Give us freedom, the same as EvE. Consigne the universe to the players, FD

[ermtony]

Just had a thought.. How would player owned "anything" work in Elite Dangerous? In EvE it works because there's no avoiding it... it's a single universe, and player traps will trap players. In ED solo / group modes circumvent any player driven content to those who a) wish to avoid and b) do not wish to take part at all. That's why EvE drove many casual gamers away, many are under the 'b' opinion. I'm really happy ED caters for everyone, and I'm really happy ED has these game modes. I just dont know how these game modes cater for those that are trying to bring ideas from EVE across when they could only work in a 'forced open only' game mode, then you'd find ED suffers as a result.

I rather think that that is the whole point.

The recent shout-fest pushing for open play at the expense of solo and group was effectively stopped by what DB and the devs stated. Now the same crew are looking for a different way to get what they want. Once this one gets put in its place some other ploy will be wheeled out, though I'll be glad to be proved wrong on that.

The very cry of "freedom" is an emotive one, designed to appeal and yet it barely disguises an intent that all should play one way (their way), flying in the face of the design objectives.

Maybe I am the odd one here as I like the idea of being just one pilot in one ship in a galaxy that doesn't care. If I want to be the Dragonborn I'll fire up Skyrim again rather than insisting that dragons are severely lacking in E: D.

 

[carlisle]

How often has that happened? Most MMOs are themepark WOW clones (ED included)

I would say that ED stands alone in MMOs in not being just another WOW clone where the developer's design team have sat down and gone.

Guilds.... check
Crafting.... check
Skill Tree.... check
XP points.... check

take the rest of the week of gentlemen, we have ourselves a game.

 

[Mewsse]

I think Elite should have everything every other game has and much, much more.

Yeah, we need a GTA-like part for the planetary landing. And some zombies with exosuit. And some sort of magic. And maybe a RTS mod when attacking factions on planets.

 

[Tryst]

not even close.....

You are wrong, he was actually correct in his statement there. Even CCP admitted that they borrowed a lot of ideas from Elite and many of the Eve developers were big fans of Elite.

However, they took a good game and wrecked it by giving TOO MUCH power to the players. Playing up to the hardcore players all the time, meant that those not so hardcore players got squeezed out of the game. Having corporations, building a station and defending it was one thing, it was no more than you could do in lowsec, sovereignty and all that went with it was another matter entirely and IMO, that killed the game for the majority. Taking down opposition that was deeply entrenched with Sovereignty was practically impossible. Even BOB was only taken down because it was an inside job, it had nothing at all to do with combat, it was merely an exploit of the Corporation mechanics.

While I would agree to corporations and building player owned stations, that is a far as it should EVER go. NBSI should be treated just as any other form of piracy no matter where you are, kill a neutral and you're wanted straight away by EVERY NPC system, kill too many and lots of NPC enforcement officers will come and attack you and your station repeatedly until they have wiped it off the map, with no compensation from insurance. Player owned stations should be no more than storage outposts and accessible for refuelling, rearming (if available) and even the market (if they have one) by any other player if there are landing pads available. Only the members of the corporation or player who owns it should be allowed to access the storage areas for ships and other non market goods. It should NEVER prevent other players from entering the system or lock off the system from other players in any way.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

I rather think that that is the whole point.

The recent shout-fest pushing for open play at the expense of solo and group was effectively stopped by what DB and the devs stated. Now the same crew are looking for a different way to get what they want. Once this one gets put in its place some other ploy will be wheeled out, though I'll be glad to be proved wrong on that.

The very cry of "freedom" is an emotive one, designed to appeal and yet it barely disguises an intent that all should play one way (their way), flying in the face of the design objectives.

Maybe I am the odd one here as I like the idea of being just one pilot in one ship in a galaxy that doesn't care. If I want to be the Dragonborn I'll fire up Skyrim again rather than insisting that dragons are severely lacking in E: D.

This is silly, and completely irrelevant to the topic. I just needed to point that out so that anyone reading later on wouldn't mistake a lack of response to it as giving legitimacy to your vitriol against basic game improvements.

 

[carlisle]

I think the gist of this thread seems to be that many players would have preferred a smaller more easily influenced universe where genuine changes could be made/acknowledged instead of 400 billion empty systems. I suspect I'm in this camp I haven't thought about it too heavily, but I think the current scale is so large many charges are fundamentally impossible, which is a little sad.

I think the problem is that this would be a fundamental change to what the game is and what you can and can't do in it. Elite is a big universe where you and other players are small cogs... anything else wouldn't be Elite, and since there is already a game out there with a small(er) universe that puts players in total control I don't see why players that want that so badly aren't playing that game, or why they feel that another game should be changed to match what they want.

Are these same people also putting the same arguments on the forums for Star Citizen, Limit Theory, No Man's Sky and Eve, because they won't be happy until all five of these are the exact same game differing only in the graphics?

 

[ermtony]

I'm just wild guessing now but I guess systems that have rares would be among the first to get claimed. Its not like there are that many of them, so good bye rare runs unless you lick the ass of some group and tell them how great they are and that you wanna join.

Exactly. And it wouldn't only be the rares systems. High tech systems are fairly thin on the ground and so are agricultural ones. The result is all too easy to imagine.

 

[ermtony]

This is silly, and completely irrelevant to the topic. I just needed to point that out so that anyone reading later on wouldn't mistake a lack of response to it as giving legitimacy to your vitriol against basic game improvements.

No vitriol in my post but it seems it struck a nerve. Clearly it was relevant.

I am in no way against game improvements but I am against so-called improvements which would favour any one play-style over another. As had been so frequently pointed out, DB and the devs aim to make all play-styles within the design brief equally valid and accessible (if not equally profitable).

 

[Ideas Man]

Hang on a sec. Before we go labeling the requested changes as improvements, would those requesting those changes please address the concerns first?

I'm all for improvements, but I feel the requsted changes would not improve the game. So please, first get your terminology right.

That's all in your opinion though, not a blanket truth.

 

[Lyvean]

People who don't realize the things that need to change in the game are stuck in some old ways in a really bad way, driven by a weird sense of nostalgia. The game is not even doing what it was supposed to be doing. The three careers are unbalanced, dynamic trade markets do not really exist and all players have left are missions to kills. Even these are completely random to find and the entire system is based on grinding. Do the same missions over and over again, in different ships and with different rewards. Don't get me wrong, I love the game and I will continue playing for a lot of time. But people suggesting that "this is it" show an amazing lack of ambition to what this great base can offer.

If the game doesn't offer a dynamic universe, where the A.I. reacts and creates events, then this will be a dead game. If people don't have things to do and expand their gameplay, then this will be a dead game. DB has talked so many times about wanting the players to do interesting stuff, so I'm glad that he is not going to listen, hopefully, to all those who want this experience to remain stale. Of course the game needs interaction between the players and the system to keep it interesting. Of course it needs player created wars, trade markets that make sense, smuggling that makes sense, exploration that is rewarding and important and so many more things. These systems have to interact and present new gameplay opportunites for the players, that is what's going to make this game make... sense.

Besides, all the people who want to leave it as empty as it is are not forced to follow the new gameplay systems. They can just keep grinding away to the same old missions, over and over again. So there is no problem with the game implemented new and exciting gameplay systems. No problem at all for anyone.

 

[Seonid]

In your rush to push people away a simple truth was neglected - a game needs players. No players = no income for FD = No more game for you.

What "truth" would that be? The "truth" that FD has more than one revenue stream or the "truth" that the company had been around for about 20 years?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

OK, so come with me on a journey.

You get your wish and everyone 'goes back to Eve' what then?

In your rush to push people away a simple truth was neglected - a game needs players. No players = no income for FD = No more game for you.

Then the majority of players are free to get on with enjoying the game that they knowingly bought into. Why do you assume all players thought they were buying an Eve clone?

But i have a solution. Let's drop these threads and topics for now. Let FD put in at least 50% of what was suggested in the DDF/DDA. Once the game is more polished and feature complete, then we can discuss additional features.

 

[Ideas Man]

Why do you assume all players thought they were buying an Eve clone?

I assumed no such thing and I'd be grateful if you would not put words in my mouth please.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Indeed. So to get opinions out of an objective discussion requested change is the right way to label it. Not improvements.

Because that's opinion.

That's a fair point, no one should have opinions on a discussion forum, that just leads to crazy talk.

 

[Chris M Fortune]

OK, so come with me on a journey.

You get your wish and everyone 'goes back to Eve' what then?

In your rush to push people away a simple truth was neglected - a game needs players. No players = no income for FD = No more game for you.

Can you tell me, in the 'Go back to X' scenario, who wins in the end? Anyone?

Now, taking those thoughts do you think that 'go back to x' is an acceptable answer to any discussion about any game?

This is very true and I fully agree with you except for one small but not so minor point.

If you have your way and changes are made that allow player owned infrastructure then I wont have the game I bought either.

Personally I want to see the development of the "Commander Role" in the game. This can include player to player interaction that doesn't involve weapons fire without resorting to guilds and player owned/controlled resources.

 

[Major Plonker]

I think the problem is that this would be a fundamental change to what the game is and what you can and can't do in it. Elite is a big universe where you and other players are small cogs... anything else wouldn't be Elite, and since there is already a game out there with a small(er) universe that puts players in total control I don't see why players that want that so badly aren't playing that game, or why they feel that another game should be changed to match what they want.

Are these same people also putting the same arguments on the forums for Star Citizen, Limit Theory, No Man's Sky and Eve, because they won't be happy until all five of these are the exact same game differing only in the graphics?

Well put! What the OP is suggesting isn't some tweak or 'improvement', it's a completely different core game.

 

[JeffRyan]

Well put! What the OP is suggesting isn't some tweak or 'improvement', it's a completely different core game.

Indeed. To turn Elite into EVE: Lots of changes to core gameplay. To get the game they want: Add only first person flight to EVE.

Go lobby CCP.

 

[malicious1]

Then the majority of players are free to get on with enjoying the game that they knowingly bought into. Why do you assume all players thought they were buying an Eve clone?

But i have a solution. Let's drop these threads and topics for now. Let FD put in at least 50% of what was suggested in the DDF/DDA. Once the game is more polished and feature complete, then we can discuss additional features.

lol after braben sold this as everything to everyone for 3 months sorry dude you dont have a leg to stand on there

 

[Ideas Man]

Chripes man, do I have to spell it out for you?

People are asking: why are you against improving the game?
I'm not, is the simple answer.

Why are you against this request? is the correct question. That leads to a discussion. The former states: I am right, this is an improvement, lets argue from that perspective.

I hope that clarifies my point.

I get what you are saying, that one persons 'improvements' is another persons step backwards, I am with you on that, I just feel you need to let people say what they like and not control that aspect of their discussions.

If I say 'I think it's be a great improvement to have all the planets pink' then you should be telling me why that's a bad idea, not telling me that to you it's not an improvement, just by you addressing the point we would all get your other, pedantic point automatically.

 

[boringnick]

Are these same people also putting the same arguments on the forums for Star Citizen, Limit Theory, No Man's Sky and Eve, because they won't be happy until all five of these are the exact same game differing only in the graphics?

No, because these games aren't so retardly limited. FD created this situation themselves. I am all for different games, but Elite Dangerous is an mid 80s game with fancy graphics and an internet-dongle. It has less features than FFE and FD's "dynamic galaxy" and other fancywords seem to be extremely simple dungeon master events so far. That's not a case of accepting difference, that's a doomed game. Frontier and FFE were sequels that expanded the genre and the series, while ED is a retrograde remake. Big mistake on their part. There are so whiners here because so many people expected a sequel!

So either they need to come up with unique features fast (adding fancy shaders to 1984 Elite isn't it) or they use proven concepts from the competition. Anything else means dead game.

If FD didn't want the voices crying for features from Eve and X3 on this forum, they should have created a more compelling game and not just apply a paint job to a 30 year old one. As simple as that. ED in its current state is just unacceptable for a 2015 AAA (60$!) game.

 

[Ideas Man]

If you have your way and changes are made that allow player owned infrastructure then I wont have the game I bought either.

I didn't say that though and would appreciate it if you didn't put words in my mouth, thank you.

The only people who have said there will be 'player owned infrastructure' are Frontier, so maybe you need to take that up with them?

You will be able to own small inflatable asteroid stations as depicted here as part of an update