If you make every game using just one key, you'll lose 3 quarters of your audience.
Open Play experience just blows…
- Thread starter CMDR Egmont
- Start date
- Status
Yeah. And the provided link does not work.
yeah I see it weird, seems like directly linking to the PDF doesn't work, link updated.
Somewhat of a tangent: part of me wonders if some of the FPS difficulty complaints stem from the severely bugged Aim Assist that's throwing their aim off, particularly with the Manticore (plasma) weapons. If that ever gets fixed the overall feel of Odyssey's FPS combat should improve greatly since bullets will go where we point our weapons... like they're supposed to, and not veer off to where the target was.
I mentioned waaay earlier in this thread that the overall game balance is out-of-whack and non-Meta ships have a mountain to climb to compete in PvP. It certainly is possible, and after watching a few recent PvP videos I'm wondering if I'm underestimating my own abilities here. However, if you're like me and dead-set on flying a Clipper (to the point where you'd unironically take one with Plasma Chargers into a solo fight* with a Hydra - and win), you'll have to accept that you're at a significant disadvantage and some builds will outright shut down your DPS potential... because gimbals / total lack of hardpoint convergence.
I'd love to see ships like the Clipper brought in line with the likes of the FDL, Mamba, etc. so they could stand a very reasonable chance of surviving/winning a fight between pilots of equal skill, but that would entail massive changes to the sandbox, such as auto-convergence for Fixed weapons, buffs for Laser weapons to make them actual threats against Shields, HP rebalancing, boost strength/duration tuning, and so forth.
Rather than wait for that to never happen, I tried to look for whoever is stalling my attempts to liberate Minun, but I couldn't find anybody there during the most recent war - despite there being multiple Fleet Carriers in the system. I'm still chasing ghosts, I guess
*Quasi-solo... There was a Capital Ship there. And the Swarms weren't active.
Again, the easy difficulty stuff will still remain in the game, it won't be going anywhere.
Thanks for the reply @Robert Maynard , looks like it wasn't pointless in the end eh?
I'm in agreement to most of what you say. I think for a game like this zoned areas would probably best, but now we're 8 years in, and short of a "general reset" it's too late to implement as undoubtedly some PMF would be stuck in the ED equivalent of death worlds. This also applies to reworks of exploring as so many have gone before (notwithstanding the micro amounts of total surveyed systems).
It seems the nascent game was going to be set up this way (or else why have government type and security level), but that of course is speculation.
To clarify the "rank" scaling - this is only regarding NPCs, as any MP instances would not know which rank to grade too (and why I don't think it would be particularly suitable).
I don't think the save reverting is much of an issue. Compare loss of a ship in solo from environment or NPC. Unless you don't have rebuy all you have lost is time plus a relatively small amount of credits. 99/100 you can revert back to the activity you were doing before - iirc you now spawn at the closest station.
The biggest omission here is ofc cargo and exploration data. IMHO wouldn't it be better design to also have the opportunity to mitigate this loss of material (as in the proposed cargo insurance) rather than be punished unduly?
Is that a mechanic you would wish to see changed?
I'm in agreement to most of what you say. I think for a game like this zoned areas would probably best, but now we're 8 years in, and short of a "general reset" it's too late to implement as undoubtedly some PMF would be stuck in the ED equivalent of death worlds. This also applies to reworks of exploring as so many have gone before (notwithstanding the micro amounts of total surveyed systems).
It seems the nascent game was going to be set up this way (or else why have government type and security level), but that of course is speculation.
To clarify the "rank" scaling - this is only regarding NPCs, as any MP instances would not know which rank to grade too (and why I don't think it would be particularly suitable).
I don't think the save reverting is much of an issue. Compare loss of a ship in solo from environment or NPC. Unless you don't have rebuy all you have lost is time plus a relatively small amount of credits. 99/100 you can revert back to the activity you were doing before - iirc you now spawn at the closest station.
The biggest omission here is ofc cargo and exploration data. IMHO wouldn't it be better design to also have the opportunity to mitigate this loss of material (as in the proposed cargo insurance) rather than be punished unduly?
Is that a mechanic you would wish to see changed?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
'spose it wasn't.
Indeed.
I was surprised and a bit disappointed at the lack of significant difference between systems with different security levels at launch.
What would the NPC response "rank" be based on? To not apply such a change to MP instances (or even potential MP instances) would be to single out Solo for the change - as players may unexpectedly join existing instances in either of the multi-player game modes.
Not just a few credits and the time to recoup them - any time spent mining / exploring / passenger mission running, as well as the loss associated with losing the contents of ones ship. For vessels engaged in those activities the time and credit consequenses may be much more significant than the rebuy on the ship.
I was a bit disappointed when cargo insurance wasn't implemented, even though there was an obvious placeholder - then not particularly surprised when it was removed after a while. Now that it's been removed, I don't expect cargo insurance would be implemented.
For exploration data, the arrival of deep space stations, e.g. Colonia, Sagittarius A*, Carriers (more specifically the DSSA), and the Colonia Bridge megaships means that players have significantly more options as to where to sell their exploration without needing to risk a return to the bubble.
Just because you can't do something doesn't make it impossible. Even for average players.
Perhaps, now that the Thargoids in HIP 22460 can do this, it CAN be translated to other systems/enemies beyond the Thargoids in HIP 22460...
How about really crazy stars (or black holes) radiate heat which slowly boils the ship? This effect seems tailor made for such things.
I'd love to see magnetars and neutron stars that spagettihifi if you warp in or fly too close, GRBs that cook you if you're in the beam, etc.
Make it so, Frontier!
A Neutron Star did this to one of my exploration attempts. While I was preparing and repairing for the next jump, I must have been a little too close...
But I was more thinking about the Thargoids new ability in HIP 22460: namely to detect one when one drops into normal space from Supercruise and then pay one a visit...fully aggroed...
Add that to an amped up interdiction attempt rate and you've got prime anarchy real estate...
Nah, it never bothered me and i'm primarily a Exec/Tormentor user (i also find the issue quite niche if i may say that)
Usually the most deaths i got were due to my own faults - like getting into a sniper 1-on-1 fight but forgetting to raise shields or letting meself cornered and zerged down.
But then again, i'm not the one to complain about on-foot combat being hard.
![[VR] Bulbulunufus](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/261/261245.jpg?1671230473){kind=avatar}
Thank you for agreeing with me that your inference is not valid (even if the statistics don't rule out your presumption being correct). In light of that would you now like to explain why you have been framing your interpretation as a statement of scientific fact? Why, do people think, would someone of Robert's evident intelligence do that?
On the contrary. The fact that a single data point can blow your case apart is testament to how chronically bad is the inference that you're trying to make. Especially since I'm weighted on the "more open to PvP than average" side of things, and all the other factors that I listed. It shows that you have not even started from a point of thinking of real cases in order to inform the parameters of the statistical analysis that you would need to carry out, in order to make the inference that you wish to. You've simply taken a statistic off the shelf and transparently decided what it means (and people can make up their minds why you would do this), assuming people will buy it without question, which is kind of an insult to their intelligence. Fundamentally, no data point is even needed. There is nothing in "has not engaged in PvP for 30 days" from which can automatically be extrapolated "does not engage in PvP". It merely makes it more likely. How much more likely is essentially unconstrained. You're arguing against common knowledge that it's possible to go periods much longer than 30 days without encountering another player, especially in certain timezones and on certain platforms. And that's if you spend all your time in open.
I edited the post shortly after posting to clarify that I was assuming an equivalence between a 30 day period for different individual CMDRs and different 30 day chunks of my own time playing Elite. In other words, 10% would mean that in 10% of the 30 day chunks of my time since starting to play the game, the specified PvP interaction occured at least once. People can decide whether or not that's reasonable - the principle complaint would be that I probably encounter more PvP now than I did when starting out, but it doesn't change the conclusions.
Really? He ran the same test again for a different 30 day period and found the statistics stable? Shocking. So they still definitely say the same thing, which is "nothing much without significant supporting information". Your belief that you're making a good point here suggests that it's naivety with statistics that's resulting in the bad inference that I'm seeing (which believe me is better than the other option
).Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
For the inference to be dismissed as invalid, rather than acknowledged as a possible interpretation, would also require the aforementioned supporting information. More care will be taken in future regarding the inclusion of non-definitive wording when referring to interpretation of the available statistics - even though the interpretation is broadly similar to a statement made some time ago by Mark Allen:
On PvP vs PvE
We listen to both sides. While it's true that the PvP crowd do tend to be more vocal and in previous betas have given more organised feedback, we're well aware that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP. A few changes here are more focused on one or the other (torpedoes have no real place in PvE at the moment for starters), but overall I think they promote variety of loadouts in both styles of play, and will make both more fun. On a personal note: I play more or less entirely in PvE, so if anything my bias in favour of that
Last edited:
Really? He ran the same test again for a different 30 day period and found the statistics stable? Shocking. So they still definitely say the same thing, which is "nothing much without significant supporting information". Your belief that you're making a good point here suggests that it's naivety with statistics that's resulting in the bad inference that I'm seeing (which believe me is better than the other option
To me those stats show that less than 10% of the analyzed segment of general player* base is interested enough in PVP to expose themselves to a PVP situation.
Which means that more than 90% of the analyzed segment are playing in Solo/PG or, if they're playing in Open, they not expose themselves to PVP (explorers in the black for example or cmdrs playing in less frequented parts of the bubble)
*(tens of thousands of players that are interested enough in ED to create an Inara account and sync it, and interested enough in the game to log at least once in those 30 days)
I do think the numbers paint a pretty accurate image of pvp/pve interests expressed by the players (you cant really say 30 days is too little since 2 randomly selected 30 days samples show similar numbers)
And maybe you missed this clarification post from Artie
You forgot Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen!
The thing with that game is that combat is very enjoyable and challenging on a skill level. I don't feel the same way in Elite. For example, a bullet-sponge NPC who constantly pops SCB and chaff is more annoying than challenging, especially since combat mostly revolves around dancing in circles and jousting while trying to wear down the shields. At least once the shields go down, then there is a bit of a challenge thanks to subtargetting (both from an aiming perspective and a tactical perspective). Still, I don't get much enjoyment out of end-game "bosses" in Elite, not like I do in DD DA.
If I could mod Elite, I would seriously nerf all shields and remove SCBs and boosters. Heck, I might just remove shields as well. When I found out that Frontier gave everyone personal shields in Odyssey
, that totally killed my interest in the FPS portion of the game. Shields are literal "grind walls". Now I'd feel different if personal shields were a boss-only defense, like the Goa'uld had in SG1, though even those had a weakness to low-speed kinetic (as in, thrown knives) weapons. I'd also be cool with shields if they required more skill - for example, having shield zones that are individually much weaker than the whole, requiring a pilot to protect their "weaken side" against attack. Instead, shields are just a simplified health bar with a built-in OP healer.
Last edited:
Wrong, i'd say it's Right.
...So, according to that study, only a quarter of the people, that is 25%, play games for challenge and difficulty.
Which means that i was correct when i said that most people, aka the rest of the 75%, DONT want a harder game and want a mostly leisure experience.
SOuls-likes are designed around the combat and deifficulty. ED is just slapping on powercreep and bulletsponge and calls it a day. There is no semböance of any design that is any more complex. You cant design a flower from a scrapheap.You forgot Dragon's Dogma: Dark Arisen!
The thing with that game is that combat is very enjoyable and challenging on a skill level. I don't feel the same way in Elite. For example, a bullet-sponge NPC who constantly pops SCB and chaff is more annoying than challenging, especially since combat mostly revolves around dancing in circles and jousting while trying to wear down the shields. At least once the shields go down, then there is a bit of a challenge thanks to subtargetting (both from an aiming perspective and a tactical perspective). Still, I don't get much enjoyment out of end-game "bosses" in Elite, not like I do in DD DA.
If I could mod Elite, I would seriously nerf all shields and remove SCBs and boosters. Heck, I might just remove shields as well. When I found out that Frontier gave everyone personal shields in Odyssey
- Status