This isn't the game for you? Really?

[Angus]

If you don't like it, maybe this isn't the forums for you. -> There is the door, bye now.... Just kidding, of course, those comments are not helpful at all.

I agree with you in principle, and I've not used the comment myself as far as I can remember. But when somebody comes in with the attitude of "In EVE on-line, I can do this, this and this - if Elite doesn't include these features, nobody will play it!!!"

then I have some sympathy with the, "perhaps Elite Dangerous isn't the game for you then."

 

[Aravan Darkvale]

I'll agree here. One of the many things I love about the Elite community is how mature it is. I'd much rather see helpful/constructive replies to honest questions and not the canned "Don't let the door hit you on the way out" replies.

I get that there will be trolls, and that's normal. They can get the sass treatment. Let's not just assume every 'dumb' question is a troll. I'd hate to see this forum community get as toxic and bitter as the EVE Online community.

 

[Angus]

What set me off was someone posting one of these comments because someone thought cloak ships were fundamental to spaceship games.... Now I was a little 'guh wot?!' but I didn't think it merited being shown the door. But it's been building for a while and I don't like it.

But then he was saying that the game was "flawed" and basically incomplete without it.

So if somebody is effectively saying Elite is broken, it needs this feature to be a decent game, I personally think "perhaps, its not the game for you, then." is a fairly reasonable response, whereas the original post was not actually very reasonable.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I'll agree here. One of the many things I love about the Elite community is how mature it is. I'd much rather see helpful/constructive replies to honest questions and not the canned "Don't let the door hit you on the way out" replies.

I get that there will be trolls, and that's normal. They can get the sass treatment. Let's not just assume every 'dumb' question is a troll. I'd hate to see this forum community get as toxic and bitter as the EVE Online community.

I fully agree, but if (hypothetically) a poster who over the last few months had every single post continually stating in multiple threads that docking is completely broken and the game HAS to have cut scenes instead of docking, without it the game is going to fail as no one will like it, and the only people defending it are blinkered fanboys.....

then do you not think you get to a point where no constructive advice is going to convince the person that the game is anything other than broken.

YES probably the better option is just to ignore, but I still think respect and friendliness is a 2 way street

 

[BigDuke6ixx]

I fully agree, but if (hypothetically) a poster who over the last few months had every single post continually stating in multiple threads that docking is completely broken and the game HAS to have cut scenes instead of docking, without it the game is going to fail as no one will like it, and the only people defending it are blinkered fanboys.....

then do you not think you get to a point where no constructive advice is going to convince the person that the game is anything other than broken.

YES probably the better option is just to ignore, but I still think respect and friendliness is a 2 way street

They should be kicked out as they are adding nothing to the beta.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Jeff - this game isn't for you mate.

Sorry.

 

[Dirk Braben]

I want everthing in game to be pink, I wont play anymore unless it is changed to pink in the next patch.

And yes, I want a pink panther.

Hello there!

Yes, Elite Dangerous has much to offer in pink.

For example the DDA (Design Decision Archive), which is a whole subforum here, mentiones the possibility to change your ship's HUD color. Maybe even pink. There shall be upgrade modules to customize many things so you feel right at home.

Also there are pink stars. A true beauty among the other dull orangeish, reddish and whiteish ones.

About that panther of yours, why not name your ship like that? I think it's got a nice tone to it.



Phew.

 

[Corwyn]

They link DDA posts not proving their point by any stretch, keep repeating the sentence "The devs make the game they want" like a mantra whereas they mean "The devs will make the game I want because I lack basic text comprehension and project my wishes into DDA posts".

It's not a matter of lack of basic comprehension, DB has said it many time, including as the last convention, while on stage, talking to the crowd, I don't have the link to the video of it, but it's here somewhere.

It's not "my" wishes, although I do agree with DB and FDEV in their vision, and like what I see of what they've built, so far.

 

[OVMorat]

I think it helps to understand both sides.

Having come here from EVE (albeit as former Elite player on the BBC, then Spectrum lenslock and all) it is frustrating to see hear a truly huge and successful game denigrated as "Quake in Space". Nothing could be further from the truth, especially as actual space combat is a tiny fraction of EVE even if the risk is always there.

"Go Play Eve" is a very silly response to people who want to do PvP, or have complex missions or have ingame RP opportunities or manufacturing or do exploring which means anything more than cash for cartography. They'll probably do just that - and they might well not come back. They may well accept the lack of First Person as a compromise for the other things that they can do in EVE, just as I did when I moved to EVE from Jumpgate.

I find the attitude of "Elite competes with nothing" sounds more like "Elite has the only answers" which is just a touch arrogant.

 

[JeffRyan]

I've found some of the replies to this thread to be quite quite... disheartening.

 

[Victor Meldrew2]

Without that body language people are instantly put in a defensive position even if the "opponent" is just having a bit of a leg-pull,

This is, in a nutshell, the original 'trolling'. Nothing to do with ugly, carnivorous, cloven-hoofed monsters living under bridges, trolling is a way of fishing by dragging a line with a baited hook behind your boat. Sooner or later you get a bite, and then the fun begins...

There was a superb example the other day which ended up running for a couple of days The OP even ended up prefixing the title with 'Parody', and they were still biting:smilie: *Brilliant*

*BAD JOKE ALERT*

What do you call a man with a pink panther on his head?

Darren. darren, darren-darren darren daren darennnnn darren-darren.

-I'll get me (fluffy pink) coat...

 

[CMDR Texas Stu]

If you can't say something that adds to the discussion (as opposed to trying to kill it) just move on to another topic.
Many of us have seen many discussed topics before and we should avoid the knee jerk reaction to kill or derail a thread.
Many have not seen the topic we might have discussed ad nauseum. Many of those threads may be buried deep. The search feature may even have been used and no results. It doesn't mean the person hasn't tried. I'm sure the mods can merge a topic if they feel the need.
I'm in agreement we should try to keep the community positive and helpful.
Posting disagreement to a topic is great but detracting or undermining discussion of a topic should be avoided I agree.

ADDED: I have every confidence that FD have a good idea of their vision and no amount of people crying or complaining will convince FD to change their vision.
Yes, they've added to it and instituted more (SC comes to mind) but I do not see them deciding to beef anything they do not feel needs it (for game play reasons)

 

[DaveB]

I agree - however the problem is actually smaller than perceived.

You can't discuss certain topics in a civil manner on these forums because there's always the same small pitchfork wielding mob jumping in and derailing them.

They link DDA posts not proving their point by any stretch, keep repeating the sentence "The devs make the game they want" like a mantra whereas they mean "The devs will make the game I want because I lack basic text comprehension and project my wishes into DDA posts".

Typically, these are the same people calling anything that doesn't involve a hug "griefing" whilst trying to superimpose their views of how the game should be played on others, including their chauvinist views on naming conventions.

I don't even care about most of the topics they gang up on, but sometimes I feel compelled to defend the OP in these topics - not because I agree with the OP they decided to lynch, but because I dislike pitchfork-wielding mobs.


Anyway - if you find yourself attacked by said mob, grow a thick skin and don't let them derail your discussion into the flame-fest they want to make it.

The devs listen to reason - my first thread was about ships backwards speeds being almost the same as forward speeds and how that was counter-intuitive. It was met by some hostility, telling me that the flight model was set in stone and if I didn't like it, I shouldn't let the door hit me on my way out.

Well - backward speeds have been throttled to 40% of forward speeds in the meantime...

I'm going to have to, with the greatest respect for Catpain Kirk, call bovine excrement on this.

There is indeed a pitchfork wielding mob on occasion - I've even participated in it peripherally but it's usually restricted to those occasions where somebody has the bit between their teeth and is bull-headed attacking a fundamental aspect of what makes this game part of the Elite universe, demanding that it be changed "or this game will fail" and they are as resistant as rhinoceros hide when it comes to even looking at an alternate viewpoint. Folks posting in that manner have pretty much earned the response of "Don't let the door hit ya where the Lord split ya!" To be honest, I tend to plonk those folks onto my ignore list after seeing them derail a few threads into deadhorsing the same tired topics, because I dont want to be the one reporting them for "circular arguments" which are against the TOS here.

Linking DDA posts by the rabid few is counterproductive, because when read with a rational eye it's pretty clear who is trying to give good information and who is projecting an irrational interpretation of them onto their own wishes and desires. That shouldnt detract from the majority of folks that post DDA links in good faith simply because they are trying to pass on reliable information to another forum poster. Citing this as an example of irrationality is dangerously close to painting with an overbroad brush.

As for "calling anything that doesn't involve a hug griefing" I really don't know how to respond to this. The vast majority of the forum folks that I read do not even come close to this. Yes there are folks out there (and in here) who regard any other player that pops their ship as a "griefer" but most of the readers here are quite capable of seeing the difference between that and the behavior of folks who see virtue in wrecking anothers gameplay for the sake of it.

The vast majority of forum users are here to participate in a rational discussion and are open to any topic, even if they have a canned response of "this was discussed here (link) and the question is settled" to some of them.

 

[JeffRyan]

I think also there's a strange misapprehension by EVE players. Or at least the more recent migrants rather than those of us who've been here from the kickstarter or earlier.

Most of the old guard and middle guard (that's my invention, old guard being pre-kickstarter, middle guard are kickstarter and just after the new guard are pretty much people who joined the community at some point in the beta process, take it or leave it) don't hate EVE. We don't hate PvP. We're not EVE-haters. Most of us are ourselves EVE or Ex-EVE players. A lot of us aren't even against some aspects of EVE appearing in Elite. I think a lot of us see Elite as picking up where EVE left off when it went more down the 'game is about null and power blocs rather than the lone pilot and small gang warfare'. Which is why we're so resistant to allowing an equivalent to EVE Corps being added. What we're against is a certain bullying, HTFU attitude that a lot of EVE players over the years being transferred to ED and the ED community. We also realise that a lot of EVE players don't have or even support that attitude and want to play somewhere a little more relaxed where you're not worried about being backstabbed every other day by anyone outside your immediate circle.

Just because I don't like X idea that would support PvP or Y idea that's similar to an EVE mechanic, doesn't mean I hate PvP (I want PvP) or hate EVE (I played EVE for years).

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I wanted to avoid to add voice to this thread. My respect to Jeff for trying to tackle some controversies in community regarding gameplay's design.

However, case is quite complex, and I think some misunderstanding regarding game is in place from recent newcomers. It isn't meant in derogatory way. In nutshell, there are quite a lot posts which has subject "this game sucks/broken", and ends with "if this stays, game is DOA/no one will buy it/etc", with added assumptions that FD won't be that stupid that won't take poster's arguments into account.

And I usually repeat this:
FD and community before you put huge effort in designing game as it is. Not only DDF, but people who shown up early even just watching alpha videos and commenting on them got lot of their feedback heard.

Now, we are very deep in Beta cycle. If you expect to FD change anything fundamentally, be it supercruise, how stolen cargo is treated, or how grouping is working, just on a basis that you don't like it, I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. FD will listen to you, but outside regular Beta bugs that's only promise they give.

So this ends up with quite a simply choice - either poster have his problem addressed in different way (and mostly solution is found by community), or it's highly likely he won't enjoy game as rest of us.

So while snaring remarks about "then leave" or "game is not for you" is something we should avoid, sometimes it's justified in leveled form.

TDLR it seems people don't understand how far ED is in development and how dev decisions are made. This breeds commentary which usually causes fallout with some people from community who in their case support design decisions. Thus such replies are made. Usually they are sensible though.

Edit: also I am very surprised that people justify their "my way or highway" with wishing ill to the game. That's high level of childish.

 

[Ven Jarvik]

This is, in a nutshell, the original 'trolling'. Nothing to do with ugly, carnivorous, cloven-hoofed monsters living under bridges, trolling is a way of fishing by dragging a line with a baited hook behind your boat. Sooner or later you get a bite, and then the fun begins...

There was a superb example the other day which ended up running for a couple of days The OP even ended up prefixing the title with 'Parody', and they were still biting:smilie: *Brilliant*

*BAD JOKE ALERT*

What do you call a man with a pink panther on his head?

Darren. darren, darren-darren darren daren darennnnn darren-darren.

-I'll get me (fluffy pink) coat...

Yes you go and get that hat on as well,and never darken my door again!

I think another really big cause of problems is an obsessive need to change someone elses viewpoint,who clearly isn't for changing.I have watched enough Question Time episodes to realise that never,or very rarely happens.
That said it is a discussion forum,so I defeated my own argument there.

 

[Megalon]

I think it helps to understand both sides.

Having come here from EVE (albeit as former Elite player on the BBC, then Spectrum lenslock and all) it is frustrating to see hear a truly huge and successful game denigrated as "Quake in Space". Nothing could be further from the truth, especially as actual space combat is a tiny fraction of EVE even if the risk is always there.

"Go Play Eve" is a very silly response to people who want to do PvP, or have complex missions or have ingame RP opportunities or manufacturing or do exploring which means anything more than cash for cartography. They'll probably do just that - and they might well not come back. They may well accept the lack of First Person as a compromise for the other things that they can do in EVE, just as I did when I moved to EVE from Jumpgate.

I find the attitude of "Elite competes with nothing" sounds more like "Elite has the only answers" which is just a touch arrogant.

you should change your forum name to "The Voice of Reason". this is the best post i have read on this forum in months in regards to this topic. thank you.

 

[JeffRyan]

I wanted to avoid to add voice to this thread. My respect to Jeff for trying to tackle some controversies in community regarding gameplay's design.

However, case is quite complex, and I think some misunderstanding regarding game is in place from recent newcomers. It isn't meant in derogatory way. In nutshell, there are quite a lot posts which has subject "this game sucks/broken", and ends with "if this stays, game is DOA/no one will buy it/etc", with added assumptions that FD won't be that stupid that won't take poster's arguments into account.

And I usually repeat this:
FD and community before you put huge effort in designing game as it is. Not only DDF, but people who shown up early even just watching alpha videos and commenting on them got lot of their feedback heard.

Now, we are very deep in Beta cycle. If you expect to FD change anything fundamentally, be it supercruise, how stolen cargo is treated, or how grouping is working, just on a basis that you don't like it, I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. FD will listen to you, but outside regular Beta bugs that's only promise they give.

So this ends up with quite a simply choice - either poster have his problem addressed in different way (and mostly solution is found by community), or it's highly likely he won't enjoy game as rest of us.

So while snaring remarks about "then leave" or "game is not for you" is something we should avoid, sometimes it's justified in leveled form.

TDLR it seems people don't understand how far ED is in development and how dev decisions are made. This breeds commentary which usually causes fallout with some people from community who in their case support design decisions. Thus such replies are made. Usually they are sensible though.

Edit: also I am very surprised that people justify their "my way or highway" with wishing ill to the game. That's high level of childish.

I tentatively agree with this. Though I do feel like a 'maybe this isn't the game for you' is maybe left up to the user rather than lowering our own tone. We can actually ignore threads, posts and even users. Recently this 'leave' is thrown out for the most mundane reason or just because the posters opinion is different from anothers. It's often thrown around in PvP threads, whether it's 'Go back to EVE' (a fun variation) or 'HTFU and live with it' from the other side.

I'm not happy with a lot of the stuff that goes on here, but I try to deal with it in other ways. Like parody threads!

 

[Ayerc]

However, case is quite complex, and I think some misunderstanding regarding game is in place from recent newcomers. It isn't meant in derogatory way. In nutshell, there are quite a lot posts which has subject "this game sucks/broken", and ends with "if this stays, game is DOA/no one will buy it/etc", with added assumptions that FD won't be that stupid that won't take poster's arguments into account.

And I usually repeat this:
FD and community before you put huge effort in designing game as it is. Not only DDF, but people who shown up early even just watching alpha videos and commenting on them got lot of their feedback heard.

Now, we are very deep in Beta cycle. If you expect to FD change anything fundamentally, be it supercruise, how stolen cargo is treated, or how grouping is working, just on a basis that you don't like it, I am afraid you are sadly mistaken. FD will listen to you, but outside regular Beta bugs that's only promise they give.

This guy gets it.

I'm sure most of us have been a part of betas and early development for many games. This retort (Game is not for you) is a commonly used, and in my experience, commonly relevant response to some comments.

Ultimately, everyone found interest in this game for some personal reason, or they wouldn't be here. I believe many proponents of fundamental changes are presenting their ideas from the viewpoint that the game is not finished (therefore changes can still be made) and they were really really hoping the game would be like insert idea here and it's not.

The problem arises when these proponents feel (not unjustifiably) that their ideas are better and should be implemented. Arguments are made as to why the game is where it's at or why something is working they way it is, but many times, it is not enough to satiate the OP. They still hold onto their ideas of how it should be.

At that point, I think a , "GT*O, this is not a game for you" is perfectly justified. I refuse to think that the needs of the few outweigh all the previous work and efforts made by the developers and community up to that point.

In summary:

Some criticizers of game content cannot and will not allow themselves to be swayed from their own ideas of how it should be. They need to realize that this game is not for their sole benefit, and that there have been countless hours of work put into the game to get it to where it is today. Still don't like it? GT*O.

 

[CATPAIN KIRK]

I'm going to have to, with the greatest respect for Catpain Kirk, call bovine excrement on this.

There is indeed a pitchfork wielding mob on occasion - I've even participated in it peripherally but it's usually restricted to those occasions where somebody has the bit between their teeth and is bull-headed attacking a fundamental aspect of what makes this game part of the Elite universe, demanding that it be changed "or this game will fail" and they are as resistant as rhinoceros hide when it comes to even looking at an alternate viewpoint. Folks posting in that manner have pretty much earned the response of "Don't let the door hit ya where the Lord split ya!" To be honest, I tend to plonk those folks onto my ignore list after seeing them derail a few threads into deadhorsing the same tired topics, because I dont want to be the one reporting them for "circular arguments" which are against the TOS here.

I agree there are people charging in blindly, there are impolite, unreasonable people and I ignore them (my ignore list counts zero though)

Linking DDA posts by the rabid few is counterproductive, because when read with a rational eye it's pretty clear who is trying to give good information and who is projecting an irrational interpretation of them onto their own wishes and desires. That shouldnt detract from the majority of folks that post DDA links in good faith simply because they are trying to pass on reliable information to another forum poster. Citing this as an example of irrationality is dangerously close to painting with an overbroad brush.

I agree that linking DDA posts is generally helpful - unless the link is used to back a point that is actually not backed by the post. I wont name and shame as it's against the rules, but I could come up with at least a dozen of posters doing that on a regular basis.

As for "calling anything that doesn't involve a hug griefing" I really don't know how to respond to this. The vast majority of the forum folks that I read do not even come close to this. Yes there are folks out there (and in here) who regard any other player that pops their ship as a "griefer" but most of the readers here are quite capable of seeing the difference between that and the behavior of folks who see virtue in wrecking anothers gameplay for the sake of it.

The vast majority of forum users are here to participate in a rational discussion and are open to any topic, even if they have a canned response of "this was discussed here (link) and the question is settled" to some of them.

Sorry - English isn't my first language, so my posts end up being a little imprecise most of the time.

But that's what I meant with the introductory "the problem is actually smaller than perceived. It's a small, vocal minority shouting down any discussion on certain topics."

The vast majority of posters on these forums is very decent.

Posting a link to pre-existing discussions is constructive - but that usually doesn't encompass telling a poster that this game wasn't for him/her.

Discussion is valuable - and yes - there are some dead horses for me as well. As a consequence, I don't click the threads I consider to be dead horses and don't create pointless posts telling everyone it's a dead horse from my POV.

If the forums are running hot shortly after a new beta, I try to link posters to a pre-existing discussion or kindly suggest the mods to merge certain threads for better forum legibility.

I wish people would conduct a simple forum/google search before opening new threads.

However, I think it's well worth having a new thread on a controversial topic every once in a while. It helps new members forming an opinion actively, rather than just passively going through a month old thread with thousands of replies.

Last but not least, the example thread I mentioned didn't include any demands from my part, yet I was told:

Move on to something else, you won't get this changed.

As a matter of fact, it was changed.


Discuss, but keep open minded and most of all - STAY FIENDLY AND TROLLERANT