The real problem with Elite Dangerous is the Players

[TiberiusDuval]

The irony is that in a money scarce game with C+P that forces criminals to use less expansive ships you'd get parity, or criminals unwilling to risk that FdL superkiller yacht.

Though money scarcity would make people generally even more "carebearish".

 

[Rubbernuke]

Though money scarcity would make people generally even more "carebearish".

If it led to a more nuanced game I think people would be happy though. Right now nothing really has consequences or joined up consequences enough to make people think more about actions.

Also, if money was scarce it would allow for real cash cows such as Powerplay which could (as being part of a power) allow for free rebuys, or other mitigations.

 

[Chaparral]

Generally the process looks like this:

1. Jump into system
2. back to sun
3. look at radar
4. If you see triangles, set a jump destination
5. Proceed to your destination in system but not directly, use a round about path
6. Watch for triangles trying to maneuver behind your ship and then maneuver to prevent them
7. When interdicted, do not fight it, set throttle to 0 to submit to the interdiction
8. While your 5 second FSD cooldown timer counts down, continuously turn towards the enemy and boost at and past them to stay out of their weapons' fire arcs
9. When your cooldown timer expires, DO NOT low wake to SuperCruise, instead start a hyperspace jump and keep boosting at and past them
10. When the jump is ready, face the target system and jump.

So this is great if you are traveling from point A to B, but not if the system where the Ganker is located is your destination.

Practiced Gankers will of course employ the snare and cripple engineered tools (along with Grom bombs) to moderate your escape chances. If it is a wing, well, game over man.

The Gankers are just using the tools available within the game to get their fun, and the consequences / counters are underpowered IMO.

 

[nemolomen]

So this is great if you are traveling from point A to B, but not if the system where the Ganker is located is your destination.

Practiced Gankers will of course employ the snare and cripple engineered tools (along with Grom bombs) to moderate your escape chances. If it is a wing, well, game over man.

The Gankers are just using the tools available within the game to get their fun, and the consequences / counters are underpowered IMO.

I did say "Generally"...there are ALWAYS caveats...

 

[Bigmaec]

So this is great if you are traveling from point A to B, but not if the system where the Ganker is located is your destination.

Practiced Gankers will of course employ the snare and cripple engineered tools (along with Grom bombs) to moderate your escape chances. If it is a wing, well, game over man.

The Gankers are just using the tools available within the game to get their fun, and the consequences / counters are underpowered IMO.

You can thwart most gankers plan alone by going up or down the ecliptic for some several hundred ls and then fly a big circle, coming to your destination from behind. If you're going outwards you're almost always faster accelerating then a follower, so you can nearly always get away from someone trying to pull you. Most gankers lose their interest if they see you know what you do.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

You can thwart most gankers plan alone by going up or down the ecliptic for some several hundred ls and then fly a big circle, coming to your destination from behind. If you're going outwards you're almost always faster accelerating then a follower, so you can nearly always get away from someone trying to pull you. Most gankers lose their interest if they see you know what you do.

I often fly straight into the planet behind the station at full throttle, my shieldless 752t cargo T9 hasn’t been destroyed yet

 

[Rat Catcher]

I like looking at it from a design perspective and how it relates to game game design theory.

I just play a game.

Good game design would cater for both, no?

Define good first?

Is this all from the "how to design a blockbuster game that everyone will love for ever?"
"Good" is not universal, just interpretation, I just play games I enjoy - so they must obviously be "Good", and drop the ones that I find tedious. Some of those tedious ones include CP2077 & Destiny, so who is determining "Good"?

 

[Rubbernuke]

You can thwart most gankers plan alone by going up or down the ecliptic for some several hundred ls and then fly a big circle, coming to your destination from behind. If you're going outwards you're almost always faster accelerating then a follower, so you can nearly always get away from someone trying to pull you. Most gankers lose their interest if they see you know what you do.

You mean, use skill and some forward planning? Crazy reasoning.

 

[ethelred]

I just play a game.

Define good first?

Is this all from the "how to design a blockbuster game that everyone will love for ever?"
"Good" is not universal, just interpretation, I just play games I enjoy - so they must obviously be "Good", and drop the ones that I find tedious. Some of those tedious ones include CP2077 & Destiny, so who is determining "Good"?

We've been through this before haven't we Ratty? All creative endeavour has a critical element - games, art, literature, film etc.

Most games are reviewed and so there needs to be a structure of analysis. It's an attempt to move from purely subjective opinion to one with more objectivity.

Game design is no different of course and there is a whole body of work looking at design choices. Here's a YT series primer if you want to learn what the current trends are looking at https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhyKYa0YJ_5BkTruCmaBBZ8z6cP9KzPiX

Like any analysis, ideas are exchanged and discussed ad infinitum as they are in any other field.

You can enjoy and play what you like ofc, no amount of analysis can change that, and ofc you don't need to analyse your feelings towards something other than "I like it".

Personally, I could no more read a book, watch a film or play a game without thinking about what elements I like and using the language associated to share that with others.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Is this all from the "how to design a blockbuster game that everyone will love for ever?"

Given that the best-selling game of all time was Tetris for decades, until relatively recently overtaken by Minecraft, I think it's pretty clear that the answer is "squares". Obviously Elite Dangerous is - like the original Elite - based on triangles, and therefore doomed to be a more niche game.

We've been through this before haven't we Ratty? All creative endeavour has a critical element - games, art, literature, film etc.

Most games are reviewed and so there needs to be a structure of analysis. It's an attempt to move from purely subjective opinion to one with more objectivity.

I don't disagree with the rest of your post - I'm a big fan of critically analysing game design, and I think the tensions between "having a solid game mechanic for X" and "feeling recognisably like Elite (Dangerous)" are fascinating when it comes to "why has no-one done better?" [1] - I don't think it gives any objectivity as such. Better ability to explain and better self-awareness about why you think a game is good or bad, which can be really useful to someone else trying to work out whether they'd like it based on whether you liked it - but that's not objectivity and nor should it try to be.

[1] To summarise for the thread topic, the "real problem" with Elite Dangerous is that "multiplayer FFE" is a really silly and unworkable design concept that nevertheless provides types of experience you couldn't get in a game which didn't have a fundamental mass of contradictory goals.

 

[Bigmaec]

You mean, use skill and some forward planning? Crazy reasoning.

I mean, the arguments against this explain themselves...

wHy ShOuLd I cHaNgE mY cOuRsE fOr GaNkErS?

I dOn'T wAnT tO wAsTe My PrEcIoUs TiMe...

I pLaY fOr My FuN, i Am No CoNtEnT

 

[Northpin]

Can we summarise your design principle as " to make the game harder then the player must deliberately choose inferior equipment?"

In your chess analogy, instead of playing an equal rank player, the GM would seek to lose their queen at the earliest opportunity, or perhaps play A2 or some other sub-optimal opening.

Is that right?

Yes, there's even phrases attributed to the practice of taking a handicap to prove your great skill.
"I'll fight you with one hand tied behind my back!" is likely the most well-known.

The Japanese game of GO has a well thought handicap system designed to balance matches between players with different skill levels.

 

[Rat Catcher]

We've been through this before haven't we Ratty? All creative endeavour has a critical element - games, art, literature, film etc.

Yeah, it is our own "Hotel California", isn't it? I play games that amuse me, without the need to feel it is propped up by whatever the 'gurus' have decided is current and 'good', your own take is far more critical, but I'm certain, in our own way, we take at least the same amount of pleasure from our gaming hours. (I do the same with books and movies, ignore the opinions of self-professed experts and experience them from my own perspective, occasionally even agreeing that it was brilliant, or trash, but not often)

You can enjoy and play what you like ofc, no amount of analysis can change that, and ofc you don't need to analyse your feelings towards something other than "I like it".

Thanks you, I fully intend to. (Solely because if I don't like something, it doesnt' matter how well it fits the 'rails' laid out by current trends, I ain't gonna stop disliking it!)

Personally, I could no more read a book, watch a film or play a game without thinking about what elements I like and using the language associated to share that with others.

It is easy, isn't it?
"I liked that book/movie/TV program as it entertained me" - the need to justify why something is pleasurable is a very odd trend, but rears its head in so many discussions.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I mean, the arguments against this explain themselves...

wHy ShOuLd I cHaNgE mY cOuRsE fOr GaNkErS?

I dOn'T wAnT tO wAsTe My PrEcIoUs TiMe...

I pLaY fOr My FuN, i Am No CoNtEnT

I Hav To PRESS bUTTOns anD ThiNK At THE sAMe TIme?

THANks GANkers!

 

[nemolomen]

Yeah, it is our own "Hotel California", isn't it? I play games that amuse me, without the need to feel it is propped up by whatever the 'gurus' have decided is current and 'good', your own take is far more critical, but I'm certain, in our own way, we take at least the same amount of pleasure from our gaming hours. (I do the same with books and movies, ignore the opinions of self-professed experts and experience them from my own perspective, occasionally even agreeing that it was brilliant, or trash, but not often)

Thanks you, I fully intend to. (Solely because if I don't like something, it doesnt' matter how well it fits the 'rails' laid out by current trends, I ain't gonna stop disliking it!)

It is easy, isn't it?
"I liked that book/movie/TV program as it entertained me" - the need to justify why something is pleasurable is a very odd trend, but rears its head in so many discussions.

If I like/enjoy it is enough.

If I want to analyze something, I've got a personal finance spreadsheet workbook that needs tending...or any other myriad of real life stuff for that matter...

 

[Wlfric]

Not something that's particularly difficult when talking about NPCs, but neither demonstrations of, nor pretensions to, skill are why I'd like a more challenging game. Doubly so when the 'skill' in question is has almost an irrelevantly narrow focus applicable only to a small portion of a holistic, organic, experience.

I'm ultimately playing a CMDR life simulator in what is ostensibly a cutthroat setting. I want to have to try my hardest, not just in the moment with the tools I artificially handicapped myself with, but at every step along the way, and still have a chance to fail. I want to play a character that cannot rationally be convinced of his own immortality or superiority, who would never willingly sacrifice any edge, because to do so would risk ruin or annihilation.

The whole setting doesn't need to be this difficult for everyone, but it should be this difficult for my particular CMDR, who has rampaged across known space and beyond for the better part of a decade, leaving tens of thousands of corpses in his wake. My CMDR is a mass murderer, drug smuggler, slave trader, alien collaborator, double agent, and war criminal. Life should be rough, without my out-of-character handicapping.

I want a more challenging game because it's difficult to be immersed the character my CMDR has become otherwise.

I want to ask. Genghis Khan. He rampaged across the known world, leaving tens of thousands of corpses in his wake. Was a mass murderer, slave trader, etc etc.. Was life difficult for him once he achieved what we might call "end game" levels?
NO.
If you want struggle, delete your character and start over.
You have gotten to the "I made it" part of the game. If that's boring, start over.

 

[Morbad]

NO.

The idea that Genghis Khan had it easy ruling over one of the largest empires the world had ever seen is pretty far fetched. He sure had rivals and faced a variety of intrigues. Even if he wasn't murdered, dying of disease while out on campaign isn't what I would call something other than "difficult".

And of course, Genghis Khan is something of an exception among exceptions. A more common fate for notorious villians is being deposed, violently...or killing themselves before someone can do worse. Those that do survive are reaping the rewards of constant struggle, or are phenomenally lucky.

In any rational setting, being known and hated by large numbers of people is a dangerous place to be, as is having what others would want. It should be possible for my CMDR to survive, even thrive, but only via extreme effort or twist of fate, given the number of enemies he must have made. It should not be a given by simple virtue of seniority.

For every Genghis Khan, there are a dozen Ceasars or Gaddaffis, and a thousand corpses of those who never got that far.

If you want struggle, delete your character and start over.

This isn't a struggle, and is even less of a challenge.

 

[Wlfric]

The idea that Genghis Khan had it easy ruling over one of the largest empires the world had ever seen is pretty far fetched. He sure had rivals and faced a variety of intrigues. Even if he wasn't murdered, dying of disease while out on campaign isn't what I would call something other than "difficult".

And of course, Ghenghis Khan is something of an exception among exceptions. A more common fate for notorious villians is being deposed, violently...or killing themselves before someone can do worse.



This isn't a struggle, and is even less of a challenge.

Sure, do go on. I'm sure you'll convince FDev to do it your way and change the game for you. I have tried to offer you options to make the Elite game more of a challenge, you have argued against all of them. I am at a loss for why you even play the game at this point instead of pursuing another, more challenging to you, game.

 

[Morbad]

I'm sure you'll convince FDev to do it your way and change the game for you.

Don't confuse wishes for expectations.

I have tried to offer you options to make the Elite game more of a challenge, you have argued against all of them.

All of your suggestions have completely ignored the criteria I have for what would actually be an improvement.

I am at a loss for why you even play the game at this point instead of pursuing another, more challenging to you, game.

My criticism should not be taken as evidence that I'm not having fun. I can enjoy the thousand things the game does well enough, even if I wish it did a million things better.

 

[Sakashiro]

Given that the best-selling game of all time was Tetris for decades, until relatively recently overtaken by Minecraft, I think it's pretty clear that the answer is "squares". Obviously Elite Dangerous is - like the original Elite - based on triangles, and therefore doomed to be a more niche game.

They're working on it.