I do hope you don't use third party tools. When we use them, we're literally having thousands of other people "play the game" for us.
Still as Inconvenient as Possible to Play
- Thread starter Blackcompany
- Start date
I do hope you don't use third party tools. When we use them, we're literally having thousands of other people "play the game" for us.
I'm older than 6 so what's your point? Oh, you don't have one.
I was really saying what he said. I prefer to call it design with ample room for improvement.
I refer you to my post above, where I comment about the cycle of player third party tool usage. If we assume the current game design is without reproach and cannot be improved, then it's a fallacy exactly because thousands of us use third party tools to enhance our experience.
Suggesting the game incorporates some or all of those tools to improve is therefore a truism.
I just find it humorous that the same people who defend the game, attacking the OP for daring to complain are frequently the ones telling the OP to use these tools. I'd be incredibly dubious if everyone claimed they never, ever used third party tools because they just love the limitations of the game so much. Therefore, I'm skeptical that everyone truly thinks it's good design.
My personal opinion is that it could be improved by utilising some of what third party tools do (just like trading is about to be improved). That's because I would have loved those features when I used to trade. The same goes for being able to see what ship yards stock without going to EDDB and using thousands of other players to help me cut out the monotony.
Last edited:
I don't think we need to start insulting people and I haven't been paying that much attention to what you've both been arguing about but please, in future, do not use me as a vessel of insult against another forum user.
I wasn't arguing with anybody, he just waded in and was rather aggressive. And I haven't insulted anybody. I said his post was stupid and silly which it is, I didn't say he was, as I am sure he isn't.
Some of your posts are seemingly doing that, IMHO.
Please show me where?
I'll add that there are limitations to what should be expected here. For example, it's impractical to expect a ship building tool in game. That's definitely outside of the realm of what I'd expect any game to provide (although, some way to test a build prior to dishing out millions of credits would be amazing).
But stuff like this? It's a no brainer for me. Basic, QoL opportunities that are currently sourced by third party tools, just like the new trade improvements, would dramatically enhance the experience of a lot of players. And the proof is the fact that these massively crowd sourced tools exist.
PS the route planner is another example that got this sort of forum treatment early on before it even existed and we had to manually plot every single jump... Just saying.
But stuff like this? It's a no brainer for me. Basic, QoL opportunities that are currently sourced by third party tools, just like the new trade improvements, would dramatically enhance the experience of a lot of players. And the proof is the fact that these massively crowd sourced tools exist.
PS the route planner is another example that got this sort of forum treatment early on before it even existed and we had to manually plot every single jump... Just saying.
Last edited:
Bad or good deisgn is not technically subjective. It's actually mathematics and specifically quantifiable and able to be judged on it's merits. You just have to understand it well enough and have enough perspective. All things in software hardware and things like engineering work this way. None of it is subjective ultimately when you get down to it That is just a narrowed perspective.
And yes you are arguing with people. That very statement is an argument. To literally post anything on this forum you are arguing and have made an argument. You need to gain more technical skills and learn more so you know what you are saying more accurately and engage in the argument more thoroughly. That is literally the problem with all arguments. You argue it completely thoroughly and you get the answer or you are in any lesser state and still in the process of arguing. That is how all argument is defined. It also demonstrates it's purpose and the definition of things within it. the point of all argument is to gather all the data and get the answer. All of which is always possible. And all things in argument, including the nature of human behaviour and the purpose of the workings of the human brain to every point is to be able to gather and try to gather that data to complete an argument. AKA gain enough info to be able to understand things. It's all the same thing. It just depends how much you have to apply to things to say how much you can and how much of a subject you can engage in. More correct answer are relatively more complex as they have more info and simpler ones in a generalized sense less. Although you can break them down per part of the subject as people can have insight into different areas related to a subject etc. But it's still all measured on every level by how much of the whole you understand to any point. Anything right implies more knowledg anything wrong implies less. Right, wrong. Correct, incorrect. All the same thing. The only relativity is how much you have or lack compared to another group of info, complete or incomplete and how it relates.
Last edited:
Ahh. But people say that timed ship transfer is bad game design, when I disagree and think it is good. That is purely subjective.
What you are talking about is how it is programmed and put together. Cars for instance are very subjective and what some don't like about the design of that car others will like. Design is not about mathmatics it is about aesthetics. How well it has been put together is a completely different subject.
I am sure most stuff in ED is very well put together (a few notable objections though), it's the end design of it that is subjective (how it looks and works).
Supercruise is a good example. I think it is superbly designed and works well, other people do not like it and would prefer instant jumps to places.
Last edited:
It's not subjective. It's just a partial argument. If you ever get all the information potentially involved you will get a solid answer. As complex or simple as that answer is(BTW, that will contain all sides of all potential arguments completely and their completely potential/consideration). There is no subjectivity in argument. That is always just an incomplete discussion without all the information to consider. That is how argument works mechanically. That version of subjectivity doesn't exist or is oversimplified. Realisticly oversimplified and not what it originally was as is what always happens. We don't have teh ability as people to take things from nothing. We always recycle things from the past that were more thought out but in a relatively simplified form in some sense. If we knew more in all sense we wouldn't repeat it.
Real argument is just about gather all information for consideration. That is something somewhat missing from more recent understanding of argument and logic. The only time your argument dicates the conclusion correctly is when all information is present. Then the argument makes itself. That is something not taught in logic courses anymore. This is why the brain is basically a giant vacuum for information. And why we like learning as much as possible. Unless things interfere with the process enough. And we still technically want the information.
Last edited:
We will never get all the information involved though, so it is pointless talking about it. So how can I defend poor design when I have no idea how it has been designed and put together. It's pointless. Anyway, as far as I know I haven't defended any poor design in the game.
The more you learn about complex subjects the more you realize you can get the info. We just kind of live in a world were you obtain everything in an easier manner and don't have to learn as much in the process. We are very capable of getting most of the info. what is common is not what is possible or even what was possible or common. Argument is governed by what is true not what we can personally figure out. That is what makes it what its. It's literally the same thing as truth is not subjective. It's literally just all information present. But that is still what defines what is in an argument and how those viewpoints interrelate(AKA what they are judged by). That fact is always what is in play and what defines it when you look at it in a truer sense. Basically as you learn more you can get into a discussion further and answer more questions. Good and bad are matters of complexity and what it practically makes in game. It is always a technically solid answer. It's just a matter of getting into the specifics more.
In fact saying you can't get more information literally just shows you can't personally atm. This shows how much info you have and if you get more you will have a more solid argument. So, that dictates in the end you can get more info and answer it more. In fact you have to get more info and all the info to know you can't get the info which is then impossible as you got the info. So, that is technically the impractical argument. That is a natural logical conundrum. Or us conundrum the wrong word for that?! Is it technically the opposite?
Last edited:
Are said his outburst was silly, which it was. I didn't say he was silly. But I wouldn't think calling someone silly as being insulting, as it is meant to imply a lack of judgement which it was. It was factual, not insulting. Now if I called him an idiot, then yes that is insulting, but I haven't done that.
Please try better next time.
No it isn't as we've both argued in the past to prove it was game-breaking to have it instant. We both demonstrated (along with other forum users) just how bad a design decision it was for instant transfers. Remember the whole "Breaking PowerPlay" and the "Asp Taxi" not to mention calling in your fleet to stack odds against other players. There were others too which I don't recall but instant was bad design there's no question about that.
Being a graphic designer I know all about that. It also depends on what definition of design you mean (there are many). I can look at a designed leaflet and think it is poor by using my own knowledge, when others love it.
Last edited:
Yeah, we agreed with that, but the others didn't think that was an issue, basically they didn't care. My biggest issue with that was that most mission requirements/restrictions would become meaningless. Ship choice would have no consequence.