Thank You FDEV!!!

[B1rdy]

I am not responding to your points? I truly thought I'd presented my opinion on your points both politely and thoroughly.

It is a response to Stigbob, hence I quoted him.

You agree it is the player responsible for over-engineering their ships - but then insist the game is a fault for permitting it, which is a bit like (for your real world analogy) blaming a gun for killing someone else...

I said the player uses the tools and means the game provides to him. If the game gets worse in that process or due to that, it is hardly the player's fault. If a player gets essentially punished for playing a game as it is designed (not even in a weird or abusive way), what does that say about the quality of a game?
A small dose of power phantasy can be very entertaining. If you have played The Chronicles of Riddick Escape from Butcher Bay, you probably remember a sequence near the end of the game, where you get hold of some kind of exo-sceleton-robot-suit. After hours of being outnumbered and having to rely in stealth, hinding and arranging yourself with other inmates, you can blast through this section of offices shooting everything to pieces. A truely great climax. It works great, partially because it is only a small part of the game.

We will obviously differ in our perception of this game - and what 'skill' may be - no problem - if we were all identical in our perceptions and behaviour it would be a very boring world.
(I liked your driving analogy - I suppose my skill exceeds both of your examples as I used to instruct people how to drive both street cars and in 'track day' vehicles )

That is very interesting to read. Then you have probably experienced first hand, there are enough people who drive for a very long time, but are clueless about cars, technical details or car control. This is not (necessarily) them being stupid, but it is the way they engaged with this subject. For you, it is probably easy to find and describe flaws in cars with regards to handling. Someone, who uses his Audi A3 just to drive to the supermarket, will not be able to do that (to the same extent). He will not notice, it has terrible understeering and he might not understand, why this can be a problem. He is on another skill level than you.
Back to ED, this translates for instance why people even fail to realise perma-boosting is a problem and the game would be better off, if FDev balanced this as it was before Engineers. But before you are able to realize this, you have to engage with the corresponding mechanics. And if this is not being brought to the devs attention, it is even more unlikely to get fixed. More info, if you are interested, here:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIECMsOAk-s

Of course time invested says nothing about skill, look how easy it is to be elite at everything as well as getting the 'top' ranks with the Imps & Feds... Just bucket filling that requires minimal skill, just tenacity...

This is a missed opportunity, the game would be more fun, if this was an archivement besides being particularly persistent only.

 

[Rat Catcher]

It is a response to Stigbob, hence I quoted him.

My error... Apologies

... other comments

In many of the 'open world' games the player can construct their avatar to be invincible with the tools provided, as they can in ED - but to do so then claim the game is unbalanced because of it? Yet this is a common gripe because the player is able to do exactly that! Of course, ideally the game should force the player to limit their options and make them much more vulnerable because of limited choice... But that would, of course, be followed by salty tears as no player could be omnipotent

Permaboost might kill the Chieftain link? Isn't this still entirely subjective?

Which comes back to the whole crux of the (still interesting) debate: We, as individuals, interpret the world (let alone a game) in our own way - occasionally in the same manner as others, occasionally not - but still wholly as an individual.

 

[Stigbob]

I said the player uses the tools and means the game provides to him. If the game gets worse in that process or due to that, it is hardly the player's fault. If a player gets essentially punished for playing a game as it is designed (not even in a weird or abusive way), what does that say about the quality of a game?

Those are player choices though so it absolutely is the players fault, none of it is remotely compulsory. Offering the player options isn't punishment its good game design.

Some players will insist on making choices they know they dislike then griping about it, but again that's not punishment by the dev's or bad game design it's pebcak.

TLDR they are doing it wrong.

 

[B1rdy]

Those are player choices though so it absolutely is the players fault, none of it is remotely compulsory. Offering the player options isn't punishment its good game design.

Some players will insist on making choices they know they dislike then griping about it, but again that's not punishment by the dev's or bad game design it's pebcak.

TLDR they are doing it wrong.

This is purely your personal definition. Game designers, journalists and critically acclaimed games contradict your view. You can check out recent interview of id staff, Sid Meier or Mark Brown on Youtube.

In many of the 'open world' games the player can construct their avatar to be invincible with the tools provided, as they can in ED - but to do so then claim the game is unbalanced because of it? Yet this is a common gripe because the player is able to do exactly that! Of course, ideally the game should force the player to limit their options and make them much more vulnerable because of limited choice... But that would, of course, be followed by salty tears as no player could be omnipotent

"Most open world games" is a pretty vague term and ultimately it does not matter, how many games fall into that trap. Usually players reach this state towards the end of a game. Since ED has no end and already a rather cheap medium ship can be made OP, it is not quite a compareable situation or it is far less from ideal as you meant with your examples.
In think I have already mentioned this in a similar topic. The head of the german studio Piranha Bytes, famous for several open world games, found it a valid criticism of their games is, that the player can get too strong under certain circumstances.
So, what I am mentioning here is not solely based on my own preferences, assumptions or considerations, but on what people working this sector actually said on these topics.

Permaboost might kill the Chieftain link? Isn't this still entirely subjective?

If you want to preserve or archive a certain balance or role for ships, I guess not.

Which comes back to the whole crux of the (still interesting) debate: We, as individuals, interpret the world (let alone a game) in our own way - occasionally in the same manner as others, occasionally not - but still wholly as an individual.

Of course and because of that, a consenus needs to be found, that is according to the design philosophy a project is based on. There is no way of creating a perfect game, that everyone like in the same way. But gaming industry and science has come a long way. It is fairly know what works best in games and what effects certain designs have on gamers in general. People tend to underline their individuality (the way they play the game) and praise the optionality of ED, but they fail to grasp the limits or compromises this brings. CD Projekt Red has looked at dialogue choices in other RPGs and found having an obvious good answer or answers, that did not have an impact on anything, are less interesting then having choices that don't stand out or make an impact.

 

[Bottom Hat]

Oh god, I thought the turd-circus that was this thread had died on Friday.....