I keep wondering if I'll ever love another ship like my Cobra. I dare not dream about the changes that may be possible.
If FDev would just tell us when Horizons et al are dropping we could whip out our advent calendars. 'Only x more sleeps 'til 2.1-day!'
If FDev would just tell us when Horizons et al are dropping we could whip out our advent calendars. 'Only x more sleeps 'til 2.1-day!'
From what people are speculating on the forums, it's in a month or two, they should just throw pre orders up on the xbox store so I can throw money at my t.v.
if they make pre order packs and offer exclusives such as the black cutter or cobra mk4 for paying a weee bit extra, by all means frontier I WILL THROW MONEY AT MY T.V.
I chose my words poorly but I don't concede your point. My intent was to convey that ED is a game that does try to cleave to its own internal logic rather than simply saying 'because...Games!' However, you seem to have ignored what I said about the lack of balancing in RL. NO SIM EVER has attempted to model the types of things you point out as flaws in my argument. Nor should they. Nor would you 'mix up the meta' in a sim, as I acknowledged FDev are doing.
Finally at the risk of being utterly pedantic (Hey, did you actually see how much you attacked my position with spurious examples? Did you see that you didn't even make a counter proposal of what ED is?) most people's accepted definition of 'Simulation' includes acceptance of the sim being limited to only the key areas of the subject under study. ED meets this criterion. Given the limitations of tech, time, manpower, and available knowledge ED is a very advanced sim. Indeed, someone correct me if I'm wrong but Braben is very proud that ED predicted extra-solar planets before the scientific community actually found any. ED is a sim. QED.
EDIT: Before you or someone else mentions the elephant in the room of my argument... Superluminal speeds are impossible. Certainly currently, probably eternally. However, simulation allows for experimentation, in this case, 'if we WERE somehow able to travel at superluminal speeds what would some of observable universe look like?'
I like the game, don't get me wrong, but a game is what it is at its core. Far from "sim" in my eyes, but if you want to consider it a sim, knock yourself out. Have fun with it as I do.
As far as "balance IRL"... really? Your arguments against my concern of the game being enjoyable are illogical... What does life have to do with entertainment value of a video game? And how is life unbalanced? Because birds can fly and humans need a machine? Some people are born into wealthy families and some aren't? I am just lost on the counter here... I am not trying to "attack" you or your feelings about the game in the slightest... I am just concerned what ED will be for me, and probably others, with my perspective on the game... and I just cannot accept ED being labeled as a sim. I have conceded that indeed it does have sim-like qualities, but at its core I would view it more as a RPG... maybe an action RPG?... but again with sim like qualities. For me, ED is a genre of game that I haven't experienced. I focus more on combat, so for me it is more of a FPS... but I can explore, trade, mine, whatever...
Regardless of how you or anyone would like to label or classify ED, my perspective is balance is key for my enjoyment of this game. I fly in Open exclusively and some of thee things concern me. Private Groups, unbalanced mods (pay to win with Horizons?), etc... concern me. If open becomes a barron wasteland with completely unbalanced ships I am afraid my enjoyment of the title will be lowered, and if it sinks too far I will simply stop playing. I know, i know, no one cares if I stop playing and opinions are like a... I think you get the point. However, I found the need to express my opinion on this post, which is 90% of what these forums are. Opinion. Agree, disagree, rep, or don't, life goes on.
However, if we can have a constructive conversation about pros and cons maybe one or the both of us will gain some perspective. Maybe a community voice will make a difference, I believe in the past it has as much as FD denies it.
Lastly, the update and expansion isn't here yet, so as I have said in the past I will say again; I won't give my final opinion until I have had hands on experience with it. It could be great! It could be bad! Only time will tell at this point.
What about the fighter?
Whether or not I even carry a fighter onboard my Cutter will come down to the way Frontier implements them. Assuming I can do two thing with it then it'll be worth the space it'll take up.
1. The fighter needs to have an AI that ranks up and gets better at fighting the longer it survives, as I have no interest in flying a fighter when I could be controlling my expensive capital ship.
2. It has to allow me a way to land at an outpost to pick up missions and such.
If the ship launched fighters are incapable of those two basic things then I've no room for them. --Momentai :3
OK, let's kill the 'sim' thing, first. You said you couldn't take seriously my assertion that ED is a sim. Well, while you simply expressed your opinion, I hopefully demonstrated that ED does fit the bill, or, in other words, M$ store - 'Genre: Action & Adventure, Multi-player Online Battle Arena, Racing & Flying, Strategy & Simulation'
As for your other points I'd never discourage expressing opinions, or discussion. On the contrary this forum, as has been pointed out many times, is a paragon of social interaction. Typed communication will always, inevitably, result in misunderstandings. I met my American wife (I'm a Brit) in a forum 18 years ago and nothing has changed in this regard. But here we find ourselves in the midst of an example of things being pretty much as good as they get, given the limitations of this type of communication. (Eg, my use of the word 'Attack' instead of, say, 'Challenge' has meant we discuss HOW we discuss, not the CONTENT of the discussion. On which note...
Concerns over balancing are always legitimate, but it's us, the players, providing feedback that allows balancing to occur in the games we love. RL doesn't afford us that luxury and my point earlier was that where RL issues are rarely fixed because we complain, balancing issues in games can be, hence we can be grateful for that. Right now we're a little bogged down in worrying about balancing gameplay changes we've not experienced yet. Maybe, just a little premature in our worries? When we have had some hands-on time (and the PC Gods are) THEN we can substantively talk about very specific nerfs and buffs that are needed. In other words, I couldn't agree with your last point more! Have a rep.
OK, let's kill the 'sim' thing, first. You said you couldn't take seriously my assertion that ED is a sim. Well, while you simply expressed your opinion, I hopefully demonstrated that ED does fit the bill, or, in other words, M$ store - 'Genre: Action & Adventure, Multi-player Online Battle Arena, Racing & Flying, Strategy & Simulation'
As for your other points I'd never discourage expressing opinions, or discussion. On the contrary this forum, as has been pointed out many times, is a paragon of social interaction. Typed communication will always, inevitably, result in misunderstandings. I met my American wife (I'm a Brit) in a forum 18 years ago and nothing has changed in this regard. But here we find ourselves in the midst of an example of things being pretty much as good as they get, given the limitations of this type of communication. (Eg, my use of the word 'Attack' instead of, say, 'Challenge' has meant we discuss HOW we discuss, not the CONTENT of the discussion. On which note...
Concerns over balancing are always legitimate, but it's us, the players, providing feedback that allows balancing to occur in the games we love. RL doesn't afford us that luxury and my point earlier was that where RL issues are rarely fixed because we complain, balancing issues in games can be, hence we can be grateful for that. Right now we're a little bogged down in worrying about balancing gameplay changes we've not experienced yet. Maybe, just a little premature in our worries? When we have had some hands-on time (and the PC Gods are) THEN we can substantively talk about very specific nerfs and buffs that are needed. In other words, I couldn't agree with your last point more! Have a rep.
As far as sim, call it what you will, and I will do the same. Our enjoyment of the game is a common thread and simple labeling does not need to be a thorn as far as I'm concerned.
I think we understand each other, and I do agree it may be premature concern, but Beta videos have given me cause for it... Again, I won't wholly judge until I'm in it, but I do think the "hype" train should be wary of what happens with this title as new options are presented. Could be good, could be bad... We will certainly see cause we all love the game.
P.S. most of my concern comes from me being an open play fan... And the joy interaction with other players brings me. Private groups, balance, and rude players can all be reasons that open player population declines taking with it a legitimate reason I play. Yeah, I still have fun shooting NPC's and exploring which doesn't require other players, but ED is the best experience I've ever had running into another player. What are their intentions? Will those go smooth? Will there be a fight? I've got a fair number of CMDR's on my friends list simply due to random encounters in ED.
Last edited:
Back on the original topic of discussion, my plan for Horizons/Engineers is to upgrade the boosts/thrusters and FSD on all my ships. Weapons and shields are great and all, those will come in time. But first it's the engines. I want to be able to jump further and out run other ships if I need to.
In fairness, my original point is on the topic of planning for1.6/2.1. The core mechanics are seemingly changing a great deal where now ships are going to be ridiculously fast, shielded, armed, etc... Which in turn could change the meta of the game. I can't plan for a meta we haven't been included in...