Existential Crisis Details Requested

[geldonyetich]

There is some clarification on points I would like to know about the Existential Crisis feature so I understand what I am seeing in Beta 7.00:

• What is the existential crisis feature as a whole supposed to accomplish as a whole? Is it to be a big blowout event or is it to directly address lasting existentialism in the endgame?
• When you're asking us how we feel about when it starts, what's the intention of when it's supposed to start? Is it to gate our progress? Is it to establish criteria to participate in the existential crisis event?
• How much opposition is it supposed to present to the players? Are they there to provide a meaningful fight? To be something we can defeat easily? To knock us back to the start of the game and painfully rebuild?
• When asking how we feel about where the enemies for this event spawned, what kind of feedback were you looking for? Clearly some players were going to have gate defenses, what kind of response were you expecting to inform the beta forward?

[flywlyx]

What is the existential crisis feature as a whole supposed to accomplish as a whole? Is it to be a big blowout event or is it to directly address lasting existentialism in the endgame?

20~40 waves of Xenon and Kha'ak spawn in the sectors where your assets are located.

When you're asking us how we feel about when it starts, what's the intention of when it's supposed to start? Is it to gate our progress? Is it to establish criteria to participate in the existential crisis event?

The game calculates the value of your assets, it will trigger as soon as it reaches a certain value.

How much opposition is it supposed to present to the players? Are they there to provide a meaningful fight? To be something we can defeat easily? To knock us back to the start of the game and painfully rebuild?

If the player pilots a well-built destroyer themselves, one destroyer is sufficient to handle most threats. However, due to KHA spawning near players' assets, I recommend having 40 or more M-class corvettes to address them in low-attention to prevent damage to players' factories.

Clearly some players were going to have gate defenses, what kind of response were you expecting to inform the beta forward?

Gate defense won't work because enemies spawn directly within the sector.

[geldonyetich]

It's this endgame monotony that the existential crisis ought to target, in my opinion. And leaving you alone in your cage is probably the worst thing they can do.

I fully understand where you're coming from, and I know you only mean well. But a saying comes to mind, maybe you know it: the way to hell is paved with good intentions. You make a grave mistake too many others also do with a passion: telling others what is fun, telling them what they do isn't fun, and enforcing your definition of fun on them. Because trust me bro, I know better than you, I'll liberate you from your mental cage (your choice of words, the mental cage)! Don't you find that a little bit arrogant maybe?

One man's monotony is another's fun and relaxation. You have no right to call my game ruined, no more than I have the right to call your game, your style of playing X4 ruined, or faulty, or flawed, or boring, or whatever. That's the entire point of a sandbox, it is what we want it to be. The devs provide the framework, they don't force anything down our throats. Until now, that is.

My problem isn't that the crisis exists, ill conceived as I find it. My problem is that I have no viable choice here to either engage with it, or not. And no, blackmail is NOT an option. The moment they put a gun to my head and demand money, threatening me with an annoying event lasting for hours, is the moment I was already robbed of a choice.

I'm fine with it being there, as an option, like an optional option. Truly optional. Optional as in it doesn't start when I don't click the button. If someone then goes ahead and wants to spawn in hundreds of hostile overpowered ships, to shake the universe up? Be my guest, to each their own. I'll never tell you that you can't have fun with it.

But don't tell me what I should consider fun, what's allegedly good for me and what isn't, and don't impose your definition of fun on me and my game, telling me it's boring and ruined otherwise. It's not, for me it was perfect the way it was. Just make it optional, truly optional, and I'm happy.

Personally, I won't use it if it stays even remotely the way it is now. Others will, and they'll have fun with it, maybe. Or not, not by beer anyway. Isn't that the ideal state of things, making both sides happy? As it is, it makes me unhappy to a degree that I lose interest in the game. There are many other games, many of them good at what they do. Where I stand, I'm not in a cage, I have total freedom of choice. I play X4 to relax, that's my choice.

To improve the entire mechanic, even if stays the way it is, I'd give it the following structure:

- Reaching 500M in military assets triggers Boso Ta contacting the player
- You can talk with him, or choose not to
-- Not talking -> he waits, unlimited time (as with most other quests)
-- Talking -> he tells you about suspicious Xenon/Kha'ak activity, you can either investigate it as specific coordinates, or tell him "not now"
--- Choosing to investigate triggers the events
--- NOW you have the choice to pay 500M to skip it, 10M to delay, or start immediately

Doing it like that gives you enough warning, and you can opt out and do it at some point later. Then both sides have what they want, without any side being forced into anything. Just like all other main plots you have with Dal Busta. I find that the superior approach. It is a sandbox, after all.

Although I'd like to repeat that spawning ships does break the simulation. I'd find it infinitely better to design a challenge around the simulation, not by breaking it so blatantly.

As I knew it was inappropriate to drag out the thread with further argument there, but it was requested by xant I address their points, I will do so here.

Personally, I am quite happy to let xant or others who feel invaded by the existential crisis to live and play however they want.

However, if it means we don't get the existential crisis addressed, their opinion is invading my game experience every bit as much as mine theirs. Hence the potential for argument.

I talk about human delusion and fixation not to be arrogant but rather, deep down, that's what video games are all about. They spin compelling illusions for us to enjoy.

Such is the nature of trying to address a game design problem: when you gaze into the abyss, the abyss also gazes onto you. The existential crisis is an attachment problem.

But fun is very much a subjective thing; different people enjoy different things, and at different times, as moods will change.

I think the trouble with xant's opinion on the existential crisis is this: he's not having one yet. Many of us are.

[geldonyetich]

20~40 waves of Xenon and Kha'ak spawn in the sectors where your assets are located.

Okay, so that's the "what."

What I am asking is why? What are we hoping to accomplish by doing this?

The game calculates the value of your assets, it will trigger as soon as it reaches a certain value.

Again thank you for informing those of us who don't know the, "what" as you can clearly see in beta.

Again: why?

If the player pilots a well-built destroyer themselves, one destroyer is sufficient to handle most threats. However, due to KHA spawning near players' assets, I recommend having 40 or more M-class corvettes to address them in low-attention to prevent damage to players' factories.

Good strategy!

Again: the "why" is what I am after.

So how did this fight affect your game experience?

Gate defense won't work because enemies spawn directly within the sector.

Indeed.

Good or bad for your game experience? What was the intent of the developers, you suppose?

[flywlyx]

What I am asking is why?

The primary rationale is that players often complain about the endgame becoming boring, prompting Egosoft to seek ways to introduce more challenges.
However, for specific "why" regarding game design, I would recommend providing a clearer title and a detailed question list to elicit responses from the developers.
To my knowledge, Egosoft rarely responds to these types of questions.

Good or bad for your game experience? What was the intent of the developers, you suppose?

I don't really hate it, but it is easier than I thought, I would still put some Xenon-enhanced MOD to entertain the end game.
Egosoft values player feedback, but only up to a certain extent. They have a peculiar ego that often leads to a repetitive cycle:
Player: We want this.
Egosoft: Ok, but I have a better idea.
Player: Are you kidding me?

[geldonyetich]

However, for specific "why" regarding game design, I would recommend providing a clearer title and a detailed question list to elicit responses from the developers.
To my knowledge, Egosoft rarely responds to these types of questions.

That is their right, I suppose. But I don't think there's a better way to frame the title or the question being asked.

[flywlyx]

That is their right, I suppose. But I don't think there's a better way to frame the title or the question being asked.

As you said, your question should be why not what.
Details are what, you should ask for the game design intentions, why it has to be like this.

[geldonyetich]

That is their right, I suppose. But I don't think there's a better way to frame the title or the question being asked.

As you said, your question should be why not what.
Details are what, you should ask for the game design intentions, why it has to be like this.

I begin to understand CBJ's adversion to arguments if I have to explain why, "What is the existential crisis feature as a whole supposed to accomplish as a whole?" is a why.

[flywlyx]

I begin to understand CBJ's adversion to arguments if I have to explain why, "What is the existential crisis feature as a whole supposed to accomplish as a whole?" is a why.

As I said, this is too brief, the answer to this question is obvious,

The primary rationale is that players often complain about the endgame becoming boring, prompting Egosoft to seek ways to introduce more challenges.

You have to ask something like:
Why it has to be 500M?
Why they has to be spawn on top of players' asset?
Why it have to be 1I+3K?

Ambiguous questions won't yield any useful information.

[geldonyetich]

A fair observation. But the questions I was looking for answers to have abstract answers. I am asking after fundamental design goals so that I have an understanding of the intention of this feature.

As such, if I asked a question of such fidelity as, "Why did 20-40 waves of Xenon spawn?" The answer I might receive, "Because the formula is designed to calculate player fleet value and adjust thusly" would not provide the answer I was requesting which has more to do with the big picture intention of this feature.

I suppose if it's the developers intention we go into this feature completely uninformed, that approach too has merit. Perhaps they are still deciding.

But, as a beta participant, this would be good to know. It would establish that they want us to debate in the context of beta feedback. After all, if we have no greater context to understand the big picture intention of this feature, we are left to discover this ourselves.

[xant]

I think the trouble with xant's opinion on the existential crisis is this: he's not having one yet. Many of us are.

Oh, how edgy.

I have a very sober counter-argument, though: There is absolutely no trouble with my opinion. I'm just too old to willingly put up with stuff that I don't enjoy. I know what I want, what I enjoy, and also what I don't want and don't enjoy.

When I play X4, it's certainly not because I want an existential crisis subverting my perception of reality, sending me on a strange trip to discover my hidden true self. Or because I secretly craved action and destruction in my 2k hrs save. No, I play it for the economy, because I like building stations, trading, logistics. It's soothing, it's relaxing, with beautiful music. I can look out of the window and see ships come and go. I rarely participate in fights, they're probably the thing I do the least in the game. You want another tidbit about me? I'm well over 3k hrs with this game alone, and I don't use SETA. Ever. I even pause the game when I go to the bathroom. That's how I play, it's relaxing when things tick by slowly, when stuff moves. What I built up is the result not of speeding up the game and letting it run through the night, but of deliberately giving orders, planning everything, and watching it unfold in realtime, before my very eyes. For thousands of hours. Stations with hundreds of modules take days, so I'm naturally attached to the things I create.

Looking at how adamant Bernd was for years about not wanting to change even a small thing like the sunlight intensity, because it might have had a negative impact on players' existing saves, I really fail to understand why he suddenly is ok with removing player agency, with forcing such a "crisis" on everyone. It breaks the simulation, it breaks the established rules of the game, it's not optional, and it doesn't even have a reward. It just throws a wrench in my works for no good reason, and I don't like it one bit. I have played the crisis three or four times already, and always given up after a while. It's just not fun, it's frustrating and annoying.

There's no deeper meaning for me beyond that. If someone else enjoys this "crisis", good for them. I don't, and all I want is to be given a real choice here. Not blackmail for 500M of my hard earned cash, but a real opt out option. It's a sandbox, so it should cater to both sides, those who want their peace, and those who enjoy spawning ships destroying their stuff.

that's what video games are all about. They spin compelling illusions for us to enjoy.

Yes, they're for fun, for enjoyment, and we ultimately pay for the experience. If the game dispells the illusion and takes away the thing I enjoyed until now? Well, as I said, I'm too old to force myself to anything. I play (and pay) for fun, so I expect my games to deliver just that.

But the questions I was looking for answers to have abstract answers. I am asking after fundamental design goals so that I have an understanding of the intention of this feature.
[...]
I suppose if it's the developers intention we go into this feature completely uninformed, that approach too has merit. Perhaps they are still deciding. But, as a beta participant, this would be good to know.

You're not alone in asking those questions. The Beta is pretty much halfway through, and we still heard nothing on how complete or final the event chain in its current form is, what they want with it, why they chose that approach, and what they think now after getting almost exclusively negative feedback on it. Aside form the "delay for 10M" option, there has been absolutely no change to it.

I'd really love some feedback from the devs in return. I guess we'll have to wait.

[Tomonor]

• What is the existential crisis feature as a whole supposed to accomplish as a whole? Is it to be a big blowout event or is it to directly address lasting existentialism in the endgame?

Much like the Terraforming missions, it is supposed to help fill the void that players experience when they get too strong.

• When you're asking us how we feel about when it starts, what's the intention of when it's supposed to start? Is it to gate our progress? Is it to establish criteria to participate in the existential crisis event?

Xenon_Slayer also wrote "(player readiness for example)", but it's pretty much up for interpretation and we're happy to hear your opinion about this point.

• When you're asking us how we feel about when it starts, what's the intention of when it's supposed to start? Is it to gate our progress? Is it to establish criteria to participate in the existential crisis event?

We want this to be a challenge for the beefy players, too. If you feel like it is too easy/too hard, your feedback is welcome in the 7.00 Beta forum/s Existential Crisis discussion thread.

• When asking how we feel about where the enemies for this event spawned, what kind of feedback were you looking for? Clearly some players were going to have gate defenses, what kind of response were you expecting to inform the beta forward?

Technically speaking, the Xenon are supposed to arrive from deep space, while the Kha'ak just use their jumpdrive that they always had. The feedback we are looking for is how relevant do you feel the starting point is of the crisis' enemies in relation to your assets.
The gate defenses would obviously not work against them, because the crisis has a different approach/angle.

[geldonyetich]

I think the trouble with xant's opinion on the existential crisis is this: he's not having one yet. Many of us are.

Oh, how edgy.

Harumph, you call a stranger on the Internet delusional once and they get fiercely defensive about everything.

Perhaps I lack the diplomatic chops to communicate this simple idea, "if anything 'ruins' the game for you, it requires you hold ideas that make it capable of doing so."

I have a very sober counter-argument, though: There is absolutely no trouble with my opinion. I'm just too old to willingly put up with stuff that I don't enjoy. I know what I want, what I enjoy, and also what I don't want and don't enjoy.

I agree.

However, it doesn't change the fact that the existential crisis sets out to solve a problem you are not having.

Is it so wrong to point at a feature in a game and say, "Yes, but that feature is not intended for you anyway?"

You're not alone in asking those questions. The Beta is pretty much halfway through

It might be going on for a while yet. A lot is broken, and they have announced there is not yet an announcement about when it will be over.

I'd really love some feedback from the devs in return. I guess we'll have to wait.

You and me both.

[geldonyetich]

Thanks for the info!

Much like the Terraforming missions, it is supposed to help fill the void that players experience when they get too strong.

I see, so if I understand correctly, it's to provide some context/reasons for having large military forces.

This does significantly change my outlook on this feature, where I was conceiving it as potentially an overall endgame for the players' entire empire, both military and economic. If it's strictly in relation to the players' military, that presents it as more of an optional thing for players who have chosen to build large battle fleets.

Xenon_Slayer also wrote "(player readiness for example)", but it's pretty much up for interpretation and we're happy to hear your opinion about this point.

It is difficult for me to determine where my opinion may be considered off topic there, but I suppose I had said it well enough with that recent thread merge.

We want this to be a challenge for the beefy players, too. If you feel like it is too easy/too hard, your feedback is welcome in the 7.00 Beta forum/s Existential Crisis discussion thread.

Okay so if I understand correctly it's to give players with established fleets something to test them against.

If I can get some big testing done on it I will try to provide some better feedback there.

Technically speaking, the Xenon are supposed to arrive from deep space, while the Kha'ak just use their jumpdrive that they always had. The feedback we are looking for is how relevant do you feel the starting point is of the crisis' enemies in relation to your assets.
The gate defenses would obviously not work against them, because the crisis has a different approach/angle.

Personally I think that is fine, as I understand that the lore has it that the Xenon and Kha'ak exist in unfathomably great numbers beyond the scope of the gate network. But some players who are unaware of the lore might find it strange they are seemingly teleporting in from nowhere.

I can see why some players who have specifically build defensive stations might be curious how effective they would be against such an assault and disappointed they are being circumvented instead.

[xant]

Perhaps I lack the diplomatic chops to communicate this simple idea, "if anything 'ruins' the game for you, it requires you hold ideas that make it capable of doing so."

You can also look at it from another angle. The game has offered me a certain experience for years now, it scratched my itch, and catered to my idea of enjoyment. It presented me with content I found fun from start to finish, an endless gameplay loop I was happy with. It never forced me to do something I didn't want.

Now it doesn't anymore, because it forces an event that disturbs the very gameplay loop I found so fun. Fairness is part of that loop for me; stealing 500M from me upon loading a game in 7.00, (virtual) money I worked hard for, undermines the core principles of the game. And if I don't pay that outrageous price, I get an event that will annoy me for hours on end.

Is the game destroyed by that? Ruined? Well, I can also use other words, if you like: it detracts from my fun in such a manner, than I don't feel like playing the game anymore. Not when it is suddenly stacked against me in an unfair manner. It feels like the game breaks its own rules just to screw me over, and disrespects the sector defenses I built, the logistics I created, the stations I designed and watched growing. It doesn't appreciate my efforts, and I don't like it. Can I beat it? Yes. Do I want to sink many hours into something I don't enjoy? Absolutely not. And again, skipping it by giving into Boso's blackmail is not an option either.

Is it so wrong to point at a feature in a game and say, "Yes, but that feature is not intended for you anyway?"

Oh, it's not wrong. That's actually what I'm saying. I'd be happy to ignore that feature and let everyone willing have fun with it. But that's not the reality now, is it? My main objection is that we're not given a fair choice here, the event starts when you load a game and reached a certain monetary power threshold. I can't load my game and not get the event. I want a choice, a fair choice. It's only my secondary objection that the event itself breaks the game rules, is annoying, badly designed and, for me, unfun. If I could simply say "this is not for me" and move on, I wouldn't be half as vocal as I am now.

In the end, I'd even enjoy a well-made endgame crisis. Gearing my economy towards fighting a growing threat? Helping the AI to survive? Fighting side by side with other factions, maybe even in temporary alliances, to defeat the great calamity? Yes, I'd like that. But cheap spawns just on your assets, because screw you, that's why? That's just not good design.

As it is, the feature is not intended for me. So the game should not throw it at me. Make it truly optional, and half my criticism is gone.

It might be going on for a while yet. A lot is broken, and they have announced there is not yet an announcement about when it will be over.

Earlier betas ended after roughly 2-3 months, with the last few weeks not gunning for dramatic changes potentially breaking the entire game. If major changes are to be introduced, you're unlikely to get them towards the end. That's why I might seem a little bit pushy about this entire thing, I don't want it to roll out into the release version the way it currently is. Because frankly, that would put me off of 7.00

[flywlyx]

But, as a beta participant, this would be good to know. It would establish that they want us to debate in the context of beta feedback. After all, if we have no greater context to understand the big picture intention of this feature, we are left to discover this ourselves.

I completely understand your point. Players are essentially being asked to perform QA work without having access to any documentation, manuals, requirements, or test plans.
This kind of basic document should be in place before the test. Otherwise, I don't even know what I am testing about.

[geldonyetich]

Fairness is part of that loop for me; stealing 500M from me upon loading a game in 7.00, (virtual) money I worked hard for, undermines the core principles of the game.

Fair enough, but one thing that gets me here is, if this feature is intended to be strictly to test larger military fleets, and it can be avoided by having less than (coincidentally also) 500M in military fleets, couldn't a peaceful player just choose not to keep around such a fleet and never trigger the event?

If so, the two perspectives I end up with are:

I was enjoying the game by having a massive trophy death fleet and now something changed that I don't enjoy

That's kinda bad, my condolences.

I enjoyed showboating about in my massive death fleet and suddenly I am facing almost realistic consequence for having one of those.

That's kinda good, feeling a bit less sympathetic, to be honest.

If anything, I would say it's not the consequences but rather the earlier lack of them that's the problem. If we had gone in with the right expectations from the start, we wouldn't hold expectations to the contrary.

In other words, it would feel fair if we had no reason to believe it wasn't.

It suggests to me that it shouldn't start at 500M in military assets but rather at the very start of the game, and steadily ramps up the more you have instead of arriving all at once.

[xant]

Fair enough, but one thing that gets me here is, if this feature is intended to be strictly to test larger military fleets, and it can be avoided by having less than (coincidentally also) 500M in military fleets, couldn't a peaceful player just choose not to keep around such a fleet and never trigger the event?

I can't not trigger it. The moment I load the game with 7.00b active, the event fires. Because yes, I'm above 500M in military assets. I don't get a choice, other than loading the game under 6.20 and deleting my stuff.

two perspectives I end up with

How about a third perspective? I have fleets here and there, to deal with the occasional Kha'ak installation, to protect AI factions from Xenon all around the universe, to keep them from getting destroyed. I patrol some remote regions to deal with pirates, or have a single destroyer here and there all across the known universe, always one in range for me to teleport into, whenever some FAF Rattlesnake or SCA Behemoth/Phoenix suddenly appears and tries to rob my traders.

I surpass the 500M in total value, but my assets are tied up. That's why I specifically made sure to build defensive stations on all gates from and to my own system. Because I knew the game didn't cheat with cheap spawns, and because I removed the nearby Xenon to have my peace. My industrial stations are practically defenseless, in-sector patrols are mostly a few Katanas.

Why do I even have to justify myself here anyway? Even if I sat on a huge trophy fleet of 500 destroyers, it's my choice. The game shouldn't try to teach me some twisted moral lesson on the wrongs of materialist abundance. It's a sandbox, for crying out loud. The game shouldn't treat the players any different from the AI factions.

If anything, I would say it's not the consequences but rather the earlier lack of them that's the problem.

And there we have it, there you go. I almost thought we had some kind of an understanding on what it means to have a sandbox, choices and player agency. But no, we're back to you telling me how I ought to enjoy my game, that the way I play is obviously wrong, so I deserve to be punished. No mercy, no sympathy, the game should target the player if they do too well. About time someone came in and destroyed my stuff, I did too well anyway. Because that is fun for everyone, that will make the game so much better.

"Oh, look, spawned enemies destroy my stuff. How fun!" Yeah, no.

[geldonyetich]

If anything, I would say it's not the consequences but rather the earlier lack of them that's the problem.

And there we have it, there you go. I almost thought we had some kind of an understanding on what it means to have a sandbox, choices and player agency.

But no, we're back to you telling me how I ought to enjoy my game, that the way I play is obviously wrong, so I deserve to be punished. No mercy, no sympathy, the game should target the player if they do too well. About time someone came in and destroyed my stuff, I did too well anyway. Because that is fun for everyone, that will make the game so much better.

"Oh, look, spawned enemies destroy my stuff. How fun!" Yeah, no.

Well, I don't think a sandbox, choice, and agency is real unless it matters.

How do we make something in a game truly matter? The way I see it, the game world ought to react to it like it does.

So you can swear up and down that you're a champion of sandbox choice and agency, but all I see is a guy who thinks a massive death fleet is okay as a mere decoration.

Do I want to force you to play another way? No, but maybe we need an analog to Minecraft's Creative Mode for you, because clearly you're not here to play something where choices matter.

It was a choice. 500M credit death fleets aren't accidental.

[GCU Grey Area]

When I play X4, it's certainly not because I want an existential crisis subverting my perception of reality, sending me on a strange trip to discover my hidden true self. Or because I secretly craved action and destruction in my 2k hrs save. No, I play it for the economy, because I like building stations, trading, logistics. It's soothing, it's relaxing, with beautiful music. I can look out of the window and see ships come and go. I rarely participate in fights, they're probably the thing I do the least in the game. You want another tidbit about me? I'm well over 3k hrs with this game alone, and I don't use SETA. Ever. I even pause the game when I go to the bathroom. That's how I play, it's relaxing when things tick by slowly, when stuff moves. What I built up is the result not of speeding up the game and letting it run through the night, but of deliberately giving orders, planning everything, and watching it unfold in realtime, before my very eyes. For thousands of hours. Stations with hundreds of modules take days, so I'm naturally attached to the things I create.

I play the game in a similar manner, albeit with a bit more of the Fight aspect. In that regard I generally play the role of a private military contractor who does work for one or more of the major factions (i.e. war guild missions). For that I do need fairly significant military assets (typically 1 demolition fleet & a couple of somewhat smaller blockade fleets for crowd control). It's something to pass the time while my excessively large & overly elaborate stations are built in the background.

Problem is I have no way to know how close I am to the threshold for triggering the crisis (which I'd really prefer to avoid, just doesn't sound like my sort of thing). Means I'm now worrying if I buy replacement ships to make up for losses will that trigger the crisis? Currently getting close to finishing the Scale Plate Green terraforming mission, will the reward for that trigger it? If I take a fleet build mission, will that cross the threshold for the few minutes I own that fleet? & so on.

Really could do with a bit more info on this because the one thing I can't do near those excessively large stations is fight a battle, the frame rate's nowhere near good enough.