't delivered their cargo, (resulting in 500t of fortification tokens not being delivered) and Player A has also accrued another batch of undermining tokens by killing B.
Is that clearer dude?
So many things wrong with that statement.
What do different people consider to mean by deep?
What would different people prefer for their sand? Some people want base building, some people want the ability to have fleets of NPCs. Others want other things. Many of those things you might not like.
Its a "game is doomed if FD don't do what i say" sentence.
It might be an ok thread if it was your first and only thread to express you opinion of this. Except, this has been going on for a long time. If FD haven't got the message by now that you are not happy, they are never going to get the message.
Of course, this is balanced by the people who are happy with the amount of sand, at least to some extent. I think most of us would like more sand... or stone... or wood. Choppa.
At the end of the day, its a useless whine thread with nothing constructive coming out of it, because you didn't put anything constructive in.
A TL;DR of this thread is: FD suck.
Why not instead try to make constructive suggestions? Maybe FD will like your ideas, maybe they won't. But its a hell of a lot more productive than just sitting on the forums complaining.
If you think FD don't listen then... well, again, what is the point of this thread?
The point of the thread is primarily to remind the game designers that it's important to make the sandbox deep if Elite Dangerous is to last another 5 years. It needs features that give players agency to create and control things rather than add superficial content. It doesn't need to be a full-blown sandbox game, but it needs more sand and tools. Otherwise it will remain a shallow sandbox which many people complained about for the last 3 years.
What could make the sandbox deep
Some suggestions:
- Player owned capital ships - this is believed to be coming as the Fleet Carrier in Q4 2018. Should be (very) customizable and act as a mobile base for PVE and PVP gameplay. Also expand the type of player owned capital ships: battleships, bulk carriers etc.
- Proper in-game guild mechanics - believed to be coming as Squadrons in Q4 2018
- Mining Extractors - player owned. It can be bought and placed on a planet. After a while the player would return to collect the mined minerals
- Storage Structure - player owned. This building is used to store the mined minerals.
- Processor Structure - player owned. This is used to process the mined minerals. Then players can produce goods such as modules and ships by themselves. It makes the economy more player driven and adds depth to mining.
- NPC Ship Crew Management - NPC crew in the cockpit and crew management options for the whole ship which can be managed by the player. This adds depth to NPC interactions onboard a ship.
- Player owned Outpost, Stations - for Squadrons who have enough credits and resources to build or buy an outpost or station.
Roughly 80% or more people who bought ED went away and stopped playing. I could be one of those 80% but I come here to give advice and feedback so Frontier can make Elite Dangerous great.
Yes but he can't undermine the system because he is busy doing nonsense rather than shooting powerplay NPCs.