We have covered that already (here or elsewhere), suffice to say we will never agree on the matter so no need to regurgitate the same debate again.![]()
Yes and you haven't explained the actual issue or the wider implications.
We have covered that already (here or elsewhere), suffice to say we will never agree on the matter so no need to regurgitate the same debate again.![]()
Just because only one person notices something does not mean it wont be significant to a larger group further down the road. Not everyone perceives things the same way, and just because only one person reports a given concern does not make that concern irrelevant in grander scheme of things.
It is easier to talk in terms of specifics than metaphysics, philosophy, or hypotheticals - what I am saying is all viewpoints should be considered and mitigated if deemed appropriate to do so.
I have gone into some of it already, it is clear from the discussion we have had on the matter to date that further discussion of the specific concerns in question with you would be a waste of time. That is not saying you are deficient in any way, just it is clear you have a very different outlook to the game as a whole than I do. A lot of the disparity is due to differences in approaches to builds and gameplay as a whole, neither of us are necessarily wrong in our approaches.Yes and you haven't explained the actual issue or the wider implications.
I think I missed this one on my first pass through this thread, but based on your recent comment I thought I would go back and review at least some of the points you have raised that I may have missed.
I think you over simplify things - shot composition is unlikely to be discernible from the orrery map as you seem to claim. The only true way to know if a shot composition is right is to actually see it in practice. It is more than specific colours of planets - it is an overall subjective assessment of the scene at the time of the shot.
I think the new system is case of swings and roundabouts (after a fashion), but in the case of assessing composition for shots - unless they can be done directly from the Orrery itself the Orrery is irrelevant in the main in that context.
My point was more directed at those attempting to assert that what was presented in first 3.3 live stream is some kind of de facto fait accompli - or a done deal - which is clearly far from true.Maybe they already were, FDEV have access to the metrics so they already know who does what and how popular it is.
I think the problem is that the implications are notionally wider than you are asserting, everyone has a right to express their viewpoint and to have it considered by FD.I should also apologise if my posts are coming across slightly curt - this is just my irritation of yet another group of people complaining about something that only affects a very small subset of people, and therefore believes everything should change just to please them.
It's becoming more and more a trend in today's society and I am hoping that at least in this one game, such distasteful behaviour is ignored.
I think the problem is that the implications are notionally wider than you are asserting, everyone has a right to express their viewpoint and to have it considered by FD.
I think the problem is that the implications are notionally wider than you are asserting, everyone has a right to express their viewpoint and to have it considered by FD.
As I understand it, the topological sector map is staying as an option, also it is generally moot what you can or cannot discern from the 2D system map in that regard.You cannot assess composition for shots from the 2d system map. And This is where I am really failing to understand the arguments
I made my position clear there - no need to drag it here too - the point is opposing anti-discussion threads is not contrarian to saying all viewpoints should be considered. The anti-discussion threads are diametrically opposed to the principles and purpose of a discussion forum.But in the other thread you wanted peoples' threads shut down for voicing an opinion. I don't think the taco kid can give us both those things.
I made my position clear there - no need to drag it here too - the point is opposing anti-discussion threads is not contrarian to saying all viewpoints should be considered. The anti-discussion threads are diametrically opposed to the principles and purpose of a discussion forum.
When group X start saying ignore group Y, group Y need to openly oppose such thinking rather than let the other group silence them through intimidation or ridicule - a lot of that happens on these forums.You are focusing waaaaay too much on pedantic concerns, here and everywhere. This is a video game forum about pretending to be a spaceman. You don't need a "position", nobody is grading your debate skills.
When group X start saying ignore group Y, group Y need to openly oppose such thinking rather than let the other group silence them through intimidation or ridicule - a lot of that happens on these forums.
In the context of exploration, there have been some claims made that are demonstrably false given some of the discussions that have arisen. There are some genuine concerns that have been expressed, some of which may have been cleared up by the official recap thread but others are in abeyance pending further discussion and/or hands-on testing with the Beta.
Personally, I hope FD take their time (at least a month based on the scope I am aware of) with this Beta - there are lots of changes which will impact everyone and given the scope a longer Beta phase than normal for a live product may be in order so that FD have sufficient time to address or counter any concerns. While ED is FD's product and it is up to them how they develop it, it is also only fair and reasonable for them to consider any and all feedback and give themselves time to react to said feedback.
Perhaps, but I've yet to see a compelling argument against the new system, other that it takes a very small amount of players a little bit longer to take a snapshot.
Rights to express a viewpoint are also open to be countered by other viewpoints. Expressing a viewpoint doesn't necessarily mean Frontier have to consider it.
That seems reasonable, but logically implies giving different game mechanics to different groups for all manner of things, and undermining the game itself.FD should implement a toggle switch to turn the god honk on and off, thereby allowing people can play their own way without imposing the rule on others.
While they are at it they can implement one for instantaneous ship transfers and SC boost as well
\o/ yay, everyone is happy
Telling people to ignore others is tantamount to the same thing so you are wrong.You are the only one who demanded anyone be silenced.
I think Sewerratuk was not being entirely serious - that being said, I actually agree with you that implementing a toggle as described is probably a bad idea.That seems reasonable, but logically implies giving different game mechanics to different groups for all manner of things, and undermining the game itself.
Let me put it this way - over the years I've found that I could inadvertantly ruin a game for myself, a game I was up to that point enjoying, by using a cheat code or mod. It seemed a brilliant idea, allowing me to play the game the way I wanted - no damage, more ammo - but in fact I ended up killing the experience.
I'm not at all suggesting this is the same, that by having toggles for 'god honk' etc we would be cheating, but I do suspect a developer risks watering down *their* game by attempting to appeal to both - or multiple - sides in a disagreement over mechanics. The developer needs to decide, and implement that solution. They can always change it, or re-balance it, that's what Beyond is pretty much about to be honest. But including both solutions might create the same problem I mentioned with modding or cheat codes in games - a loss of perceived value to the player.
But I could be completely wrong.