The obsession of being a "small fish in a big pond" - where does it come from?

[boringnick]

When the topic switches to player-ownership of bases, planets and star systems, the distractors always claim that the game is about "being a small fish in a big pond". Period. But exactly WHY has it to be the case? I agree that being able to conquer the fed and empire would be way too much, but being always a small fish doesn't make much sense either.

For many people here just the original 80s game (and its limitations) and hate for Eve seem to be the paramount, no matter the cost (longtime viability of the game), lore and logic.

Already in the second Elite sequel First Encounters, if you did the missions, you were able to be the Wiccan Ware Race winner, the assassin of Dentara Rast, making the contact with the Thargoids...

So the previous games were already on their way to lose their "fish" corset. In the lore for Frontier (the gazetteer) there were lots of mentionings of pioneers claiming star systems for themselves and creating rich colonies, and about corporations owning planets (lots of "corporate worlds") - so why should groups of rich players not be able to do the same in a far away region in space? Because it might resemble Eve in some way? There is nothing in the lore, nor in the previous games (Frontier, FFE) that would logically oppose the mechanic. Quite the opposite. If you made a billion and you're an imperial earl, building a colony in your name seems like the next logical step in the career.

 

[BellatorMonk]

Short answer is masochism and a desire to feel dominated. Long answer to second part of the post is, pie in the sky game play desires. Currently the game is what it is..space trader sim online with a broken trade system for 98% of the stations.

 

[Executive]

Short answer is masochism and a desire to feel dominated. Long answer to second part of the post is, pie in the sky game play desires. Currently the game is what it is..space trader sim online with a broken trade system for 98% of the stations.

How exactly is trading broken?
I am not disagreeing, I am honestly asking. I am bounty hunting 99% of the time, so I wouldn't know.

 

[Armour]

I see you made a new thread essentially repeating your post in that other thread. I'll post the same reply here then:

Already in the second Elite sequel First Encounters, if you did the missions, you were able to be the Wiccan Ware Race winner, the assassin of Dentara Rast, making the contact with the thargoids...

That was single player though. Sounds like you want the space equivalent of this:
[video=youtube;U01xasUtlvw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U01xasUtlvw[/video]

In the lore for Frontier (the gazetteer) there were lots of mentionings of pioneers claiming star systems for themselves and creating rich colonies, and about corporations owning planets - so why should groups of players not be able to do the same in a far away region in space? Because it might resemble Eve in some way? There is nothing in the lore, nor in the previous games (Frontier, FFE) that would logically oppose the mechanic.

Islands. Solo Online v All Online. Faction influence. These are all things that seem at first glance to be incompatible with this whole Space Tycoon notion, for obvious reasons.
Putting your flag on something as an explorer might be a good feature, as long as we don't end up with thousands of planets called "butt", "Trololol", "Kevin's Mom Is A Loose Woman" or something equally cringey. So it would require moderation and the use of more resources from the studio. The other stuff? Meh. You're a pilot, in the Pilot's Federation, not a fatcat sitting around barking out orders to your minions and farming ISK from them. There's already at least one game for that stuff.

I am quite dismayed that for many people just the original 80s game (and its limitations) and hate for Eve seem to be the paramount, no matter the cost.

Nobody actively hates EVE here, do they? There are obvious criticisms of EVE, such as the player base (an acquired taste), the lack of immediacy (in terms of pew-pew vs this game), and the (possibly misunderstood) notion that it's more like a job one pays to be allowed to do than rather than a game one plays to enjoy. I don't think anyone here would be able to make a serious case that it's a bad game, however.

I think it's a good thing that EVE/Elite/Star Citizen/No Man's Sky/Limit Theory/Evochron Mercenary/etc are all different from one another. You may want one game to rule them all, but I think that's unrealistic. Horses for courses.

EVE exists. You can purchase a sub now and do the stuff you have proposed. What would be the the point of playing Elite Dangerous if it just a re-skinned EVE? For your featurelist to work they'd have to move everything on to one server, and get rid of the P2P islanding stuff. They'd also somehow have to make it not drop to seconds per frame when the action got intense. That last bit is very unlikely because the hardware doesn't exist (or EVE would probably already be using it), and physics suggests it won't any time soon.
If EVE players find their combat too "clicky", they should probably complain to CCP about it, not try and lobby Frontier to remake EVE.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Because that's how flow of real world is actually like? Ok, before you go "it's a game, not a second life" - I know, but escapism is funny thing. Push it too far into fantasy world - and it gets boring for those people who clearly have no problem use their imagination. Make it too real - and it become too tedious and "too much real world like" for some.

FD stroke a balance which they and lot of ED original backers wanted to see. If you dont like it, fine, but please dont go around calling names about people who do like it.

And yes, FD specially looked for different kind of gameplay than EVE. There's nothing wrong or right with either of games. They carter different gameplay styles and that's totally fine.

 

[Armour]

Short answer is lack of narcissism or any desire to play out a power fantasy.

Fixed that for you.

 

[Zvanya]

Short answer: Because that is the kind of game the developers wanted to make. They made a game about being a spaceship pilot, not a conqueror. You're a speck in a vast universe, not the center of it.

 

[boringnick]

That was single player though. Sounds like you want the space equivalent of this

No, it was a counter to the argument that Elite was always about small fish vs pond (and that's why ED should be strictly this way too) but the sequels were already moving away from that strict framework. So that argument is invalid.

The other stuff? Meh. You're a pilot, in the Pilot's Federation, not a fatcat sitting around barking out orders to your minions and farming ISK from them. There's already at least one game for that stuff.

I am sorry, but's very logical to have this element in this setting (corporate worlds, pioneer worlds). If you made a billion and you're an imperial earl, building a colony (or massive flag ship) in your name seems like the next obvious step in the career. I agree that the way the netcode works it's hard to implement it.. very shortsighted decision in the long run.

 

[starjump]

Short answer is masochism and a desire to feel dominated. Long answer to second part of the post is, pie in the sky game play desires. Currently the game is what it is..space trader sim online with a broken trade system for 98% of the stations.

Masochism? Did you play the OFP campaigns (first ARMA game) where you were a soldier in a large war and you did your small dents here and there but you were no hero changing the world. It felt epic and awesome and was real fun. Same with missions today you do with friends. You are in a war and you have your mission. To complete it feels awesome, but you didnt "win the world" as some crysis hero. It just steers away from what kids usually like - to be masters of the universe. When you grow up you know that isnt the case. Most of us are just small people doing a small dent in the world. There is no masochism in this type of gameplay.

 

[vulkman]

Because that's how flow of real world is actually like? ...

Exactly. I always hated it when games like DarkStar One or Freelancer plugged that whole "hero's journey"-thing into an otherwise beautiful space-sim. This is Space-Trucking Simulator, and that's exactly what I want it to be.

 

[MadMarchHare]

When the topic switches to player-ownership of bases, planets and star systems, the distractors always claim that the game is about "being a small fish in a big pond". Period. But exactly WHY has it to be the case? .

Because practically every other game out there already delivers the opposite in terms of experience, wanna be the big fish play a game that focuses on delivering that experience for you, why try to change one of the few that doesn't? Braben has already explicitly stated that its not part of his vision for players to start building their own corporate empires (however big or small). I hope he stays true to that vision as well, If I wanted the kind of experience you seem to advocate I wouldn't be playing this game.

 

[Armour]

No, it was a counter to the argument that Elite was always about small fish vs pond (and that's why ED should be strictly this way too) but the sequels were already moving away from that strict framework. So that argument is invalid.

David Braben said that he wanted to make a sequel to Elite and move away from some of the aspects of the Frontier games that he didn't think worked, such as Newtonian "Tokyo Drift" flying. Who's to say that a move away from the "you are the Chosen One" aspects of those 2 games were not part of those changes (and a necessary one IMO, given the multiplayer nature of this game)?

I am sorry, but's very logical to have this element in this setting (corporate worlds, pioneer worlds). If you made a billion and you're an imperial earl, building a colony in your name seems like the next obvious step in the career. I agree that the way the netcode works it's hard to implement it.. very shortsighted decision in the long run.

More like a decision you disagree with. If you want to donate the magic server required to achieve your dream and pay for it's maintenance etc, feel free. I'm sure they would accept your generous donation.

 

[BishopC]

I quote this here because I like this quote. And because it fits. My guess is, some of the players are 40 year olds who played Elite in the 80ies and are running purely on nostalgia.
[h=1]“I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.” [/h]I hope FD adds stuff these people hate, that would make the game better.

 

[Obsidian Ant]

When the topic switches to player-ownership of bases, planets and star systems, the distractors always claim that the game is about "being a small fish in a big pond". Period. But exactly WHY has it to be the case? I agree that being able to conquer the fed and empire would be way too much, but being always a small fish doesn't make much sense either.

For many people here just the original 80s game (and its limitations) and hate for Eve seem to be the paramount, no matter the cost (longtime viability of the game), lore and logic.

Already in the second Elite sequel First Encounters, if you did the missions, you were able to be the Wiccan Ware Race winner, the assassin of Dentara Rast, making the contact with the Thargoids...

So the previous games were already on their way to lose their "fish" corset. In the lore for Frontier (the gazetteer) there were lots of mentionings of pioneers claiming star systems for themselves and creating rich colonies, and about corporations owning planets (lots of "corporate worlds") - so why should groups of rich players not be able to do the same in a far away region in space? Because it might resemble Eve in some way? There is nothing in the lore, nor in the previous games (Frontier, FFE) that would logically oppose the mechanic. Quite the opposite. If you made a billion and you're an imperial earl, building a colony in your name seems like the next logical step in the career.

Maybe some people like to feel they are living in a vast world. A person that climbs a mountain never 'owns' that mountain. A person that crosses a desert never 'owns' that desert. Maybe it is that feeling of immensity that attracts some players. And carving the game into own-able sections might - in their minds - diminish that feelings.

 

[Armour]

I quote this here because I like this quote. And because it fits. My guess is, some of the players are 40 year olds who played Elite in the 80ies and are running purely on nostalgia.
[h=1]“I've come up with a set of rules that describe our reactions to technologies:
1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that's invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you're thirty-five is against the natural order of things.” [/h]I hope FD adds stuff these people hate, that would make the game better.

Or perhaps the people who are not into your "gameplay as power trip" fantasies are actually thinking in a more long term fashion, and/or have some clue about how games are developed and know what can be done and what can't in a practical manner?

 

[Beetlebum]

I think being able to do more things is allways better than being forced to do less things. I don't get this fish stuff too.

 

[CMDR i Tetsuo]

For me the game is focused on the experience of being a guy that flies a space ship, you get to be "that guy" and that's what the game gives you. It's kinda like why you don't get to play the general in Call of Duty or the city planner in Ridge Racer, it's not what the game is concerned with....

Would being the general in CoD make it a better game? It'd be a "different" game for sure, and some may enjoy it more, but it's not the game they wanted to make or the point they wanted to convey, and it's the same with Elite, or any other game in fact.

 

[boringnick]

David Braben said that he wanted to make a sequel to Elite and move away from some of the aspects of the Frontier games that he didn't think worked, such as Newtonian "Tokyo Drift" flying. Who's to say that a move away from the "you are the Chosen One" aspects of those 2 games were not part of those changes (and a necessary one IMO, given the multiplayer nature of this game)?

In FFE for example you got the thargoid missions because you traded lots of money and donated them to the Mic Turner memorial. Is that really so "chosen one"? You make lots of money and you buy friends in high places.. just like in real life.

ED is less realistic because all your trade and work is for nil. You can have the ELITE rank, be Earl and Admiral and have untold of riches in your bank.. but your influence is less than that of NPC #234232324. Doesn't make sense and robs the game of so much potential. I am NOT talking about being able to wipe out the empire and the feds, but X3 and Eve have factories and stuff not because its designers are so amazing, but because it's simply the next natural step in this genre. You traded enough money, you open your factory. Just like lots of people open their own shops if they get some money. it makes sense.

The adamant retro trip to the 80s ED is on harms the game in the long run. Discarding the ELITE sequels and the current competition (AND the ELITE lore of corporate worlds and pioneer colonies!) will bring no longtime benefits. These elements would give players long term goals and complex dynamics between player and their assets. Without this, the developers need to churn out content fast to keep the players entertained and keep them buying DLCs.. I don't see FD doing that either. Looks pretty much like this game is going to be doomed to be the original 80s Elite with nicer graphics.

 

[Zetta]

Fixed that for you.

Made me laugh! But quite true.

 

[Armour]

The adamant retro trip to the 80s ED is on harms the game in the long run. Discarding the ELITE sequels and the current competition will bring no longtime benefits.

You are criticising a game less than a month old, a game the studio head has stated will be added to for years to come, as if it is a mature product. Other devs here have stated that some features are "bare bones" and were basically put in as placeholders to get the game out the door. I still think your Space Tycoon stuff won't make it in because of reasons I stated previously. I reckon that lot of other stuff will be added, however, and that a lot of these current criticisms are the product of idle hands, and will melt away somewhat once there's more stuff to do.