Why isn't Elite: Dangerous 'dangerous'

[Robert Maynard]

Are you sure that it wasn't the tiniest hint of the OP having positive attitude about PvP which brought out the challenge of our most true defender of the safety and security of this pastime?

I have zero issue with players enjoying PvP - it is an optional activity in the game we all bought or backed.

It's not a required activity in any game feature, however - so there's no need to engage in PvP, enjoy PvP or even tolerate PvP to play this game.

What insane definition of debate would include a win condition?

Debates that end with a vote.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I.e. use and apply what they know- i.e. learn. This implies they are using something, and not acting in a vacuum.

I expect that each player learns what works for them.

A better question would be why you get rank points for firing, but not surviving.

That's an unrelated question.

But, you are both locked in combat, whether the victim wants to be or not. The difference is someone being mugged is not actively trying to get away.

Being attacked does not mean that one has engaged in combat - that the attacker has engaged is not at issue.

Do mugging victims never try to get away?

Now you are starting to get it.

That evasion does not require one to engage in combat, certainly.

Shouldn't they? Since they push the game harder they know its weaknesses and shortcomings. Knowledge is knowledge, the more you have the more informed you are.

Yet everyone bought the game - doing so gives no-one any more or less rights than others.

Well, you should know better that it can never be like that here.

.... especially as the discussions here highly repetitive.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And not everyone plays the game for a sightseeing trip...... The suggestions here will not force players to engage in the more challenging combat. It will not suddenly, magically become "unfun" if they are not forced. And challenge is an important factor in games (flow theory, positive frustration)

The OP's suggestion to introduce NPC ganker equivalents would seem to do just that - force players to engage (or evade) more challenging combat.

Those who don't want a sightseeing trip can already seek out more "exciting" encounters.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I expect that each player learns what works for them.

And under what heading does that info come from? Exploration?

Being attacked does not mean that one has engaged in combat - that the attacker has engaged is not at issue.

Do mugging victims never try to get away?

In ED, being attacked is being in combat. You can run or fight, but both require the same understanding of the enemy.

That evasion does not require one to engage in combat, certainly.

Evasion is about not getting / limiting hits and escaping, knowledge derived from combat.

Yet everyone bought the game - doing so gives no-one any more or less rights than others.

Which gives you a say- however experience and deep knowledge of the game and how it interacts is the reserve of veterans- i.e. 'advanced players'.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The OP's suggestion to introduce NPC ganker equivalents would seem to do just that - force players to engage (or evade) more challenging combat.

Those who don't want a sightseeing trip can already seek out more "exciting" encounters.

And why is it that these NPC gankers are not present in anarchy systems, which are well signposted? Why is it naughty pilots like me don't have G5 bounty hunter squads after me?

Do you see that you can make the game wildly more threatening and at the same time make it safe for those who don't want that?

 

[Robert Maynard]

And under what heading does that info come from? Exploration?

"Playing the game"

In ED, being attacked is being in combat. You can run or fight, but both require the same understanding of the enemy.

Evasion is about not getting / limiting hits and escaping, knowledge derived from combat.

Attempting to run requires no understanding of the attacker.

For me, being "in combat" requires one to fire back - I'll agree to disagree on this point.

Which gives you a say- however experience and deep knowledge of the game and how it interacts is the reserve of veterans- i.e. 'advanced players'.

The self-designated "advanced players" have no more say than those who simply buy the game.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And why is it that these NPC gankers are not present in anarchy systems, which are well signposted? Why is it naughty pilots like me don't have G5 bounty hunter squads after me?

Do you see that you can make the game wildly more threatening and at the same time make it safe for those who don't want that?

The lack of NPC gankers is probably due to Frontier not wishing to impose them on players - players do that to other players already.

Naughty player pilots probably don't have G5 bounty hunter squads after them because Frontier have been persuaded to treat crimes against players and NPCs in the same way - and NPCs are there for entertainment so attacking them is not overly punished.

It might be possible to make the game more varied with respect to challenge - the devil's in the detail as ever.

 

[Rubbernuke]

"Playing the game"

Which part of it? Scanning rocks?

Attempting to run requires no understanding of the attacker.

Really? Mass lock, weapons, your own ships loadout (shields, chaff, SCBs, combat maneuvers?)

For me, being "in combat" requires one to fire back - I'll agree to disagree on this point.

Fair enough.

The self-designated "advanced players" have no more say than those who simply buy the game.

And when it comes time to talk at an advanced level about how features slot together and affect the game?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which part of it? Scanning rocks?

Really? Mass lock, weapons, your own ships loadout (shields, chaff, SCBs, combat maneuvers?)

Fair enough.

And when it comes time to talk at an advanced level about how features slot together and affect the game?

1) Avoiding attackers, regardless of which activity one is engaged in.
2) To attempt is not to necessarily succeed.
3) Thanks.
4) It's still player based. There was no restriction as to who could answer any of the Flash Topics. There are obviously those who would want to be the only ones listened to with regard to particular topics - Frontier don't seem to work that way.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The lack of NPC gankers is probably due to Frontier not wishing to impose them on players - players do that to other players already.

But, as debated here players can choose not to go to the places they will be- so rather than having them locked up in a USS in the anarchy system (making the anarchy label pointless) you make that system instance the anarchy (with said NPC?)

Naughty player pilots probably don't have G5 bounty hunter squads after them because Frontier have been persuaded to treat crimes against players and NPCs in the same way - and NPCs are there for entertainment so attacking them is not overly punished.

Makes no difference- having advanced NPCs after you would affect you- like with this: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...-npc-player-scan-spawns-an-atr-vessel.533172/

It might be possible to make the game more varied with respect to challenge - the devil's in the detail as ever.

You have the BGS which is the biggest piece of information in the game to filter areas- FD need to match the threat to that map, not lock challenge away in USS'.

 

[Rubbernuke]

1) Avoiding attackers, regardless of which activity one is engaged in.
2) To attempt is not to necessarily succeed.

And how does a player learn to survive better? Its not by scanning the rock- its by understanding weapons and defences and how ships work.

 

[Sellias]

The OP's suggestion to introduce NPC ganker equivalents would seem to do just that - force players to engage (or evade) more challenging combat.

Those who don't want a sightseeing trip can already seek out more "exciting" encounters.

And in the course of the thread those suggestions where discussed and revised in order so that players don't get forced into it. 1 of those suggestions will make certain areas even safer.

So I have to be forced to fight Thargoids in order to seek out those engaging encounters? what about people who are not interested in that? I'm role playing a bounty hunter for example, I don't care about the goids.

And those more "exciting" encounters vanish quickly once you get a little combat experience, and some engineering. The PVE combat experience is exciting until a certain point. Besides the already mentioned suggestion the NPC's need a lot of work themselves in terms of: ship building, AI, variety, scaling, engineering levels; but that is a different topic.

Players don't only quit when games are too hard. The also quit when games are lacking in engagement and too easy.

Once again the altered suggestions will not diminish the fun of players who don't like a challenge.

in anarchy systems, which are well signposted?

I remember when I started playing elite. Before I jumped to an anarchy systems I was contemplating if it was a good idea to jump to it. I soon discovered it did not mean anything. And I was thinking : "why the hell would game explicitly flag post anarchy systems as if they are dangerous, when there is no difference?"

 

[Robert Maynard]

But, as debated here players can choose not to go to the places they will be- so rather than having them locked up in a USS in the anarchy system (making the anarchy label pointless) you make that system instance the anarchy (with said NPC?)

Makes no difference- having advanced NPCs after you would affect you- like with this: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...-npc-player-scan-spawns-an-atr-vessel.533172/

You have the BGS which is the biggest piece of information in the game to filter areas- FD need to match the threat to that map, not lock challenge away in USS'.

1) Many hypothetical outcomes are discussed. Whether Frontier want to change the way that the game is played is ultimately up to them - and they will consider the whole player-base if and when they do so.
2) It;d be interesting to see how the eminently notorious would react - or whether they'd simply dissipate their notoriety while avoiding any chance of encountering them.
3) What Frontier "need" to do is their decision.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And how does a player learn to survive better? Its not by scanning the rock- its by understanding weapons and defences and how ships work.

By observing what "works" in terms of successful combat evasion.

 

[Robert Maynard]

And in the course of the thread those suggestions where discussed and revised in order so that players don't get forced into it. 1 of those suggestions will make certain areas even safer.

So I have to be forced to fight Thargoids in order to seek out those engaging encounters? what about people who are not interested in that? I'm role playing a bounty hunter for example, I don't care about the goids.

And those more "exciting" encounters vanish quickly once you get a little combat experience, and some engineering. The PVE combat experience is exciting until a certain point. Besides the already mentioned suggestion the NPC's need a lot of work themselves in terms of: ship building, AI, variety, scaling, engineering levels; but that is a different topic.

Players don't only quit when games are too hard. The also quit when games are lacking in engagement and too easy.

Once again the altered suggestions will not diminish the fun of players who don't like a challenge.

Sadly a complete proposal is not available - maybe the OP should update the OP itself.

The challenge posed by the game is highly unlikely to include significant Engineering - because Frontier know that fewer than half of the potential player-base owns Horizons and therefore can't Engineer their ships. I understand that those who have Engineered their ships to improve durability, combat capability and performance may experience less of a challenge - however they did it themselves. The challenge posed by the game does not seem to scale with the ship one is in.

I would suggest that more players are likely to quit games that are too hard than too easy.

"will not" is a definitive statement that cannot be proved - and is unlikely in the event that proposals were implemented.

 

[Azreh Helas]

i just recently realized that ATR is only effective against shield tanked ships. fly a hull tank and you'll be able to escape with ease, even stay in the fight for a bit. for ATR to be more effective they need to be able to function against hull tanks too. What the hell is reverb lasers going to do against my shieldless clipper? ITs about as effective as firing torps at it (which has happened too and it was hilarious).

 

[Old Duck]

Just to get our bearings - do we all agree that any challenge added to the game must obey system security states?* In other words, buff the challenge in Anarchies, and "nerf" the challenge in High Sec systems, unless you are a pirate in which case those two ends of the spectrum are reversed. Speaking of, IMO an ally of an Anarchy's ruling faction should get a bit of a "free pass" in said Anarchy, allowing it to be a true den for pirates.

* The exception being systems that have been invaded by Thargoids. These systems should be like scary like a horror movie, with supercruise crawling with Thargoids that have insta-interediction capabilities. Get rid of Thargoid USS entirely, they should be everywhere - every station, outpost, installation, etc, just like they loiter around certain megaships (inside invaded systems, of course).

 

[Rubbernuke]

1) Many hypothetical outcomes are discussed. Whether Frontier want to change the way that the game is played is ultimately up to them - and they will consider the whole player-base if and when they do so.

But you see the contradiction though? How can an anarchy system be as safe as any other system? The sec labels are meaningless. FD should view the sec level as the difficulty level, not the USS in them. Otherwise SC becomes the lobby again.

2) It;d be interesting to see how the eminently notorious would react - or whether they'd simply dissipate their notoriety while avoiding any chance of encountering them.

The only ways to stop: stop killing (remember its only 10 or less ships and back to the same spot) or to live like a paranoid hermit. Both outcomes have consequences that alter player behaviour.

3) What Frontier "need" to do is their decision.

As always. But then again its like watching a football match with mile wide goals and FD still miss.

 

[Rubbernuke]

This point is spot on!

Ultimately, the systems themselves are supposed to be the different tiers of difficulty/danger. Greater levels of danger should be found in systems with reduced security levels. It should not be the case that a player should have to drop into a signal source to find danger. Players should take heed of the warning when the HYPERSPACE countdown begins - notified of system type and SECURITY LEVEL - and cancel the jump if they don't want to risk hostile encounters - especially in Anarchy, HOSTILE systems, and I'd go so far as to say systems with Thargoid incursion status.

It's extremely poor to find that Anarchy is not 'anarchy', systems are not 'hostile', and Thargoids have to be searched for in systems they are supposed to be attacking or even directly control. I go even further and say it's pretty pathetic.

Its crazy, isn't it?

 

[Oldviboy]

Correct me if I'm wrong ... but in 2016 the npcs had engineers weapons, and all the players, veterans and new began to complain? not to mention harry p...
what difficulty are you looking for?
Normally, after 5 or 6 years playing you don't find any difficulty,
Isn't that too long? Try another game, my humble recommendation,
you will end up losing your mind.♥