It would be good to have a source for that, I'd like to know what fdev have said about how the player base is split.
Live stream format change - Ed
- Thread starter Nutter
- Start date
It would be good to have a source for that, I'd like to know what fdev have said about how the player base is split.
Well, yes but then the game is called Elite: Dangerous and .. just being honest .. if handled well, I actually think stream sniping can be highly entertaining (Cmdr Tony Curtis I'm looking at you) and even mutually beneficial, even if it is bad manners.
Who's to say for instance that more people won't be turned on to ED by the attack, than put off by it. There's a solo mode available to all. The line must get drawn when you repeatedly snipe the same stream or if the motivation is simply to ruin.
In Tony Curtis' case, he publishes his stream snipes. When that happens it becomes a two way thing, both Cmdrs are playing publicly and anyone watching the snipe video might be potential extra viewers, for the streamer who was victim. I think that mitigates to such an extent that outright bans - just because - would be heavy handed. I wouldn't.
There's a diff I think between discouraging bullying and going tame and to illustrate, when for instance was the last time a livestream was featured on forums? We're talking about it this time because of the gank / snipe so it's not cut and dried imo.
Last edited:
Just delay the stream, do it at some point in the week and broadcast on the usual times.
It is.
It is.
[up] [up] Cmdr.
I agree, live streaming should be definitely in open, but those who hijack a stream should be punished by FD.
I don't think I will ever be convinced to play in open even if ED had a decent C&P system and/or PvE flag option.
Frontier encouraging more players to play in Open has been a thing for years now. It makes sense for them to encourage more players in Open - why make a multi-player game in the first place after all?
But what has happened is that a lot of players prefer not to play in Open, for various interconnected reasons. For example, the almost complete absence of consequences for player murder.
Now, neither you nor I know what proportion of the player base play in any of the three client connectivity modes, only Frontier will have those figures, and they don't tell us. But the impression I get, as you so rightly say, is that the majority of the player base prefers not to play in Open, despite Frontier actively encouraging Open.
So for Frontier, the player base is behaving in a manner different from their original expectations - that most players would play in Open.
This is of course entirely the fault of Frontier, for designing a multi-player game without some very important and key multi-player game aspects, one of which is in-game consequences for in-game character criminal behaviour. Such hasn't been in the game since its release, more than 3 years ago.
More than 3 years of consequence-free in-game player murder, is a problem, in a multi-player game, wouldn't you agree?
Last edited:
Killing Ed all the time is griefing bordering on harassment as the people doing the killing are always the same group. It does not help that Ed is flying in a vanilla ship that has next to zero offensive / defensive capability.
Ed needs either a really fast ship (> 600 boost) or one that can withstand more than a minute of combat.
I'd also prefer that the format changes totally- its obvious that its difficult playing and presenting, why not do things like they did in Kickstarter?
Each stream is about a piece of art, a screenshot or model / lore story that might give us clues about the games secrets- spend 15 minutes just having a chat with the creator of the art and then a short Q & A. It would be like a mini video newsletter. For pew pew stick to CQC.
Ed needs either a really fast ship (> 600 boost) or one that can withstand more than a minute of combat.
I'd also prefer that the format changes totally- its obvious that its difficult playing and presenting, why not do things like they did in Kickstarter?
Each stream is about a piece of art, a screenshot or model / lore story that might give us clues about the games secrets- spend 15 minutes just having a chat with the creator of the art and then a short Q & A. It would be like a mini video newsletter. For pew pew stick to CQC.
According to Twitch stats, for viewers...
- Over the past 365 days, Elite Dangerous had a peak of 9485 and average of 297, whereas EVE Online had a peak of 15967 and average of 525.
- Over the past 30 days, Elite Dangerous had a peak of 3983 and average of 358, whereas EVE Online had a peak of 4995 and average of 389.
If it's harassment, then it should be dealt with as such. Not laughed off as "i'll git gud" because that then sends totally the wrong message to the entire community
I watch Ed's livestreams to see the specific content being shown and enjoy listening to Ed & the other FD staff discussing it.
I don't want to see a load of PVP combat when its not part of the primary topic as it gets in the way of the discussion and as a solo player, watching PVP is of zero interest to me (there's plenty of other streamers to watch for this sort of thing). When describing some sort of new weapon then fair enough, but trying to show something like the thargoid base with constant interference by other players detracts from the message.
Until some sort of meaningful crime & punishment system or robust method for blocking other players comes in then the livestreams would best be done in a private group as suggested by Nutter.
In summary, I enjoy watching Ed presenting the topic at hand, not just getting shot at.
I don't want to see a load of PVP combat when its not part of the primary topic as it gets in the way of the discussion and as a solo player, watching PVP is of zero interest to me (there's plenty of other streamers to watch for this sort of thing). When describing some sort of new weapon then fair enough, but trying to show something like the thargoid base with constant interference by other players detracts from the message.
Until some sort of meaningful crime & punishment system or robust method for blocking other players comes in then the livestreams would best be done in a private group as suggested by Nutter.
In summary, I enjoy watching Ed presenting the topic at hand, not just getting shot at.
Last edited:
We had a survey with 8000 participants and it turned out that less than 50% play in Open. This survey was posted on Reddit and notnon the Forums, since Reddit is kind of pro Open I guess the results would be more towards Solo/PG if you would ask every player. So yes, it's quite clear that we have more players in Solo and PG combined.
I agree with this sentiment. Open has the largest combined playtime, Solo has the most players, while Group lags considerably behind both other modes in players and playtime.
Ed could represent all three modes with different styles of streams, which he already does do a certain extent with his Educating Ed series (in Group).
The trouble is, like others have said its a tightrope. I imagine that the attackers want to be banned from Eds instances for either kicks, or 'highlighting an issue'.
In my fantasy livestream format, if Ed is demonstrating something specific I'd want it done in a private group so that the feature is clearly demonstrated without distractions. If its participating in a CG it should be in open.
However, since DBOBE states that any mode is legit, there should be no qualms about using either in a stream.
And yet, it is the policy towards your own stream. That is why it is in the game content section.
You will be ban if you stream an online multiplayer game using cheats, hack, bot that gives you an unfair advantage. It is also true for streaming a stream snipe using another broadcaster’s live broadcast at your advantage.
Nice try though.
Perhaps Ed should recruit some escorts?
Thanks for proving my point.
Unless he can find a way to be "incognito" (i.e. not as Ed who is currently livestreaming) then I totally agree