Griefers make open impossible, and how easy the solution is.

[Rat Catcher]

I suppose so. In a way. More like people bought a game with mechanics that appeal to them, but which others can simply avoid, thus rendering those mechanics somewhat meaningless, despite them being present. Do you see what I mean?

But the game clearly illustrates those mechanics prior to clicking the 'Buy' button - the issue is in comprehension, or just reading the magic word "Conflict" and clicking buy... The error is continually with a player not understanding exactly what they are buying and literally imagining it to be otherwise, sorry, the argument is totally invalid

 

[00nutzy]

I suppose so. In a way. More like people bought a game with mechanics that appeal to them, but which others can simply avoid, thus rendering those mechanics somewhat meaningless, despite them being present. Do you see what I mean?

However, and this is important, the game clearly stated it had the three modes (solo being one of them), so while those mechanics are there for the ones who want to interact in that manner YaY. The modes always meant players would never be able to force anyone to play with them except those that wanted to play using those mechanics.

EvE was a good game, it is not this game.

 

[Rat Catcher]

I wasn't comparing titles. I was comparing mechanics and gameworlds for the sake of illustrating something that is present in Elite that isn't present elsewhere, which is the option to win a conflict by not fighting. I could have used another example, but I played EVE for 11 years, so I default to that.

But conflicts are won by fighting - and fighting efficiently - which PvP is not - the statement is inaccurate unless you wish to add "without fighting eachother in a PvP furball" or the equivalent

 

[Sylveria]

BGS manipulation is much more effective if conflict is avoided (apart from CZ's! Even then - not having other payers on the side of the opposition ensures that the zone can be won in the most efficient manner) - and efficiency is the key word... PvP conflict reduces efficiency (ignore if it is more fun for now) as the time spent doing pew-pew is not normally productive

You should have been in Carcosa last year, 3 wars, all with no visible opposition as those who 'forced' the wars never - ever - appeared in open... They lost all 3 conclusively, but that is irrelevent...

Just as many conflicts are resolved in a meeting room by way of Diplomacy, and not necessarily by fielding thousands of troops in direct engagement.

That's the point a lot of people tend to miss- that not every conflict has to include pew-pew. Oftentimes the way to win a war is not to start one.

 

[Eliza]

But conflicts are won by fighting - and fighting efficiently - which PvP is not - the statement is inaccurate unless you wish to add "without fighting eachother in a PvP furball" or the equivalent

And because that I consider the BGS as "indirect" pvp.

 

[Good Whiskey]

Titles, mechanics, gameworlds. Tomato, Tomahto.

My point is it always seems to come right back around to player expectations. Hair-splitting isn't going to change that, either.

What do you think players should expect from Elite when they buy it? Just interested. Who is this game marketed to?

The error is continually with a player not understanding exactly what they are buying and literally imagining it to be otherwise, sorry, the argument is totally invalid

You mean to tell me that subtle things such as BGS manipulation are clearly written on the tin? I didn't see that...

Just as many conflicts are resolved in a meeting room by way of Diplomacy, and not necessarily by fielding thousands of troops in direct engagement.

But we don't even do that...

 

[Rubbernuke]

But conflicts are won by fighting - and fighting efficiently - which PvP is not - the statement is inaccurate unless you wish to add "without fighting eachother in a PvP furball" or the equivalent

It depends on how the abstraction of that action is set up. The BGS is heavily abstracted for example, while something like Powerplay (especially an Open based one, or portion) would not be.

For example, in an Open Powerplay all fortification goes to one system- so P2P instancing aside PvP would have a greater impact in slowing your opponent.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Just as many conflicts are resolved in a meeting room by way of Diplomacy, and not necessarily by fielding thousands of troops in direct engagement.

That's the point a lot of people tend to miss- that not every conflict has to include pew-pew. Oftentimes the way to win a war is not to start one.

The faction I support is shunned by the traditionalists in the area, diplomancy has been attempted several times, the response coming back to us often reading as the equivalent of "We don't deal with scum' but stated a little more elegantly

We had BGS manipulated against us to cause wars (following the first which was our own manipulation) then, it is happening again now

 

[Sylveria]

What do you think players should expect from Elite when they buy it? Just interested. Who is this game marketed to?

It's marketed to anyone who understands it includes flight simulation mechanics, can be played alone or with others and that direct and indirect interaction with the gameworld is completely optional for everyone. I think people should expect that others may or may not choose to interact with them, that not every single choice or decision is going to have immediate impact on the universe and the game world isn't centered around them.

And that last sentence, I think- is where the disconnect truly lies. Because some are expecting their choices to have some sort of direct influence or "meaningful" impact on the universe- instead of realizing that everyone else has the same choices available and interacts with the same universe.

Think of it like voting. Every vote counts, but not every vote makes a difference.

 

[Good Whiskey]

Think of it like voting. Every vote counts, but not every vote makes a difference.

Elite: Dangerous. "It's like voting".

I don't think marketing is going to like it, but what the hell, let's give it a shot.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Elite: Dangerous. "It's like voting".

I don't think marketing is going to like it, but what the hell, let's give it a shot.

I'm game. If its like voting in some banana republic where you wake up with no legs for voting 'wrong' that is.

Most of my votes are Sellotaped to a cannon shell.

 

[Sylveria]

Elite: Dangerous. "It's like voting".

I don't think marketing is going to like it, but what the hell, let's give it a shot.

Fluent in sarcasm, I see.

It's the reality. Just because your vote doesn't tip the scales doesn't mean it's excluded- nor does it mean yours counts for more than someone else's. Once you realize that, you'll understand why so many feel disappointed. If Universal Domination is what you seek- there's already another game that offers it. This game was never intended nor designed to be that.

 

[Linnunrata]

Elite: Dangerous. "It's like voting".

Reminds me of when I was fairly new with the dev process here and there was this Galnet newspiece about Fed presidency election, and I actually thought that there would be a vote and that it would have some effect to the in-game politics.

Little did I know.

 

[Rat Catcher]

What do you think players should expect from Elite when they buy it? Just interested. Who is this game marketed to? Those who can read and understand English? ~ Or whichever language they read it in?

Being blunt - why should Frontier care who buys the game, as long as they play long enough to be outside of the refund window - well they can rage-quit if they wish Think about it...

You mean to tell me that subtle things such as BGS manipulation are clearly written on the tin? I didn't see that... But it is clearly stated that the game has 3 modes which any player can elect to occupy at any time... Most players do not deliberately invole themselves in BGS, but do discover what efficiency is should they walk that path.


But we don't even do that... Oddly enough, discord channels are used to negotiate - sadly there is no in-game mechanic...

Are you ready to admit this isn't EVE 2 yet?

Each question you raise is in comparison to EVE - ED isn't EVE - The questions are irrelevent in the ED setting as it is not EVE - is that circular enough? Enjoy the game you bought, if having modes is so dreadful...

 

[Good Whiskey]

Fluent in sarcasm, I see.

My Semantese is pretty good too.

Just because your vote doesn't tip the scales doesn't mean it's excluded

It objectively is, though. For one side of the equation.

nor does it mean yours counts for more than someone else's

If someone wants to beat me without ever seeing me, their vote clearly carries more weight.

If Universal Domination is what you seek- there's already another game that offers it. This game was never intended nor designed to be that.

Then why does it even have features like BGS/PP? I'll hazard a guess. Because people moaned until they got it, right? Should all of them simply have gone to another game, because Elite is an exploration and space trucking sim? This is where the message gets all tangled.

 

[Rat Catcher]

It depends on how the abstraction of that action is set up. The BGS is heavily abstracted for example, while something like Powerplay (especially an Open based one, or portion) would not be.

For example, in an Open Powerplay all fortification goes to one system- so P2P instancing aside PvP would have a greater impact in slowing your opponent.

If PP was Open Only, and actually implemented properly, I would agree with you 100% (even to the terrible P2P restraints!). It would give PvP a 'place' in the game and would likely be hilarious fun.

As the game is today, PvP is not efficient for either BGS or PP as the ever-present option of which mode to choose negates the need for direct conflict. That, in BGS terms at least, is likely to remain cast in stone

 

[Stigbob]

What do you think players should expect from Elite when they buy it? Just interested. Who is this game marketed to?

Blaze your own trail, while keeping in mind everyone else can as well.

ED's setup is only ever an issue for the people who want to dictate how everyone else plays, from either the solo or PVP viewpoint. If you don't like other people being able to choose stay away.

You mean to tell me that subtle things such as BGS manipulation are clearly written on the tin? I didn't see that...

I did I read up on it here in the forum in late 2014 before buying.

Bonus info from David Braben himself in 2012 "What would I want from a game ?, I want to be able to play a great game without being griefed by teenagers. But having said that I do want a feeling of risk out there"

Seven minutes in for the quote.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N9ENkIB0cic

 

[Sylveria]

My Semantese is pretty good too.


It objectively is, though. For one side of the equation.


If someone wants to beat me without ever seeing me, their vote clearly carries more weight.


Then why does it even have features like BGS/PP? I'll hazard a guess. Because people moaned until they got it, right? Should all of them simply have gone to another game, because Elite is an exploration and space trucking sim? This is where the message gets all tangled.

Do you see everyone who votes differently from you? How do you know they voted as you did or not?

It has the BGS by design- it was always intended to have a background simulation (BGS)

PP was a feature which was added later- and I suppose you could say people moaned until they got it... or at least wanted some sort of optional political game to play with ED.

As to your view of the game as a "space trucking sim" that's your choice to view it as such. Not everyone is carting groceries in the ED gameworld- some play it for combat, others for hauling, others for space exploration, etc. If the message is "tangled" then perhaps try some different activities?

 

[Rat Catcher]

If someone wants to beat me without ever seeing me, their vote clearly carries more weight.

But that is exactly what happens in a vote... No-one meets anyone to tear their ballot paper forcefully from their grasp whilst shooting them in the groin with a zip-gun... Well, not in my country anyway...

Why the idiocy?

 

[Rubbernuke]

If PP was Open Only, and actually implemented properly, I would agree with you 100% (even to the terrible P2P restraints!). It would give PvP a 'place' in the game and would likely be hilarious fun.

As the game is today, PvP is not efficient for either BGS or PP as the ever-present option of which mode to choose negates the need for direct conflict. That, in BGS terms at least, is likely to remain cast in stone

The problem starts and ends with efficiency- with the BGS its fine because its set up that way. Powerplay is much murkier, simply as having three modes makes the possibility of interception and destruction much more likely in Open because players can do what NPCs can't with much more potent ships.

Because of that people use the most efficient method- and that efficiency allows artificially large powers.