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

Ideas Man

Banned
Ideas Man
Calebe said:
With that all said when we can land on planets, things change. Can you land and claim it? Not officially but should anyone land on it and you can walk around on it, then you can fight intruders unless they go solo or group. If they do you will never know they landed there in the first place, so as far as your concerned they never did, but you can 'feel' like you own it. Of course it would be boring just to stay on a planet if just to claim it, and not explore it, possibly and I hope happens mine it etc.. However I am getting in front of myself. There is so much potential, why doom it to an EvE wannabe?
.
Calebe
Click to expand...

See this is where I personally have to say that planetary landings don't interest me at all. I don't care for them and won't bother with them when they are in. BUT - I will be absolutely delighted for any and every person who does like them and I will not begrudge them their own personal preference in the game one single bit. If Frontier pull it off and it's well done and makes people happy I will be ecstatic because it's one area of players that is happier.

I certainly won't be protesting their inclusion and would never dream of trying to constrict or control what is a massive, core game changing addition even though it certainly has nothing to do with 'the game I bought'.

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

Seonid said:
Whoosh. Never mind, have fun.
Click to expand...
Explain please, if you don't mind.
 

ShadowWolf Kell

ShadowWolf Kell
Asp Explorer said:
Give it six months, and the pew-pew crew will have given up. Bliss :)
Click to expand...

You can't blame them for being bored with EvE. Camping outside docking ports in Jita and Amarr gets pretty boring. Most are unwilling to leave high sec because there's really not much to see anyway. If anything, EvE needs to adopt things from ED. Like intertia and mass. Imagine a Machariel bumping a Fenrir and going BOOM.
 

ChrisUK27

ChrisUK27
Calebe said:
Elite Dangerous is the game I signed up for and it is the game they delivered so far. There should be much more coming, walking around the ship, landing on moons and planets and more. So why should they change it to be more like EvE when this is not EvE and never was sold as EvE 2 or anything along those lines? Owning stations was talked about and rejected. Why? With so many locations to go to why own one thing in a small area people will bypass if people try to annoy you there, or they go solo or private group to just forget it even exists? That takes us to the old argument should people be allowed to switch. The answer was, is, and always will be a resounding YES people can, will, and thus will always be the case.
.
With that all said when we can land on planets, things change. Can you land and claim it? Not officially but should anyone land on it and you can walk around on it, then you can fight intruders unless they go solo or group. If they do you will never know they landed there in the first place, so as far as your concerned they never did, but you can 'feel' like you own it. Of course it would be boring just to stay on a planet if just to claim it, and not explore it, possibly and I hope happens mine it etc.. However I am getting in front of myself. There is so much potential, why doom it to an EvE wannabe?
.
Calebe
Click to expand...

Planetary landings; well if they want to go that way fair enough but as I've said it needs to have a purpose other than showing how good your graphics card is?

and to be clear what I and others* are asking is not for ED to be an 'EvE wannabe', it's to recognise that another Online massive game set in space that has thousands of players and has been going for quite a few years just might have a few good aspects that could be woven into ED.
 

carlisle

C
Lyvean said:
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.
Click to expand...

This thread is getting really polarised. People read one what person has written, then they twist it into a more extreme version in their head, then they construct a response to that extreme version. Just because you believe your opinion to be the best way of improving player co-op, doesn't mean that anyone who doesn't like your idea is against all co-op and wants an empty universe where nothing ever happens and players can do nothing to effect it.
 

carlisle

C
boringnick said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're using jiggery-pokery to blur the lines between 'I think ED could stand with being fleshed out' and 'I believe my idea is the only way to improve ED'. Stating the former, which surely nobody could disagree with and then trying to conflate that with the latter as though you can't think one without the other.

Yes ED is in its early days and is pretty feature-sparse at the moment, but that doesn't mean that adding corporations, among other features lifted straight from Eve is the only solution... As if the guys who created Eve had the one and only good idea in the whole history of gaming, and considering other ways to make different games is just a waste of time.
 
Last edited:

Ideas Man

Banned
Ideas Man
carlisle said:
You're using jiggery-pokery to blur the lines between 'I think ED could stand with being fleshed out' and 'I believe my idea is the only way to improve ED'. Yes ED is in its early days and is pretty feature-sparse at the moment, but that doesn't mean that adding corporations, among other features lifted straight from Eve is the only solution... As if the guys who created Eve had the one and only good idea in the whole history of gaming, and considering other ways to make different games is just a waste of time.
Click to expand...
I actually agree with you however as soon as a game launches, and launches with a AAA price point (whether the budget for the game is huge or not) then it is open season for criticism, and rightly so.
 

W0OCQCK

W0OCQCK
ChrisUK27 said:
I can't believe people are citing Elite lore as the reason for no player content.
Elite NIMBY's in a galaxy of 400 billion systems!
Click to expand...

I want to focus on this single point, and I really don't intend any disrespect here, Just trying to be real, and be honest here.

My prospective, I do not feel you, or any other self proclaimed advocate is qualified in any way to provide me with "Player Content". It has been my prospective that any and all player based content is over rated. I'm a rogue at heart, even when I play my PVP oriented games, (IE PS2, Day Z, etc) I'm still a rogue, I don't like Player Member Organizations one bit. I don't need some self proclaimed, meta gaming demogod, giving me orders, or having me wait hours on end for a battle that never happens. I'm over with that, done with that.

I run a "Day-Z" server. It's doing well. I constantly keep my finger on the pulse of player actions, for obvious reasons, like it or not, "I'm in charge" not the players. It will stay that way. I encourage "Frontier" to give serious thought to this, before releasing the reins of control in even the slightest. An undesired player group action can totally and completely ruin our beautiful game.

I trust "Frontier, and David" to keep this a wonderful space game running smoothly, giving as much focus on the individual's playing experience, as well the group playing experience. A group of players? I would never trust them any further than I could see them.
 
Last edited:

Commander Azriel

C
Phosphora said:
People have justifiable concerns that other players will attempt to control them in some way. This might be through restricting access to some systems, to 'pushing' people into working for others, to simply attacking people in some areas.

Many people will want to play the game their way, and will not want to be controlled in any way..
Click to expand...

Everyone of those baseless fears are invalidated by one thing....400 billion systems!

There is no way 300,000 players could dominate 400 billion systems. Most of those 300,000 players will not be in guilds, and even if every one of those 300,000 players we in the same guild, they could not prevent you from playing your way in the 399.99 billion systems they they are NOT in.
 

Helgarth

H
Bomba Luigi said:
Very well said, have some Rep.

And to me thats what the Devs want, a Game where no player can limit other players in anyway. Everybody has all the Content and places available, the Game may give you some restirictions (like system permits), but never can other players limit you.

If that is good or not comes down to preference. I like it that way and want it to be that way, if you corporations Name appear in System Map and on Station I'm not against it - what do I care where the Name of the controlling faction is coming from? But the Moment you can limit me I'm against what ever you want.

Thats the design of the Game, thats why I bought it. I don't want a Game where other People can limit me, its okay when you want that but can't I too have a Space Sim?
Click to expand...

Yeah EXACTLY a space sim where guys in space interact with othr guys in space! You describe a space IDONTWANTTROUBLEPLZNPCAREGREAT
 

Phosphora

Phosphora
Commander Azriel said:
Everyone of those baseless fears are invalidated by one thing....400 billion systems!

There is no way 300,000 players could dominate 400 billion systems. Most of those 300,000 players will not be in guilds, and even if every one of those 300,000 players we in the same guild, they could not prevent you from playing your way in the 399.99 billion systems they they are NOT in.
Click to expand...

Most of my playing so far has been in trading, which happens over a few hundred systems. That's why I think game functions like corporations and owned stations should not be compulsory.

Cheers, Phos.
 

Bomba Luigi

Bomba Luigi
Helgarth said:
Yeah EXACTLY a space sim where guys in space interact with othr guys in space! You describe a space IDONTWANTTROUBLEPLZNPCAREGREAT
Click to expand...
Trouble is allright, and other players even can cause trouble for me while I'm Solo thanks to the background Sim. But if you can do PvP combat with me or not is not your decision, its mine. And its not your decision if I can go to Sol (or whatever System) or not, its mine or the Games decision.

I'm not bought the Game to be there for your amusment, I bought it for my amusment. The call for more Freedom is not wrong, but when your Freedom limits my Freedom I will of course be against it.
 

Rivka

R
W0OCQCK said:
I want to focus on this single point, and I really don't intend any disrespect here, Just trying to be real, and be honest here.

My prospective, I do not feel you, or any other self proclaimed advocate is qualified in any way to provide me with "Player Content". It has been my prospective that any and all player based content is over rated. I'm a rogue at heart, even when I play my PVP oriented games, (IE PS2, Day Z, etc) I'm still a rogue, I don't like Player Member Organizations one bit. I don't need some self proclaimed, meta gaming demogod, giving me orders, or having me wait hours on end for a battle that never happens. I'm over with that, done with that.

I run a "Day-Z" server. It's doing well. I constantly keep my finger on the pulse of player actions, for obvious reasons, like it or not, "I'm in charge" not the players. It will stay that way. I encourage "Frontier" to give serious thought to this, before releasing the reins of control in even the slightest. An undesired player group action can totally and completely ruin our beautiful game.

I trust "Frontier, and David" to keep this a wonderful space game running smoothly, giving as much focus on the individual's playing experience, as well the group playing experience. A group of players? I would never trust them any further than I could see them.
Click to expand...


I just want to ask, and I'm doing this totally sincerely, without an ounce of trolling, what makes the dev content any different than player content, in this regard? I mean, the devs are people, the same as me and you. The only difference is Frontier gives them a paycheck. Tomorrow, hypothetically, I could be hired by Frontier to handle all the content in the game, and I would do it no differently than if I were just an average Joe player.


The problem I have with dev content is twofold. For one, it has to pander to the lowest common denominator, and two, it cannot drastically change the gameworld, due to accessibility issues. In order to make dev content fair, it has to be equally accessible to the entire game world. You end up with missions like...well, what we have now. No impact, no storyline drive, just go collect 20 boar's tongues and turn them in.

A player based narrative and story will naturally evolve and change as it progresses. Things actually happen, and the normal dude can actually have a lasting impact to the story due to his or her actions.

As a hypothetical, take a dev organized story/event that involves to factions going to war. There's no way the dev's would allow Joe Blow to headshot the other team's general in the first battle, throwing things into disarray. Doing that would smash the narrative, and people would complain about not being able to "access" the content. In a worst case scenario, we have a neverending "war" a la Horde vs. Alliance in WoW.

Now, two player organizations going to war, yeah, you can headshot the other team's general. You can do things that have an impact to that story. You can take the other guy's territory, blow up his ships, and if you're good enough, run him out of his territory. The storyline feels much more organic and real, over "This story will never end due to access concerns plz go do things that have no real effect on continuing the narrative."
 

Krystyn

Krystyn
Agree

mossfoot said:
Sounds like you should be playing EVE...
Click to expand...

Games and game worlds come and go. If you love the way Eve plays, go play Eve. No company makes itself successful by copying other games. Eve was good - for me, Elite Dangerous is far better. Solo mode, Open mode, Private group mode - sounds like a universe that the players control to me; I expect to be here for quite some time.

:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom