I don't know, here was me looking forward to a "Forumites" group.
I shall regale you with tales of my victories, songs of blood shed and blood lost
- Status
I don't know, here was me looking forward to a "Forumites" group.
I shall regale you with tales of my victories, songs of blood shed and blood lost
I don't know, here was me looking forward to a "Forumites" group.
I shall regale you with tales of my victories, songs of blood shed and blood lost
I shall look forward to them all...
There would seem to be a couple of previous dev comments that you missed out. Perhaps you could update your wall to include them?
Like the response to the suggestion that Solo/Group players should only contribute 50% towards CGs...
Sandro Sammarco said:
... or when responding to the counter-argument of, "Why should I have to do twice as much just because I decide not to expose myself to others?" (paraphrased)...
Sandro Sammarco said:
Don't worry, sooner or later you will meet me in CQC. Currently I have too much fun delivering bacon and beer to Bacon City for the CG in an Orca (in open mode; mode switching is something I really like about this game - just to stay on topic
).- - - Updated - - -
Oh cool idea, let's do something that will probably result in most/many CGs not even reaching tier 1. Nobody gets anything, but the open mode players get 100% more of nothing than the solo players.
Would love to, but as Michael Brooks and David Braben overruled that with comments that I did put in my wall (equal & valid / no plans to change), it would seem daft to add something that was pushed aside by higher ranking staff + the CEO DBOBE
You're welcome to make your own wall of course with information like that in it, but you may want to make the quotes clickable to take you to the source post you are quoting, people accuse you of all sorts if it does not link directly back to where you got it (trust me, I know).
If you're not sure how, I'd be happy to throw together a video showing to link back to posts in locked threads.
It would be interesting to put 2 walls side by side, to see how conflicting statements stack up and see who said them / how ideas have changed.
Would love to, but as Michael Brooks and David Braben overruled that with comments that I did put in my wall (equal & valid / no plans to change), it would seem daft to add something that was pushed aside by higher ranking staff + the CEO DBOBE
You're welcome to make your own wall of course with information like that in it, but you may want to make the quotes clickable to take you to the source post you are quoting, people accuse you of all sorts if it does not link directly back to where you got it (trust me, I know).
If you're not sure how, I'd be happy to throw together a video showing to link back to posts in locked threads.
It would be interesting to put 2 walls side by side, to see how conflicting statements stack up and see who said them / how ideas have changed.
No need to include comments from the Lead Designer? Ok. Your wall, your call.
For anyone who wants more detailed references, just check out the OP post from Jenner in each of the mega-threads. That's where I found them. You can follow the links and the conversations from there.
Lead Designer says "Hmm I may do this it seems like a good idea." CEO says "no you will not because it unbalances the game."
Who do you think wins? Why would Jockey include information that was dropped and not going to be in the game, mainly because it would unbalance the modes?
Again.. CG is a mountain.. you have your choice of how to climb it, but the reward is the same. If you purposely put yourself in harms way.. your reward is the game play you like.. not higher pay. Why do people keep thinking that choosing to PVP should automatically mean higher pay out.. nope.. your reward is the pvp.. enjoy.
Executive Producer (EP) is a higher rank than Lead Designer, so is Chief Executive Officer (CEO) - both made comments before and after Sandro stating the opposite to Sandro. So while Sandro may feel the need for it to be changed, without the 2 above him agreeing his views are no more important than the cleaner or car park attendant. (Sorry to be blunt, but anyone with a "Boss" knows the "Boss" gets the final word)
Also, you may note I'm also mentioned in the OP and the quotes I refer to in my wall are also in the OP in the "Spoiler" tag.
Some by Zac saying the same as DBOBE and MB are also there as well as in my wall.
The choice is yours though mate, I highly encourage you to collect information like I have - all my quotes link back to where I got them so you're free to double check everything and dig out your own information.
Last edited:
Wow. Sandro should frame that and hang it above his desk as an inspirational quote.
I have no interest at all in collecting a list of what people have said. As I have said before, you did a great job with your wall and I'm sure many have found it very informative. It just seems to be a wall of information trying to prove a point rather than a wall of general information.
I have always approached this trying to understand the issues from all sides. I would suggest that the reason why I may seem pro-change is that there is a very strong and vocal anti-change contingent in these threads. I am merely attempting to discuss the validity of (some of the) opposing points of view.
- - - Updated - - -
It wasn't my suggestion.
I think you may be over dramatising it a little though.
Wow. Sandro should frame that and hang it above his desk as an inspirational quote.
I have no interest at all in collecting a list of what people have said. As I have said before, you did a great job with your wall and I'm sure many have found it very informative. It just seems to be a wall of information trying to prove a point rather than a wall of general information.
I have always approached this trying to understand the issues from all sides. I would suggest that the reason why I may seem pro-change is that there is a very strong and vocal anti-change contingent in these threads. I am merely attempting to discuss the validity of (some of the) opposing points of view.
You're obviously entitled to attempt to discuss the validity of some of the opposing points of view, but you should understand that some of us don't find them valid, hence why we are anti-change, and we have expanded our arguments over the course of the three threads, we are not just saying "no, because...".
There are also reasons above and beyond why we continue to defend the status quo. For example, I don't do powerplay, so on the surface I could care less if people in Open get greater rewards or influence, or whatever it is they are trying to get. I care however, because in the event that FD do decide to 'reward' one mode more than others, then that is effectively the end for all other modes, they will be endorsing one specific way of playing over others. Oh no, they're just doing it for powerplay for reasons x,y,z... Try putting that genie back in the bottle at a later date when people are clamoring for some change.
Whether some of the opinions given for favoring one mode over the others might be valid or not (and I generally don't think the evidence weighs up, but that's my opinion, no more), the modes are either equal or they are not, you simply cannot have any one mode more equal than the others.
- - - Updated - - -
I think you may be over dramatising it a little though.
Are you sure...?
Wow. Sandro should frame that and hang it above his desk as an inspirational quote.
Hey, I like the guy - but I've worked in a hierarchy, a commercial kitchen when I left school and I retired from Warwickshire Constabulary over a year ago. One simple fact in any hierarchy, the only opinion that counts is that of the person who signs the pay checks.
Sandro should have checked before making a comment, or state it was his opinion not a fore gone conclusion.
Until he can talk MB and DBOBE in to seeing it the same way, his opinion counts for nothing. That is of course, if he still thinks alienating a chuck of the player base and invalidating the Kickstarter information causing no one to trust anything FD ever do again - is a worthwhile idea.
Because I know for one, if I were to ever see FD put anything new on KS and they've gone back on it here - I'd warn people on that new one that FD are not to be trusted. And I bet I would not be the only one.
I have no interest at all in collecting a list of what people have said. As I have said before, you did a great job with your wall and I'm sure many have found it very informative. It just seems to be a wall of information trying to prove a point rather than a wall of general information.
It is trying to prove a point, I've never suggested otherwise.
I started collecting information as I was fed up seeing bits of quotes and people going "I swear I seen a Dev say....." and "Didn't Kickstarter say....." with a touch of "But the DDA said.....". As soon as I seen actual quotes with real source information - I started to copy / paste the links in to note pad, for use when people were spouting half truths or misquotes.
Over the past year, the wall has grown and grown. I've kept posts and quotes from 6 or 7 different people linking back to the KS, the DDA and even the odd Reddit. I've been privately linked videos and clues where to find stuff. For my latest update, I even joined Reddit myself to ask questions and grabbed those quotes while I was there. So that Wall is not all me, I do wish I had kept the names of everyone who has helped me build it - but it was built with a purpose in mind, to defend the original idea of how Elite: Dangerous will work.
And as I said above, if the Devs go back on it - they will undermine any further use of Kickstarter for themselves, as this game was built on trust.
I feel confidant enough to say Frontier would enter in to history alongside SOE with the NGE situation - yet another tale for gamers to recite over campfires over Devs that destroyed games (Though I think a certain other space game may get there first
).Some might suggest that the status quo isn't technically equal at the moment (i.e. it doesn't match the equal risk = equal reward equation). The genie has been out from the start.
I'm still in favour of the status quo though.
And, yes, I do think that suggestions that no CG would ever reach Tier 1 if Open had a higher weighting are a little over dramatised.
Some might suggest that the status quo isn't technically equal at the moment (i.e. it doesn't match the equal risk = equal reward equation). The genie has been out from the start.
I'm still in favour of the status quo though.
And, yes, I do think that suggestions that no CG would ever reach Tier 1 if Open had a higher weighting are a little over dramatised.
The answers to risk / reward however are;
The "Risk" is the "Reward" - otherwise why play there to start with?
or;
Open has no more "Risk" than any other mode (proven by myself twice, once with a video on my YouTube).
Which others in this thread have also argued, that everyone should play open as there is no more risk than groups or solo.
My "Wall of Information" counters that with; it was backed with this design from the start - why buy a game that fundamentally will not work how you want it to?
(See how long I've been at this
)
Last edited:
You have an interesting view of Kickstarter. Yes, there is a certain level of trust involved. Clearly if FD went in promising a Space Sim and released a Word Processor, something would be seriously wrong. But it is not a contract, nor is it a signed Statement of Work or Requirements Document. It is a vision. If certain aspects of that vision need to change (and some have already) because of technical issues or improved understanding/feedback, so be it. I'm pretty sure the game will evolve as FD sees fit from this point not what they are bound to from KS comments.
But it's not just KS comments though is it? (rhetorical)
That first section on my Wall;
This was not a "comment" - it was the actual sales pitch.
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1461411552/elite-dangerous/description
That is like me taking money from you for a manual gear box petrol car, then providing an automatic diesel. Yes they are both cars - but they work different to each other and are not the same thing.
I've said before, a lot of the problems people have are not actually problems with the modes. Some of it is networking, a lot of those who complain they do not see anyone "because of the modes", actually do not see them due to networking problems. Which a few of us advise on how to fix, then problems solved.
Others like Jordan cannot be real pirates without players atm, but DBOBE said player pirates can fall back on NPCs (I've linked the video and can again if you want it), well NPCs suck and need fixing when it comes to the stuff they carry (I tried myself, they are really bad) - once that is done, just like other professions they can then fall back on NPCs to pirate, like Bounty Hunters do for bounties between human collections.
Also, the crime and punishment system needs a tweak to draw people back to open - as that is a reason some left open to start with.
^^ A lot of complaints here fall into the above - which is fixed by not messing with modes, but fixing the actual problems that cause the issues
Some might suggest that the status quo isn't technically equal at the moment (i.e. it doesn't match the equal risk = equal reward equation). The genie has been out from the start.
I'm still in favour of the status quo though.
And, yes, I do think that suggestions that no CG would ever reach Tier 1 if Open had a higher weighting are a little over dramatised.
there is a huge difference in "risk" when you choose to do something and when your forced to do something.. If you choose to do something you deem as having more risk, that is your erward.. trying to satet that since you did this this way you should get more reward is asinine.
Some might suggest that the status quo isn't technically equal at the moment (i.e. it doesn't match the equal risk = equal reward equation). The genie has been out from the start.
I'm still in favour of the status quo though.
And, yes, I do think that suggestions that no CG would ever reach Tier 1 if Open had a higher weighting are a little over dramatised.
Well, the risk versus reward discussion has been round the block quite a few times...
You cannot categorically say that you will encounter more risk in Open (not saying that encountering a CMDR or a wing of said is or is not more dangerous than NPCs, but no guarantee you will meet them even if they are), and if you do, even Open advocates say that with a little know how it's easy to escape. And that is just one argument... So even though some do suggest that the status quo isn't equal does not make it so. Technically, all modes as they are now are equal.
And sure, it may not reduce CGs that much, but I'm pretty sure it would reduce their overall effectiveness by a significant amount, at least by the amount of players who wish to play the game in Group or Solo. The suggestion that players who choose not to play Open will suddenly decide to if they get a few more credits, especially if they don't find playing Open fun seems to me to be somewhat far fetched.
It's all comments. They are expressing their vision for a product they wanted to build.
It's like a car manufacturer saying that they want to build Vehicle X. They start a KS campaign to gauge support and to provide a boost to the production budget. In KS they promote that they want to build Vehicle X - this is the vehicle they've always wanted to build, it will be awesome. Oh, and it's going to run on petrol and have a manual gearbox, as well as a selection of colours, etc. They then release a manual, petrol, Vehicle X. But down the track they announce that due to discussions with part suppliers, environmental legislation, community feedback, etc, they are going to move Vehicle X to an automatic gearbox running on diesel.
The specs may have changed slightly, but they still delivered and continue to deliver... Vehicle X. You are not purchasing a product based on advertised specifications, you are supporting a vision with proposed specifications.
Again, not suggestion they should change. Just suggesting that they would be within their rights to if that is what they deemed to be necessary for the benefit of the game.
Last edited:
The low frequency of facing risk (and that really depends on the circumstance) or the ability to avoid it (with in-game means) does not make the modes equal. It may affect the degree to which they are not equal (with regard to risk).
The suggestion mentioned actually allowed for all players to receive the same reward themselves regardless of mode. It was just their particular contribution to a goal that changed. I think it could have changed the minds of a few who utilised Solo purely as an easy way to work towards a goal. For those who choose to play Solo because they want to avoid PvP interaction, I don't think it would have made the slightest difference.
And, yes, I do think that suggestions that no CG would ever reach Tier 1 if Open had a higher weighting are a little over dramatised.
Are you sure? Have you looked at the Bacon City CG? People can't be bothered because there's no huge $$$ in it for them (the reward tiers are somewhat anemic). I think a LOT of people would decide to not do any CGs, especially solos.
- Status