Try taking on Elite assassination missions and make that claim again. I'll wait.
Make the engineering grind remotely palatable
- Thread starter sprecdaddy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- engieering
Try taking on Elite assassination missions and make that claim again. I'll wait.
Pre-engineered CG rewards modules are not a solution to the Engineering problem in any aspect. If anything they make it worse by introducing yet another factor of power creep.
I disagree....
There are some 'gamers' who just can't stop bleating about the game they are playing, used to play, never played but their friend told them was awful. It is the nature of the beast. We have folk who admit to not playing for years on this forum complaining about how bad the game is, some making comments about the EDO expansion whose entire knowledge comes from a youtuber or two...
If the game was so terrible, it would have died years ago, it lives today, yet still a small number of posters insist on crying "doom" every day.
I've not noticed any particular problem with engineering, is there one?
Comparing things to dated MMORPGs which specifically create interminable text-vomit grind ad nauseum is not, I think, a compelling argument for how things could be better than they are right now.
It does say something about how these MMORPGs have conditioned players over time to expect or put up with rather excessive frustrations.
I didn't say you had proposed breaking the gameI said perhaps the changes you think would streamline things for "noobs", to prevent the long horrible sounding gameplay YOU chose to do when engineering early on, perhaps those changes aren't what the makers of the game would want?
I'm also not suggesting you haven't played long enough - you've played during a time when the game is simpler faster and easier for new players.
Engineering is indeed a long process, and the progression process is a choice by fdev. How different would ED be if new players had fully engineered ships within the first week playing? And to be honest some new players already speed run things to get a carrier without even playing the game, then wonder where the gameplay is.
I view this as primarily a problem of the game offering enough information to the player on what they can do. There's a reason most players still resort to using Inara and EDDB and so on. Fdev have made great strides forward in this aspect from where they were before, but there's still much room for further progress.
That is an objectively false claim about the game. The Elite ranks, the faction ranks, Powerplay, Engineering, Odyssey - almost every possible feature has been blatantly set up to be a grind. That is not any fault of the players 'finding the cracks'.
You've completely missed the point of what you responded to.
Critics of a game are not 'bleaters'. Criticisms are not valid only if you are the most experienced player of a game that also paradoxically "just plays without grinding" the whole time. Nobody here offering criticisms of the game is stating that the game overall is terrible, that it is doomed, or that it ought to die. In fact, the whole point of offering criticisms is to pursue exactly the opposite path forward.
I'm not entertaining obvious facetiousness. This thread and every thread like it that span across the existence of the forums over these many years speak for themselves about the problems of Engineering, and these problems have been thoroughly catalogued time and time again.
If you say so!
Critics who have not played for 5 years are validated in their outlook?
Get real.
No, I haven't. We're both talking about games which after playing for a while don't scratch the itch of why we bought them in the first place. We've had enough of them and that's perfectly normal, there's loads of games I'm finishing having fun with and have put down. I moved on, you haven't.
Ah, the issue is so great that it is obvious, but not to everyone, then?
If you say so!
Critics who have not played for 5 years are validated in their outlook?
Get real.
Yes. As is the criticisms of players who have not even played at all yet.
If you refuse to be open-minded to the views of others that don't fall under your own narrow and biased qualifications, that is to your own personal detriment. It's certainly not a mindset you can apply in designing any sort of enjoyable game and hoping that people can come together and enjoy it, together.
You're doubling down on missing the point, I see.
Your original comment was "I wish they would actually go away if the game was so bad".
Meaning, rather than improve the game and make its experience enjoyable, you would rather pursue anti-inclusiveness as a policy and promote the idea of not enjoying this game.
If you can't understand why that demonstrates that you just might have a game in dire need of improvement on your hands, I don't know how to help you.
Really? That is fabulous!
Hold up a mirror for a moment, will you... Take a good look at what you see.
No, it isn't, sorry.
So when does your own blockbuster game get published? I'd like to trash talk it without even seeing it, you accept that would be perfectly valid, obviously.
I support the principle that if someone is not enjoying a recreational activity, why on earth are they doing it?
That is why I don't play CP2077 any longer.... but I don't waste my time bleating about it, I just stopped playing. Why do others find quitting something they dislike so hard?
I don't think you have the right to tell me to look in the mirror when you loudly refuse to acknowledge, and also discriminate against, others' viewpoints. You can set up all the strawman arguments you like, it doesn't change that your mindset is wrong and harmful to pursuing a constructive dialogue and future for the game.
If you don't care whether CP2077 improves to become an experience you can enjoy again, that is your choice and issue. That does not invalidate anybody that cares to criticize it and pursue improvements to it.
I do, that's why I suggested it.
Perhaps your message appears to be exactly that which you are so at ease to accuse others of? All a matter of interpretation, as always, isn't it?
It cannot improve without removing what the developers considered a key character, and the "6 ways to die"... (In my opinion, of course)
Of course it doesn't, did I say it did? Do you always have to make things appear to conform with your own viewpoint, even when they are not mentioned? That is a curious stance to take.
Edit: typo