Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
In what way would there be "no content for hardcore guild-gamers" - unless a requirement of content for them is that other players can't get access to it?
Please reconsider fleet carriers for solo players.
- Thread starter CMDR Karrde Sun
- Start date
- Status
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
Leaderboards. Maybe but not for me it's pure "meh". I like to roleplay and there are no leaderboards in my games just as there are not players or NPC's just characters. In my experience NPC's can be trusted to fill a role and do it in a sensible lore friendly manner.... Random human players not so much
That's not technically true. Perhaps you leave no exclusive content for them. Everyone pays for the game with money, we shouldn't be required to pay with time in order to have the same access to content.
edit: Ninja'd
Deleted member 110222
D
Nobody is "denied access". Everyone can compete. But in competition, you can't just give everyone the prize otherwise there'd be no competition.
So yes, making rewards rarer and for the best players only is a very wise move as far as game design is concerned.
Again, I could list countless examples of this type of reward from a myriad of games, and all those games are doing very well because of this competition within their community.
Deleted member 110222
D
It's a game dude. And it isn't being made to your specific tastes. It's for a variety of players of many skills and abilities.
At some point old-fashioned game design has to come into play.
I still can not understand why the solo player wants to have a ship that serves only to take a group of players from one place to another? Being that he, playing solo, does not have a friend at his disposal so you can carry him from one side to another.
Because you know it's all she's meant to be, right? Put 30 players with combat ships, which has no jumping ability, and dumps them in a place far away, to the heavy battle (mining / CG / Thargoid invasion, etc.) and then bring them back home.
If she is upgradeable to combat, she will be better at defending herself. It will just stand there, to serve as a decoy for the pirates, working just like a megaship currently in the game, it will be like a target for pirates to shoot at it. While you are mining, you will receive warnings that your Carrier is being attacked and that you need to defend it, and when you get out of the asteroid belt and get into it you will see all the resources you collected being dumped into space
Because you know it's all she's meant to be, right? Put 30 players with combat ships, which has no jumping ability, and dumps them in a place far away, to the heavy battle (mining / CG / Thargoid invasion, etc.) and then bring them back home.
If she is upgradeable to combat, she will be better at defending herself. It will just stand there, to serve as a decoy for the pirates, working just like a megaship currently in the game, it will be like a target for pirates to shoot at it. While you are mining, you will receive warnings that your Carrier is being attacked and that you need to defend it, and when you get out of the asteroid belt and get into it you will see all the resources you collected being dumped into space
Again, that is no problem at all. You simply have various content for all time investment levels. If you spend less time, you'll be able to do less. If you do more, you get more. That is how everything goes in life. The only alternative is to simply cut high-investment content to appease people who dont invest as much but want 'everything'.
If you want to learn the piano, that is awesome. If you only want to spend 30 minutes a week, you wont be able to play Rachmaninoff's 3rd piano concert. That is not a problem.
Deleted member 110222
D
Good analogy, on the piano.
I think some people feel a tad entitled in gaming because they "paid money already". You can buy tickets for a footie match. Doesn't mean you're entitled to seeing the GOAT as your team steamrolls the opposition.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Placing any content behind a recurring time investment wall is likely to reduce participation - and here's me thinking that Frontier would actually want as many players as possible to engage with new content deemed worthy of development time.
Deleted member 110222
D
Wrong. Putting content behind time investment keeps people coming back. Especially if it's mixed with a competitive element.
That time investment means you have to think tactically, make the right decisions, and outwit your competition.
Outright ownership like you want just causes the game to stagnate.
Yeah, you'd think so, wouldn't ya ...?
What's all this post-haste and rummage? I haven't seen FD say they'll deny carriers to solo players, and I can't think of any reason why they would want to. I can think of reasons for them to allow solo-player carriers: it will be a thing some solo players want which won't inconvenience anyone else, and happy players are good for business. I confidently expect carriers for all who want them.
Deleted member 110222
D
Yep'. In reality it mostly increases participation!
I'm basing this off proven game design in MMOs from the last two decades.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... or it just puts people off engaging in elements of the game with recurring play-time demands.
To compete, one must play the game - and some won't choose to play that optional bit of the game.
[citation requested]
Jesus Christ enough of the strawman already. I have for my entire time in ED argued to stop making stuff too easy. Credit inflation and rampant exploits going untouched for months (years when talking about mission flipping). The last thing I want is getting everything easy and I daresay many others feel the same.
Wanting NPC equivalents flying megaships we can join (which personally is what I would want I am not suggesting a megaship should be flyable as a 1 man band) I think would be a great compromise on this.
Nope, the goal is to have as many people play the game, not have as many people play every aspect of the game. To get as many people playing as possible, you need to cater to many types of people. Including heavy-investment players, who need content designed for that.
It is just rather obvious that you are not that type of player, and are just arguing that FD should design everything for you. Which is a fine sentiment, but obviously not a very solid one from the perspective of someone who is not you.
Deleted member 110222
D
You've just proven you know nothing about online game design.
Your advocacy for "Make everything available in Solo!" reinforces this.
You are ignoring two decades of MMO game design because it doesn't suit your narrative.
Good job.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Given that Frontier have indicated that features need to be used to satisfy internal requirements to justify further development effort, I'd expect that for a feature to thrive it should be attractive to as many players as possible.
Of course - any of us can only comment from our own perspective.
Except I ain't asking FD to remove multiplayer megaships, just to supplement them with NPC equivalents. Maybe I sound salty about this and maybe I am a little but you gotta remember FD already through NPC wingmates and NPC crew under the bus. ED has had lots of unique content for MP only and in the initial design it was nothing like this. Had FD made crew and wingmates like they said they would I would be less bothered about megaships but it's just yet another feature that is looking to fill mmo trope in a game where the head honcho said was not going to be a generic mmo trope game
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Thasnkfully, Frontier do the game design - not the players.
Nope. That stems from my complete disinterest in the, in my opinion, tedious nature of PvP.
- Status