Certainly the forum is whinier than usual at the moment.yes, which is why we have this unending whine in the forum at the moment. People have had it too easy for too long. Here’s finally something that will be a challenge to make work, and people lose their minds over it...
S
Elite IS too easy
- Thread starter Cheese Helmet
- Start date
You do have some influence on your difficulty level by choosing for yourself how powerful you are.
By the way, also in the marketing babble it says Elite has an amazing multiplayer experience. So I don't know why players are still complaining about lack of multiplayer content. It's amazing! Says so on their website.
But seriously, Elite is as easy as you want it to be. If you want hard, go fight Thargoids in a sidewinder.
It's like the Bible. You quote a part of the marketing babble and go: see?
By the way, also in the marketing babble it says Elite has an amazing multiplayer experience. So I don't know why players are still complaining about lack of multiplayer content. It's amazing! Says so on their website.
But seriously, Elite is as easy as you want it to be. If you want hard, go fight Thargoids in a sidewinder.
It's like that90skid has bought new edible headwear.
But, my entire point is that the player has to invent difficulty and it’s doesn’t exist organically. So yeah that’s kind of what we have to do already, and what we’d like not to have to do 100% of the time.
Yeah differences in how you have to approach systems. Be they anarchy, low sec, high sec, at war, at boom, under thargoid invasion, should be different and something a player needs to be aware of. Similar to how a player leaning on a fuel scoop needs to be aware of the star types as thier tank gets lower.Well, the only solution I see would what many players have already asked FDEV to do: to give meaning to anarchies and core sectors. The latter, for instance, should be so safe that not even the most hardened PVP murderboat would be safe. Anybody going weapons hot without a VERY good reason should be staring down the guns of at least half a dozen fully engineered top-of-the-line combat vessels, and see a rebuy screen forthwith.
Anarchies, on the other hand, would, by necessity, be a totally different kettle of fish. HOWEVER, I'd like everybody to remember what anarchy means, what it really is. Anarchy does NOT mean that everybody can commit all kinds of crime, or is encouraged to. Originally, it was envisioned as a society where morality (and common sense) would make intervention by authorities superfluous.
In ED, of course, this need not be the case. They would be lawless. HOWEVER, even in such sectors (especially in such sectors!), certain transports would be expected to go unmolested. Not nearly every system is self-sufficient. If no food gets through, the people starve. Even die-hard anarchists want to eat. Without medical supplies, more people get sick and die. Even the most wild-eyed anarchist would not want to die from an otherwise easily curable disease.
So, certain commodities would be considered very important, and their bearers would likely be encouraged to come (admittedly at their own risk). I do see, however, groups in anarchies setting out to curb excessive violence, at least when directed at those delivering stuff vital for the continued existence of socity in that sector. In other words, PVP murder boats duking it out with one another -- no problem. Nothing to see here. Burning down the umpteenth supplier of grain -- not so great (unless a famine is called for).
I KNOW, the counter argument is, of course, "It's a game!" Of course it is. However, a game is meant to be fun, for all customers, not just a minority who think that ED is way too soft on players.
As I said, I could live with anarchies being made considerably tougher (as long as core sectors were made considerably safer -- as logic would dictate).
However, that is ultimately FDEV's choice, and I kinda doubt they listen to my whining (or anybody else's, at that).
I hope I didn't step on your toes (or anybody elses), given I didn't have my clown shoes on.
currently there’s no reason to even notice anything about where you’re going except landing pad sizes and scoopable stars
Yes. That's because ED is designed to appeal to a broad player base, including those who want a hard game and those who don't. This is a good thing because it sells more copies, funds the game better and we all get more features and bug fixes than we would have done otherwise. It's clever design.
The hardcore game which you seem to want would have been such a minority interest that development wouldn't be funded and it would never come to anything.
I thought the whole point of a sandbox was we brought our own stories and difficulties if we didn’t want that we would have bought a differently structured game.
2 things.
1) Anytime I see a solid idea about using core concepts from other games in elite a chorus from a specific group in the forums rings “elite isn’t for everyone” “elite is a niche game” etc. but now I’m told it’s for a “broad player base”
2) I’m not saying make the game hardcore. Even though I personally wouldn’t mind more hardcore elements. I’m saying make the game be what it is. You’re telling me I should be able to drop into a system under attack and go entirely unaffected for some supposed “broad appeal” of nothing happening to the player ever? That doesn’t make sense, thematic all or logically.
there’s nothing hardcore about saying that the states of the systems, and the security levels, and the other goings on should make a player pay attention to them and affect their experience when they go there. Use the scale of the map to allow people who want that soft safe experience have one through smart travel choices, and if they don’t make smart choices that goes into jeopardy, conversely someone who’s wanted should also need to make smart choices. And I’d argue that making the game actually present itself as alive and dynamic would have much broader appeal than it currently does
Have to do? Does it take effort getting into a sidewinder?
I'm quite happy to have a ... wait, respond in kind. We are quite happy to have a say in our difficulty level on a case by case basis. And we would like to have that option remain available to us.
The point of a sandbox is to have meaningful tools to manipulate the sandbox into castles and stuff. We can’t make castles and stuff, we can just look at the sand currently
Don’t see any reason why making the game more dynamic would remove that option. Systems in boom states, none, etc with good security levels should be that Avenue. But if a player doesn’t plan appropriately there should be an element of risk as well, like not paying attention and jumping into a system under attack should have that same picker factor as forgetting to check your fuel and jumping into a system where you get stranded. Smart play in a dynamic Should absolutely still provide that option.
My rebuy is less than the value of one LTD (even at the black market), and now that I've lost interest in not-Fleet not-Carriers, I can rebuy my Dolphin 6.23x10^23 timesI had a shieldless dolphin. I died without rebuy one day
Making the game more dynamic wouldn't, but that's not what I initially commented on (which is why I didn't quote the OP). Just made the remark it is already possible to chose your own danger level, since some people posted about this.
I think the title has made the thread veer away from the direction you wanted it to take. Maybe ask a mod to change it to: make Elite more situational, or more interactive, or more diverse, something like that.
You aren't the only one to say this, I have said the same many times and I would go as far to say that there is quite a broad consensus. The main problem is to convince first the forum daddies and then fdev that we are not a bunch of murder hobos trying to force our way of playing the game on the rest of the community (I'll bet now that one of the forum moderators will show up within the next 10 minutes ... )Well, the only solution I see would what many players have already asked FDEV to do: to give meaning to anarchies and core sectors. The latter, for instance, should be so safe that not even the most hardened PVP murderboat would be safe. Anybody going weapons hot without a VERY good reason should be staring down the guns of at least half a dozen fully engineered top-of-the-line combat vessels, and see a rebuy screen forthwith.
Anarchies, on the other hand, would, by necessity, be a totally different kettle of fish. HOWEVER, I'd like everybody to remember what anarchy means, what it really is. Anarchy does NOT mean that everybody can commit all kinds of crime, or is encouraged to. Originally, it was envisioned as a society where morality (and common sense) would make intervention by authorities superfluous.
In ED, of course, this need not be the case. They would be lawless. HOWEVER, even in such sectors (especially in such sectors!), certain transports would be expected to go unmolested. Not nearly every system is self-sufficient. If no food gets through, the people starve. Even die-hard anarchists want to eat. Without medical supplies, more people get sick and die. Even the most wild-eyed anarchist would not want to die from an otherwise easily curable disease.
So, certain commodities would be considered very important, and their bearers would likely be encouraged to come (admittedly at their own risk). I do see, however, groups in anarchies setting out to curb excessive violence, at least when directed at those delivering stuff vital for the continued existence of socity in that sector. In other words, PVP murder boats duking it out with one another -- no problem. Nothing to see here. Burning down the umpteenth supplier of grain -- not so great (unless a famine is called for).
I KNOW, the counter argument is, of course, "It's a game!" Of course it is. However, a game is meant to be fun, for all customers, not just a minority who think that ED is way too soft on players.
As I said, I could live with anarchies being made considerably tougher (as long as core sectors were made considerably safer -- as logic would dictate).
However, that is ultimately FDEV's choice, and I kinda doubt they listen to my whining (or anybody else's, at that).
I hope I didn't step on your toes (or anybody elses), given I didn't have my clown shoes on.
If the main problem is the convincing, I don't think namecalling is getting off to a good start.
I’d argue ignoring the forum dads would be more effective.
Deleted member 121570
D
Yup. Polarised viewpoints ignoring each other, whilst ignoring anyone in the middleground, who also ignore the polarised extremes. Everyone's just ignoring everyone who doesn't agree with them, nobody's opinons are shifted in any way, and this way - progress happens or not, regardless, without much reference to any of it anyway. These discussions are almost like a fifth column exercise for reducing everyone's viewpoints to irrelevancy. Kinda handy really.
Fun though!
There’s a group of people on this forum who no matter what, argue improvement is divergent the dream of elite. Nothing can be changed, improved, and if you suggest it, you’re wrong for doing so. For years, the same people saying that same thing. Engaging with that is as useful as engaging with a flat earther on the Scientific methodYup. Polarised viewpoints ignoring each other, whilst ignoring anyone in the middleground, who also ignore the polarised extremes. Everyone's just ignoring everyone who doesn't agree with them, nobody's opinons are shifted in any way, and this way - progress happens or not, regardless, without much reference to any of it anyway. These discussions are almost like a fifth column exercise for reducing everyone's viewpoints to irrelevancy. Kinda handy really.
Fun though!
I particularly agree with you about the game presenting problems to solve - like for example having to think about my loadout just because I'm going through a dangerous area, or I'm taking a shortcut through an anarchy system. I can and have flown a python with no shields for ages with no weapons and I could fly it anywhere, anarchy, thargoid system, a system at war (in fact the only part that has any risk is docking and landing on planets) with nothing to worry about. I never fail an NPC interdiction - so what other threats are there in PVE? I just wish the game had some unexpected risk - something to keep me on my toes at all times - make me think about whether to take that mission to the anarchy system or not - should I risk it for the extra credits etc... should I risk going shieldless for this mission or not, do I need to invest in a pilot to fly a fighter to help me get through it? Unless there are problems to solve these mechanics (That are in many cases very well implemented) just don't make much sense in the context of the game world - which is a real shame I think.
Last edited:
And you think making a thread in Dangerous Discussion is going to be useful?
Dude, all what we're doing here is academic. Just discussing ideas. Your or my opinion won't mean a lick of difference in anything Frontier does.
And for your info, all involved have been regurgitating the same old for 5 years. So don't act as if there's a differnce