"Getting it": A Definitive Discussion

[Black Ops]

its all roleplay, albeit "light" roleplay for most. For me, I'm interested in being a stealthy assassin for hire/bounty hunter/purveyor of rare goods. the tools are not quite in place for this yet, but what I want is to have a character who works in the dark corners of the galaxy..sees things others don't..has access to things that others have no idea even exist. And, an ace pilot to boot. Tall order..but, I think it's doable, once we get the complete game.

As for "getting it"..well some people won't. some people need the themepark. they need linear progression, on rails, with defined roles. some people always color inside the lines.

then, there's those of us who don't know what "lines" are, and just create with the available tools.

The latter are the ones who "get" elite and will "get" SC too.

 

[Jenner]

One thing that is often implied when the topic of 'getting it' comes around is that there are certain people who do not 'get it' and will never get it. (Not saying that's what OP here thinks - this is just my own observation about this subject).

I think sometimes it's all too easy to use these kinds of arguments to drive wedges rather than bring players together. Not everyone is going to appreciate the way that Elite presents itself, just like not everyone will appreciate the way that Tetris works. "Fun" is so subjective that you cannot well dictate to someone else that they are somehow less of a gamer for not appreciating something.

That said, of course someone may enjoy Elite (or any game) better if they understand the design principle behind it and try to meet the designers at least halfway. Sometimes I'm pleasantly surprised when I play a game, and sometimes not.

TL;DR
It's alright if people don't like Elite, or perhaps certain aspects of it. Everyone is entitled to their opinions.

 

[Vjornaxx]

First off - If you want someone to behave a certain way, you need to offer reinforcement/incentives tied to your targeted behavior. If you want someone to stop behaving a certain way, you need to administer punishment directly tied to that behavior or remove incentives associated with that behavior.

Second off - The "Getting It" threads all have to do with one player not approving of another player's behavior. The subsequent discussions are important for sharing our thoughts and values, but ultimately the only set of values that matters are the developers'. It is their vision of how players should behave that we are attempting to "get."

While I appreciate the viewpoint that some element of roleplaying must exist and some social rules must exist, not everyone who plays this game will have those values. Furthermore, a diverse range of values and behaviors are what makes multiplayer worlds interesting.

Balance is being sought to weigh the values of many different players against the vision of how developers want players to behave. The values that govern how players behave should not be ambiguously set by our internal moral compass. They should be clearly defined within the context of the game.

For example, if the developers really don't want want players to randomly attack each other, they have the ability to create a system in which players can only damage another player's ship when both parties consent. That is clearly not the case. They leave open the possibility that players may commit random acts of violence. Surely they don't want this to behavior to happen often, so they create a system of fines and bounties to discourage (but not eliminate) the likeliness of this behavior happening often. The severity of the fines and bounties need some balancing; but it is a much more appealing method of shaping behavior than relying on someone to "get it" in my view.

In the spirit of sharing opinions - I personally wouldn't separate open or solo play. I want the danger and unpredictability of emergent human behavior to be present. If it were my show to run, there would be only one mode. Rich worlds with governments would have severe fines and quick responses to discourage (but not disallow) even the most seasoned human pilots from engaging in assault and piracy. Poorer government worlds would still have severe fines, but responses would be slower or weaker. This would encourage players to factor in the danger of their ultimate destination. As it stands, I don't think many players care if a system is anarchy or not - Elite doesn't feel Dangerous.

 

[Jorlin]

The moment i'm "getting it" all, it will start getting boring

 

[Herne]

As it stands, I don't think many players care if a system is anarchy or not - Elite doesn't feel Dangerous.

It does to me, I've been playing solo online until the netcode is more reliable. Still sometimes bite off more than I can chew, or make a silly mistake.

Speaking as someone who intends to play exclusively in ironman it feels really dangerous. I'd like to think my character's life expectancy was more than a few hours of gameplay

 

[deusx_ophc]

TLDR: Immersion is the key to "getting it".

just a hint, "getting it" might be highly subjective and as such difficult to rule on a one-for-all basis. specially in a semi-sandbox as playground.

and on a related note i try to avoid being immersed in anything during my game play, could get me into hot water

just saying ^^

 

[StayFrosty]

In a sandbox, there's no rules, only consequences. You are not constrained to a role, you are free to do anything you want. You are not playing in an environment, you are at its mercy.

That's as complex as it gets, why would you use more words to describe it?

 

[JeffRyan]

The "Getting It" threads all have to do with one player not approving of another player's behavior.

Not necessarily, they have to do with understanding. In fact one of the two threads I mentioned are about the player himself who wrote the OP not "getting it". Not understanding the overall thrust of the game.

Not "getting it" whilst in one of the posts IS used in a disapproving tone isn't necessarily a bad thing. Especially considering Elite Dangerous is pretty unique as far as MMO games go. I expect a lot of people to not understand initially. That doesn't mean there's no hope.

 

[Titus Balls]

Be warned.

I started this reply as a direct response to the OP - but it's pretty much come out as me defending myself and the hundreds of players on here who are like me, but due to a vocal minority are quickly becoming frustrated with what we see here every day.

Ok, Rant ahead... this one has been brewing for a while now.

Outside of all of this I'm just a normal guy who gets on with his day to day life.

Inside ED however - I'm one of many facets. FYI I played Elite back on the ZX Spectum, then the Amiga - and I was the type of person to have a folder just for Frontier when it came out.

In ED - I enjoy exploring the galaxy, trading, and even making videos out of it, and have embraced social media to create a character for myself. I do sometimes use that character on here to wind people up, but a lot of the time the people I reply to do bring it upon themselves. Other times the real me does slip through and I show my frustration much like this post. But one thing I've never done is hidden who I am behind a cloak of anonymity, it's pretty easy to link my character to my real life self.

I'm invested.

Another facet is I also like to fight and I have a persona that is a bit of a anti-hero - not evil, but not the nicest either because it's the antithesis of the real me that RP allows. A lot of it involves PvP - sometimes that is consensual, and some sometimes it isn't - but all of it is perfectly legal within the constraints of the game world provided by Frontier, such as bounty hunting or pirating, or combat in one of the many warzones where you see a player on the other side - of course they need to be the first thing you destroy.

Sadly there are a few bad eggs out there - people who do what gets called "griefing", "ganking", "PKing" - they do it because that's what they find a type of gameplay available to them at the moment because it's an incomplete game. Elite: Dangerous at the moment is essentially an infrastructure that needs testing.

Hey guess what? Those bad eggs - they'll soon get bored of this game and move on. And more will come, and again they'll get bored and move on, ad nauseum.

What this has lead to is a small, but vocal minority (some who have what I call "Alpha Backer Complex", and others "Bitter Vet Syndrome") who can't separate the two. I actually think these are the people who really "don't get" this game.

These are the type of people who think Frontier only made a game for them. These are the type of people that say they will play solo as some kind of threat (and I'm sure were a big part of making sure it made it in to the final game). They automatically turn and accuse everyone of wanting to shoot another human player in the game of being "griefers", "gankers" - I've ever heard "hackers" be used because they may have been the victims of a 1-shot from a distance - not taking in to account some people might just be good at that.

They especially like to accuse anyone who has ever played games like Eve Online in the past because apparently you can't have played that and not been a - well lets see, so far I've been called a "psychopath", "sociopath" and even just downright "evil" because apparently I want to bring everything over from that game. FYI personally I was never in any of the big bad alliances, I wasn't even that regular a player (since 2009 I amassed 20m skill points, pretty much nothing) - I mostly played a Low-sec pirate who did both consensual and non-consensual PvP because that was allowed in the constraints of the game. I cancelled my subscription as soon as PB landed.

Funnily enough these people do remain rather anonymous as it's very easy for them to shout this stuff behind that cloak without realising that there is actually a person they're aiming it at.

For me especially it's because I chose to join a social group that happened to form on the same website as a Eve group with the same name. The name was not chosen because of the links to them, but because of tradition of the site. This lead to accusations of being the type of person who likes to "fake" and "back stab" people.

You are saying this about myself and my friends. It's not very nice. Quite frankly I've become sick and tired of the attacks on here - even if not directed, by association you are making assumptions about the type of people we are.

I, and many others like me, are the type of person you want in the game, and here on the forums - we're invested. We're the type of people that will spend more money on this game as long as Frontier don't shut every avenue of what we consider fun down, because a vocal minority complain (and by the way I don't think they ever will - Frontier only ever have to answer to their shareholders and if allowing players to murder each other means they can make 3 or 4 times the profit - trust me they'll add that feature in). By us being around, your game can also last a lot longer.

For me, I might have only come in at Premium Beta but that was due to my personal circumstances at the time. Since them I've bought a HOTAS and DK2. I've purchased Creative Cloud because of ED - as I enjoy making videos that show off the game. I've posted on this forum 610 times up till now. I'm not here to ruin anything for anyone else because it actually ruins it for me. I'm Invested.

I know a lot more feel the same.

Remember folks, I'm not defending my need to play the game here - I'm defending myself and fellow PvP-style players who have received general and personal attacks against their character.

Rant over

 

[LuciusEsox]

Oh I'm getting it all right... bought day before yesterday running on the most reliable pc I have ever owned in 30 years on the most stable operating system that I have ever used over same length of time and more crashes/probs than I care to count,, A beta ofc,, £50... Oh yes I sure have got it

I hope it lives up to its potential because at the moment I feel suckered slightly,, sorry about the strawberries everyone I mean no harm..

 

[Olrik]

I think a lot of this will be in place and will be key to policing without any gentlemen's agreements.

Precisely.

 

[Cryptonomica]

Great post Jeff, very much agree with your argument.

Also, while I'm here ...

In a sandbox, there's no rules, only consequences. You are not constrained to a role, you are free to do anything you want. You are not playing in an environment, you are at its mercy.

That's as complex as it gets, why would you use more words to describe it?

Of course there are rules - they exist in all sandboxes! Sure, you have more freedom than in a themeparky on-rails game, but you are still constrained by game mechanics, social contracts, terms and conditions, and so on. All these are rules, mostly created and enforced by the developers, with some dependent on the community. In fact, its the rules that create the consequences.

While we're on the topic, "sandbox" and "themepark" are both different ends of a spectrum, with many shades of grey in between. Some games offer more freedom, some more linear progression, but almost all have elements of both, in differing amounts

 

[Mallikanth]

*good stuff*

Well said!
(And this comes from a guy who can't shoot for toffee (me))

 

[JeffRyan]

I know a lot more feel the same.

Remember folks, I'm not defending my need to play the game here - I'm defending myself and fellow PvP-style players who have received general and personal attacks against their character.

Rant over

This wasn't an attack on PvP.

 

[Titus Balls]

This wasn't an attack on PvP.

I'm not saying it was - but as sometimes happens, timing and fate chose your thread to be the recipient of what has been brewing for a couple of weeks now because you're talking about "getting it".

I suppose my rant isn't even about PvP specifically - but it's about differing game play styles - and the responses that are made to that on the forums.

This is my chill pill, I feel a lot more relaxed now. Some others on this forum could do the same.

 

[Shinhwa]

+1 for Titus.

 

[Titus Balls]

First off - If you want someone to behave a certain way, you need to offer reinforcement/incentives tied to your targeted behavior. If you want someone to stop behaving a certain way, you need to administer punishment directly tied to that behavior or remove incentives associated with that behavior.

Second off - The "Getting It" threads all have to do with one player not approving of another player's behavior. The subsequent discussions are important for sharing our thoughts and values, but ultimately the only set of values that matters are the developers'. It is their vision of how players should behave that we are attempting to "get."

While I appreciate the viewpoint that some element of roleplaying must exist and some social rules must exist, not everyone who plays this game will have those values. Furthermore, a diverse range of values and behaviors are what makes multiplayer worlds interesting.

Balance is being sought to weigh the values of many different players against the vision of how developers want players to behave. The values that govern how players behave should not be ambiguously set by our internal moral compass. They should be clearly defined within the context of the game.

For example, if the developers really don't want want players to randomly attack each other, they have the ability to create a system in which players can only damage another player's ship when both parties consent. That is clearly not the case. They leave open the possibility that players may commit random acts of violence. Surely they don't want this to behavior to happen often, so they create a system of fines and bounties to discourage (but not eliminate) the likeliness of this behavior happening often. The severity of the fines and bounties need some balancing; but it is a much more appealing method of shaping behavior than relying on someone to "get it" in my view.

In the spirit of sharing opinions - I personally wouldn't separate open or solo play. I want the danger and unpredictability of emergent human behavior to be present. If it were my show to run, there would be only one mode. Rich worlds with governments would have severe fines and quick responses to discourage (but not disallow) even the most seasoned human pilots from engaging in assault and piracy. Poorer government worlds would still have severe fines, but responses would be slower or weaker. This would encourage players to factor in the danger of their ultimate destination. As it stands, I don't think many players care if a system is anarchy or not - Elite doesn't feel Dangerous.

I agree with this post sir.

 

[JeffRyan]

I'm not saying it was - but as sometimes happens, timing and fate chose your thread to be the recipient of what has been brewing for a couple of weeks now because you're talking about "getting it".

I suppose my rant isn't even about PvP specifically - but it's about differing game play styles - and the responses that are made to that on the forums.

This is my chill pill, I feel a lot more relaxed now. Some others on this forum could do the same.

And ironically I don't even disagree with your position

 

[Toscaner]

Be warned.

...

Rant over

good post.. seems you are very invested

actually i think most people know pvp is nothing bad, be it consensual or not
and if anybody wants more rules in the galaxy then FD provides through NPCs, they have to enforce them themselves

and i also trust in FD to have their own vision and not listen too much to either of the vocal minorities on both sides

 

[JeffRyan]

good post.. seems you are very invested

actually i think most people know pvp is nothing bad, be it consensual or not
and if anybody wants more rules in the galaxy then FD provides through NPCs, they have to enforce them theirselves

and i also trust in FD to have their own vision and not listen too much to either of the vocal minorities on both sides

Agreed. I think it's a shame he posted his rather excellent post in THIS thread, which isn't an attack on PvP in and of itself. So there really isn't an argument going on here. Also a few people have mentioned rules and enforcing through FD systems. That is what's happening and we're still finding a balance between the various systems. That's what I mean by "narrative" measures and consequences. There's a big crossover here between this post and one I made in an actual PvP thread.