The Meat Grinder

[Just Paul]

I use a steam controller and aiming fixed weapons is fine. It does have a gyro which when used as a mouse helps a lot with the fine adjustments. But I also was successfully fighting thargoids with gauss cannons before I found out about that feature. As Bigmaec said some ships are easier than others for fixed. I use an Annie lately with a fixed layout, first rails, then fixed LR beams, and now PAs. It is much easier to hit a target with the Annie as with my PA or rail FdLs, but even with that ones I got better the more I flew them. Now vector control that's a different story, I'm still trying to wrap my head around that one and don't get me started on PIP control.

Back to the topic. After the first death to a player I cared a little about what happened, but I was mainly miffed about the mistakes I made. Now I really don't care anymore, I barely carry anything which I couldn't get back in an hour and even if, the potential danger of a player encounter is worth it all the time, for me.

 

[Rat Catcher]

I get that a lot. And you're right, this forum has far too many words as it is. I should probably have just posted a cat gif and the quote.

You would have got a heap more 'Like' clicks if you had done...

In fact, you could have left off the quote...

 

[Iron Golem]

I don't mind exploding at all and quite enjoy PVP (I'm rubbish though) the reason I don't do it more often is convenience.

To stand a chance I have to refit my ship (or switch to my PVP ship) then I have to put away my Hotas and practice with mouse for a bit to get the feel back, then I need to go and find some PVP flying with mouse which I don't like. I've tried Hotas with mouse alongside so I can switch for rails/plasma but its too much desk clutter&wires and a pain.

I got jumped by the xeno-protectors yesterday, fired back a bit then high waked as it was hopeless. Considered transferring a PVP ship out there and decided it wasn't worth the hassle as it meant an hour and a half ship transfer time plus recombobulating my control config and shifting stuff around just to try to fight some guy who selects his targets by them not outfitted for PVP.

Nerf mouse and people like me might be much more into it.

The amount of awkwardness I go through with mouse sensitivity and relative mouse to fa off vs having usable sensitivity in fa on / super cruise is a huge turn off.

I am at the point where if combat is a possibility I have to rock realtive mouse on with a 50% realtive mouse effect.

If I am exploring or being safe I can turn relative mouse off and actual have a comfortable time in super cruise.

I keep experimenting with settings etc to find a good medium ground but the closest I can come is realtive on at 0% strength and it just makes everything sub optimal and awkward.

 

[Layne Vakarian]

You would have got a heap more 'Like' clicks if you had done...

In fact, you could have left off the quote...

Okay, you got a LOL too

 

[Good Whiskey]

In fact, you could have left off the quote...

Thread Title: The Meat Grinder

Content:

 

[Layne Vakarian]

Thread Title: The Meat Grinder

Content:

Purrfect.

 

[jÆther]

Elite is a game, everyone can play the way they prefer. Though I do see a certain merit in people who choose to get their feet wet and persevere. One thing that's true is that everyone learns in a different way, some folks don't need a trial by fire to progress and enjoy the game, or even to a certain limited extent, "git gud."

For the more timid, rebuy-averse or just generally wiser of the bunch - I find taking small steps, learning in stages leads to fewer mistakes and lessens the burn/intimidation factor a little. Using online community resources helped me a lot into taking that plunge into Open and into deep space exploration. A step-by-step of this would be something like "I've been destroyed by a player/I've heard players will destroy me in Open, how do I avoid that?" -> look up ship builds and/or Open guides -> practice/buy/build/engineer until comfortable -> log into Open, travel around and get used to seeing other players in the instance. This gradual approach can also be fun, if you're not used to punishment yet and want to get used to things/build confidence first.

These day's I'm far more confident and relaxed in Elite, and am learning things more by "just trying them" - I get blown up sometimes but thanks to prior preparation I suffer less rebuy costs and care much less about losing any ship anyway even if it were a big cost (this way you can get really attached to your personalised ship, and not feel bad when you lose it at the same time). For those folks out there with free happy spirits just "yolo-ing" it, I get it how fun it is now - I tend to get along well with folks like that. Anyone who can take a knock and try to get up and improve, whilst eventually moving past the salt and hate - they're all right in my book. Sometimes there doesn't have to be a "point" or purpose, do it for FUN

 

[Good Whiskey]

Until that changes, Open will remain exactly what it is. A heavily flawed mode filled to the brim with GvP'ers in Hotspots and a completely chaotic/lawless/bizarre design.
It's simply not attractive in its deranged and severely flawed design right now (as a concept).

I feel like the "design" you're talking about here kinda leads into these...

I would add - the fact that the three game modes and mode shared galaxy state have formed part of the game design from the start, through development and release, means that the player-base that the game has attracted is not the same as the one that it may have attracted if the game had been Open only from the outset - however, if the game had been Open only from the outset it may not have achieved its Kickstarter target and may not have been developed at all.

On which basis I suspect that for the majority, and of course this can only be my opinion - I haven't asked the entire playerbase - for the majority of players that eschew open, the reason has nothing whatsoever to do with the prospect of ship loss and absolutely everything to do with not wanting, not in any way shape or form, to be part of someone else's content.

Sometimes this includes me. Sometimes it doesn't. However at no time, not ever, not even if we're flying in a wing together, am I there for your enjoyment. At best it is to enhance each other's. Never for yours alone though.

That's what the modes are there for. So that everyone has a choice: when to play, how to play, and with whom. Wantonly going and getting yourself blown up as if this is some kind of weird vaccination against disappointment or aversion to ship loss though?

Nah.

I feel like these two posts are closely related in that a) they speak to the notion that a certain type of player has become attracted to Elite, and b) they explain a bit more about why those players aren't particularly interested in adapting to a paradigm in which conflict and loss are a regular part of the game. And you're both right; I don't think that the bulk of Elite players want to sacrifice that somewhat controlled "personal narrative" that emerges from playing in Solo or a PG.

That said, if Elite isn't intended to drive unstructured player interactions... why is the Open environment so unstructured? Is this a drawback related to the hybrid compromises that Frontier has made, or do you think they were genuinely hoping that an unstructured (and unsafe) gameworld would be something that the average Elite player would eventually adapt to over a longer period of time?

 

[Brrokk]

Oh, it's this thread again.

 

[kdogg788]

The open environment is so unstructured because they never bothered to develop the structure or content to populate an open universe. Elite was originally structured as a single player game.

1. Im on Xbox One and 99 percent of players use controllers so it doesn’t matter to me what input device they use.
2. I have no attachment to the “pixels”, but my time is valuable. Lost ships, cargo, missions, data, etc. can cost a player a considerable amount of time dependent on how much free time they have and how much they exploit mining.

-k

 

[Good Whiskey]

The open environment is so unstructured because they never bothered to develop the structure or content to populate an open universe. Elite was originally structured as a single player game.

Can someone from the Kickstarter days fill me in on exactly why the multiplayer compromise was made? Was there an actual demand for Open at the time, or was Frontier looking for ways to expand the potential market for the game in order to hit fundraising goals?

Oh, it's this thread again.

What do you believe this thread is actually about? Is it about ganking, game modes, or attitudes toward loss?

 

[Brrokk]

...
What do you believe this thread is actually about? Is it about ganking, game modes, or attitudes toward loss?

Well, I guess your OP was about our attitudes to a particular game outcome. However, it started well within the gravitational field of an immensely massive Black Thread and it's now orbiting faster and faster. Once inside the event horizon it will be inevitably absorbed and it will be impossible for any information to escape from it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Can someone from the Kickstarter days fill me in on exactly why the multiplayer compromise was made? Was there an actual demand for Open at the time, or was Frontier looking for ways to expand the potential market for the game in order to hit fundraising goals?

The three game modes, were simultaneously presented in the Kickstarter pitch. Frontier's "desired player experience" was that every player both experience and affect a changing galaxy state (which was part of the explanation given as to why "Offline mode" (added to the pitch about half way through and cancelled before game launch) was cancelled).

What do you believe this thread is actually about? Is it about ganking, game modes, or attitudes toward loss?

It comes across as an "if only everyone would (or had to) play in Open then we'd all* have more fun" thread.

*: except "we" would not all be having "fun" as we don't all share a preference (or even tolerance) for PvP.

 

[Dillon Fallon]

I feel like the "design" you're talking about here kinda leads into these...



I feel like these two posts are closely related in that a) they speak to the notion that a certain type of player has become attracted to Elite, and b) they explain a bit more about why those players aren't particularly interested in adapting to a paradigm in which conflict and loss are a regular part of the game. And you're both right; I don't think that the bulk of Elite players want to sacrifice that somewhat controlled "personal narrative" that emerges from playing in Solo or a PG.

That said, if Elite isn't intended to drive unstructured player interactions... why is the Open environment so unstructured? Is this a drawback related to the hybrid compromises that Frontier has made, or do you think they were genuinely hoping that an unstructured (and unsafe) gameworld would be something that the average Elite player would eventually adapt to over a longer period of time?

Personally I subscribe to the 'gods and monsters' theory of the Pilot's Federation, whereby Frontier wanted to create an environment where PF pilot's are given better tools and access to items than is typically allowed (consider the unlimited hacking abilities of the data link scanner, for example). In this, the realm we are in, is one where the only way of stopping someone who is a PF pilot, is with another PF pilot.

The fact that nothing has changed in 5 years apart from a lightest of light touch changes to crime and punishment 2 years ago to prevent players gaming the slaughter of system security to manipulate the BGS quite so much supports this in my mind. I think the intent of the game has always been that a single pilot doesn't matter (5100 credit bounty for a single murder and 2 hours where bounty hunters might come after you to explode and give you mats).

They could have done lots of things to prevent ganking, including ATR patrols at engineer bases, for example. They haven't. The only thing they have done is create the new player zone. They could change things in future, but as of now I'd argue that based on past action, everything is as intended.

 

[Layne Vakarian]

That said, if Elite isn't intended to drive unstructured player interactions... why is the Open environment so unstructured? Is this a drawback related to the hybrid compromises that Frontier has made, or do you think they were genuinely hoping that an unstructured (and unsafe) gameworld would be something that the average Elite player would eventually adapt to over a longer period of time?

That's a very good question and I'm afraid I don't know the answer. The structure thing especially I mean. How does one enforce a structure in what is basically a sandbox?

Now you've got me thinking. I may be back in a bit.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I feel like these two posts are closely related in that a) they speak to the notion that a certain type of player has become attracted to Elite, and b) they explain a bit more about why those players aren't particularly interested in adapting to a paradigm in which conflict and loss are a regular part of the game. And you're both right; I don't think that the bulk of Elite players want to sacrifice that somewhat controlled "personal narrative" that emerges from playing in Solo or a PG.

There's no need to adapt to a situation where conflict and loss at the hands of other players are a regular part of the game - simply because other players are an optional extra in this game and Frontier set the challenge posed by the PvE game.

That said, if Elite isn't intended to drive unstructured player interactions... why is the Open environment so unstructured? Is this a drawback related to the hybrid compromises that Frontier has made, or do you think they were genuinely hoping that an unstructured (and unsafe) gameworld would be something that the average Elite player would eventually adapt to over a longer period of time?

Open is what it is simply because players can choose to attack anything in their instance. DBOBE at one point (I'll attempt to dig out the quote) expected "PvP to be rare and meaningful" - the reality is somewhat different, both in frequency (it happens quite a lot in some places) and meaning (it can be quite meaningless from the perspective of the target).

I suspect that there was a hope that player defenders would arise to counter the attackers - however that disregards the fact that those being attacked / protected might not enjoy being the "herd" much while those engaging in combat due to the presence of the "herd" may be having a great time. Then there's the fact that a single star system is a challenge to protect 24/7 - and there are over 20,000 populated star systems.

 

[Good Whiskey]

Well, I guess your OP was about our attitudes to a particular game outcome. However, it started well within the gravitational field of an immensely massive Black Thread and it's now orbiting faster and faster. Once inside the event horizon it will be inevitably absorbed and it will be impossible for any information to escape from it.

You're not wrong.

I feel like there are three types of forum dwellers; the people here to ask and answer technical questions, the people who are here to vent frustrations and/or troll the residents, and the people who are here for discussions about the game including both individual and collective experiences.

How many "great debates" have their been about religion or politics? Billions. But we keep having them for a myriad of reasons.

It comes across as an "if only everyone would (or had to) play in Open then we'd all* have more fun" thread.

Mmm. That was not the intention. I wanted to know if people here believe that willingly exposing ourselves to the loss of time-earned assets in a game makes us... well... less averse to losing the things we have sunk our time into getting our hands on, and simultaneously, more inclined to take risks and allow our experiences to be more openly shared with other commanders. Because we do not fear the potential negative outcomes of doing so. Does that make sense?

The only thing they have done is create the new player zone. They could change things in future, but as of now I'd argue that based on past action, everything is as intended.

Which kind of confirms that the lawlessness and lack of accountability inherent in Open is exactly what was planned from the start.

I suspect that there was a hope that player defenders would arise to counter the attackers - however that disregards the fact that those being attacked / protected might not enjoy being the "herd" much while those engaging in combat due to the presence of the "herd" may be having a great time. Then there's the fact that a single star system is a challenge to protect 24/7 - and there are over 20,000 populated star systems.

Is it possible that they were hoping the attacked "herd" would themselves become hardened and attuned to the notion that the galaxy is dangerous and that they should be ready to defend themselves? Either by forming ranks or flying combat-capable ships for most tasks?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Mmm. That was not the intention. I wanted to know if people here believe that willingly exposing ourselves to the loss of time-earned assets in a game makes us... well... less averse to losing the things we have sunk our time into getting our hands on, and simultaneously, more inclined to take risks and allow our experiences to be more openly shared with other commanders. Because we fear the potential negative outcomes of doing so. Does that make sense?

It makes sense, of course. Gaming itself is sunk time - the only reward is "fun". If it's not "fun" then, I'd expect for a lot of players, it's not worth doing. We have different personal checklists as to what constitutes "fun", of course. Personally, being destroyed in seconds by a taciturn CMDR (or two) isn't much "fun" - it's a tediously predictable setback (as I don't have much interest in combat so don't fly combat capable ships) which is just a waste of my gaming time.

Is it possible that they were hoping the attacked "herd" would themselves become hardened and attuned to the notion that the galaxy is dangerous and that they should be ready to defend themselves? Either by forming ranks or flying combat-capable ships for most tasks?

Possibly - and some players to get involved in that sort of gameplay. However, not all players have the inclination to rely on other players for their gaming fun.

 

[Brrokk]

Oh well, to answer the question, danger of loss definitely doesn't improve my game enjoyment. I RP as a real space pilot; a space pilot should IMO never do anything known to be dangerous. If transport ships could be attacked for no reason they would be grounded until the problem was sorted out.

In my play I see any ship loss as a huge disaster and although I don't see ED as suitable for "iron man" play I consider recovering a ship via rebuy very immersion-breaking.

But I fear this thread is doomed.

 

[kdogg788]

I know losing ships and data, materials, or auto failing missions is the “dangerous” part of ED, but it makes for a game flow that is drastically different than what some people want, mainly because the loss of assets takes real world time to get back. If I buy a car in Forza, I can wreck it in 100 straight races and not care, because it will be in my garage again after the race is done. I wreck an expensive ship in this game and I have to grind back up to get to where I was. It just feels like a waste of time, not a way to make the game more exciting.

-k