The intro of Adventure Time was looping on it.
Interesting point of view from a long time ED Streamer on Fleet Carriers
- Thread starter Powderpanic
- Start date
OK, we get it, you're one of his fanbois, but you seem to be missing a counter opinion that, based on what I've read on these forums, is held by as many (if not more) others.
Some Cmdrs envision multiplayer Elite (affecting the BGS, PP, etc.) as requiring Open Only, as necessitating or at the very least offering the opportunity for direct ship-to-ship contact and conflict. Regardless of the issues surrounding platforms, timezones, instancing, blocking, p2p networking, etc. proper multiplayer conflict for some Cmdrs must be centered around the potential for direct ingame contact. This is a primarily direct combat-centric vission of multiplayer Elite.
Some Cmdrs envision multiplayer Elite as not requiring, but allowing for optional, direct ingame contact. For them, multiplayer conflict on the scale of the BGS/PP can happily be carried out as a contest of wills to coordinate the mass movements of materials, mission support, etc. - faster and more efficiently targeted than any number of un/known and/or un/seen enemies. This is an indirect non-combat-centric vision of multiplayer Elite.
So, access to the BGS/PP from Solo/PG may seem to undermine a combat-centric vision of Elite multiplayer, but in reality there would still be platforms, timezones, instancing, blocking, p2p...
Nope, because "blockading" doesn't really work even in Open. If someone is pushing the BGS in one direction, you counter by pushing it in the opposite direction.
And the relevance of Carriers is...?
No.
You do not get it,as usual. This is the first anything I've ever seen from him.
The first version would create competitive gameplay and keep playing interesting, and bring back veterans.
The second version makes bgs and PP, basically the end game content for elite, a grindfest, ghost boxing and the main reason why veterans leave the game. Keeping the second version makes ironing out the problems you talk about even pointless.
Last edited:
Just checking - this is Hotel California again now - right?
Odd. I'm sure I checked out. But I'm still here.
[7:10] Ed: What is the backround sim?
Dav: So, to us the whole point of... the background simulation, is to try and bring the galaxy to life.
[7:53]... it also lets players interact with each other, kinda indirectly, trying to push in same directions or indeed in opposite directions, without ever actually seeing each other directly in space and breaking out the laser beams.
[14:22]Adam: It's a big question, what is the background sim... at it's core it's supposed to represent a simulation of the humanity in our game... it's supposed to represent how players action's impact that world around them, so we're talking about actions from players no matter what platform or mode they're on, it's all part of one shared galaxy.
[10:46] (after listing the different types of simulations going on)
... these are all background simulations, they are designed to bring the galaxy to life based on player activities. They are not necessarily intended to be the end goal in and of themselves, they are supposed to enrich the game using gameplay loops that are a little more immediate... these are a little more immediate, they work in concert, they work across many different players on many different platforms in all the different game modes, so, they're bringing the galaxy to life.
Just wondering, who's got the refusal to understand here?
Does anyone got a recap of that?
Quite a few criticisms of the video author's appearance or age. I can't imagine anything less relevant to the content of an argument than the subjective physical presentation of the one making it.
There are no 'single players'. You cannot so much as complete a mission, kill an NPC in any inhabited system, or sell exploration data, without altering the shared galaxy in some way. It may not always be obvious, and small contributions can easily be lost in a sea of others, but they are tracked and do have an impact. More directed effort, or if the population is low enough, casual play, by a single player, can shift things in noticeable ways.
If carriers work the way people think they will work, they will make BGS manipulations vastly more efficient, especially in areas that were not well serviced by traditional facilities before. Nearly everything that could make them desirable to own will make them force multipliers in shifting influence, intentionally or otherwise.
There is an argument that, in a game where other players can influence the shared setting, characters should be able to be directly confronted/opposed, especially if the game already features established mechanisms for this. Some people feel that fleet carriers would be a good opportunity to shift the games focus to the more direct multi-player aspects and that allowing them to be used by individuals or outside of Open is a missed opportunity.
Personally, I don't think fleet carriers in the hands of individuals or used by Solo players is anything more than a continuation of the mode system established well before release. Yes, I would prefer a game that was Open only (with a wholly separate, true offline mode that could not impact the multiplayer aspect in any way), if the underlying networking, matchmaking, and rule enforcement mechanisms could handle it (they cannot), but I don't see anything particularly special about fleet carriers in this regard. I'm largely against fleet carriers in general. I do not think they will be a good addition to the game, certainly not when there are so many existing aspects that have been neglected.
There are no 'single players'. You cannot so much as complete a mission, kill an NPC in any inhabited system, or sell exploration data, without altering the shared galaxy in some way. It may not always be obvious, and small contributions can easily be lost in a sea of others, but they are tracked and do have an impact. More directed effort, or if the population is low enough, casual play, by a single player, can shift things in noticeable ways.
If carriers work the way people think they will work, they will make BGS manipulations vastly more efficient, especially in areas that were not well serviced by traditional facilities before. Nearly everything that could make them desirable to own will make them force multipliers in shifting influence, intentionally or otherwise.
There is an argument that, in a game where other players can influence the shared setting, characters should be able to be directly confronted/opposed, especially if the game already features established mechanisms for this. Some people feel that fleet carriers would be a good opportunity to shift the games focus to the more direct multi-player aspects and that allowing them to be used by individuals or outside of Open is a missed opportunity.
Personally, I don't think fleet carriers in the hands of individuals or used by Solo players is anything more than a continuation of the mode system established well before release. Yes, I would prefer a game that was Open only (with a wholly separate, true offline mode that could not impact the multiplayer aspect in any way), if the underlying networking, matchmaking, and rule enforcement mechanisms could handle it (they cannot), but I don't see anything particularly special about fleet carriers in this regard. I'm largely against fleet carriers in general. I do not think they will be a good addition to the game, certainly not when there are so many existing aspects that have been neglected.
Last edited:
No, as usual, I do get it - the difference is, I understand both perspectives.
I may agree or disagree partially or completely with neither or both, but I do understand both perspectives.
I also understand the stated intentions of the game creator and designers - as much as can be from what has been published.
Really?
https://youtu.be/sDgTURZac70?t=60
I'm fine with the truth. I'm not making f-bomb videos where I give the impression I can't handle things...
Last edited by a moderator:
True dat.
The single player in this case is the player who gets the carrier by and for himself. I will use individual who owns a carrier in future for clarity.
This isn't really an argument against individuals using carriers, as it is against carriers being used in a mode that isn't Open. After all, if the individual who owns a carrier is playing in Open, that argument loses all traction. Which makes that another Hotel California notch.
So, still wondering what the impact is of an individually owned carrier. Also keeping in mind that the individual has to fork out all the cash, where as a group could share the burden. That is a huge inherited penalty from the get go.
Last edited:
I guess you need an explanation what the big boys are talking about here. They talk about how things should be and not about how things are. Get it?
They only bring up the BGS to have something to argue about, nobody actually believes they care one iota about it. Or does anyone thinks the video author is right now ferrying passengers or fetching vegetables in his 100% pew-oriented FDL Murderboat to increase the influence of the Pilferers of HIP 74231 favorite faction?
Not even going to dwelve into instancing, that pretty much renders their imagined gameplay (blockades and whatnot) completely impossible, even if there was only Open, as this has already been explained to death.
What's happened here then? Has poor old 90s got a bit of a hit from the reality stick?
It's a tragic tale really.
Someone makes some wrong assumptions, their research before buying the game is consequently heavily flawed, and they buy the game thinking in it's a different type of game to what it is.
It happens.
What makes our protagonist stand out in this case, dear readers, is that they refused to be overcome by adversity and vowed to campaign non-stop until the game was changed from the type of game it was, and that other people had bought, into the one the one they had convinced themselves it was.
After all how can they achieve their dream of becoming a popular streamer for that type of game until it becomes that type of game?
As the story progresses, our poor hero suffers the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, as a selfish and toxic community inexplicably object to his valiant objectives.
And let us not forget their brave fight against those who would hide in solo and PGs. Some would claim that their playing outside of Open was nothing to do with any form of PvP and was just how they preferred to play, but these were clearly falsehoods. Many were taken in but our noble hero was one of the few with the clarity of vision to see through these lies to the true nature of the situation - the only reason people would play outside of Open was so that they could act against other players without the risk of direct ship to ship combat. Our champion once again faced a toxic community who favoured the lies over the truth.
Why can't everyone understand that he's right and they're wrong?
But that's ok, our hero is definitely right and the game will be changing into the one he thought it was in the near future. He can just sit back and tell people to wait and see. Time will prove him right!
Anyway, I've not listened to the latest chapter, so could some other readers fill me in?
I'm gathering that our hero has been dealt a blow by the announcement that Fleet Carriers can be bought by individuals rather than squadrons, and that the shocking news that maybe things aren't going quite the way they were convinced they were has brought down a few walls and left our hero in a bit of a state of frustration and despair.
That about right?
It's a tragic tale really.
Someone makes some wrong assumptions, their research before buying the game is consequently heavily flawed, and they buy the game thinking in it's a different type of game to what it is.
It happens.
What makes our protagonist stand out in this case, dear readers, is that they refused to be overcome by adversity and vowed to campaign non-stop until the game was changed from the type of game it was, and that other people had bought, into the one the one they had convinced themselves it was.
After all how can they achieve their dream of becoming a popular streamer for that type of game until it becomes that type of game?
As the story progresses, our poor hero suffers the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, as a selfish and toxic community inexplicably object to his valiant objectives.
And let us not forget their brave fight against those who would hide in solo and PGs. Some would claim that their playing outside of Open was nothing to do with any form of PvP and was just how they preferred to play, but these were clearly falsehoods. Many were taken in but our noble hero was one of the few with the clarity of vision to see through these lies to the true nature of the situation - the only reason people would play outside of Open was so that they could act against other players without the risk of direct ship to ship combat. Our champion once again faced a toxic community who favoured the lies over the truth.
Why can't everyone understand that he's right and they're wrong?
But that's ok, our hero is definitely right and the game will be changing into the one he thought it was in the near future. He can just sit back and tell people to wait and see. Time will prove him right!
Anyway, I've not listened to the latest chapter, so could some other readers fill me in?
I'm gathering that our hero has been dealt a blow by the announcement that Fleet Carriers can be bought by individuals rather than squadrons, and that the shocking news that maybe things aren't going quite the way they were convinced they were has brought down a few walls and left our hero in a bit of a state of frustration and despair.
That about right?
It's the same as ever. My opinion is the ultimate truth, different opinions don't know what they're talking about, yadda-yadda....
Awww.. that's cute
