[Poll]Should Existential Crisis be optional?

[flywlyx]

In case anyone isn't aware, there's a crisis feedback topic in the beta forum : viewtopic.php?f=192&t=460709

[Falcrack]

I'm not a big fan of the need to take any action to avoid the crisis starting. Not even pay 1 credit. Why? Because sometimes I leave the game running when I am not around. I don't want the crisis to initiate just because I missed a message. I want to be fully aware and pick the time when it initiates. Requiring player action to prevent the crisis means that now I have to watch the game like a hawk to make sure I do not miss that crisis message.

Plus, what if I pay to stop the crisis because I don't want to deal with it at that time, but I do want to deal with it later? Will paying to stop the crisis lock me out of being able to experience it at some later point when I do want it? This is another critical reason why the crisis should be 100% initiated by the player.

To be clear, I am in favor of having an existential crisis option. I just want to be the one who decides when or if it begins.

[alt3rn1ty]

My preference is the first option. Something Boso mentions in dialogue as an "I think I have something interesting, maybe an exciting opportunity, I'm seeing an unusual build up of Xenon in Witch space, and there seems to be conflict with the Kha'ak, should I investigate" (nutcase) you can disagree to even starting.
I'm ok with the second payment option .. so long as its just a one time payment, and does not repeat.

(I haven't experienced it yet personally, so I dont know how the dialogue goes in the beta yet).

[Falcrack]

My preference is the first first option. Something Boso mentions in dialogue as an "exciting opportunity" (nutcase) you can disagree to even starting.
I'm ok with the second payment option .. so long as its just a one time payment, and does not repeat.

But if it you pay to put it off and it does not repeat, then you are locked out of the option for the crisis forever? I don't like the sound of that. What if I want to delay it, but only until I have had time to prepare and/or have the desire to experience it?

[alt3rn1ty]

My preference is the first first option. Something Boso mentions in dialogue as an "exciting opportunity" (nutcase) you can disagree to even starting.
I'm ok with the second payment option .. so long as its just a one time payment, and does not repeat.

But if it you pay to put it off and it does not repeat, then you are locked out of the option for the crisis forever? I don't like the sound of that. What if I want to delay it, but only until I have had time to prepare and/or have the desire to experience it?

So Egosoft give another option to delay for now, aswell as the option to delay permanently.
My work here is done, I think that solves everyones bones of contention.

I dont even know if its Boso that is the NPC concerned at this stage, if it is Boso giving us the options, then the first option in this poll would be a bit weird in that I do wish to visit and talk to Boso occasionally (if only for Jumping the PHQ to new Terraforming sectors), so "if the player doesn't interact with the NPC" would be a bit bad.

[GCU Grey Area]

Should perhaps be treated as an extension that can be turned on/off in settings?

[alt3rn1ty]

GCU, now there's a damned fine idea.
Edit : And off by default.

I have wondered if what we have in the 7 Betas' is not going to go live when 7 goes public, and is just an early trial example of what it could be eventually (similar to Ventures which we have been waiting years for the final version to appear publicly).
The reason I think this is because Egosoft staff have said the crisis will be "optional", which in its current form does not meet everyones idea of optional. But maybe also it's a typical super logical definition of optional as thought by the developing programmers, but not so obvious to the normal average emotional, less than perfect logical thinking, player. I experience this occasionally with wording and options in the game, sometimes things need to be explained to me before I get the logic of it ( and then a year later because I'm old I forget what the explanation was and I am back to scratching my head over it .. Recently Terraforming and the global warming event of temperature causing climate change, and the obvious project to reduce temperature, which is coloured orange, is not the solution, but reducing methane when the bar is coloured green, is the solution. Gets me every time because the colouration of the bars leads me off the scent as I am used to being tuned to an internationally accepted colouring scheme being a good indicator of what needs to be addressed ).

[chew-ie]

That was quick - yet another "make it optional" for CBJ

[CBJ]

Hey, I voted yes for this one.

[alt3rn1ty]

Hey, I voted yes for this one.

.. "one of us!"

[geldonyetich]

Asking a playerbase if they should be allowed to do whatever they want is shooting fish in a barrel. A time-tested formula to win popular sentiment, to be sure.

Although, in many cases in gaming history, it's been established that the majority of players overestimate their understanding of what they want, and end up ruining the game when they get it.

So you might think I voted, "No," or, "Partial yes."

Nah, I voted not bothered either way. I would prefer not to pressure the developers into making the wrong decisions, whatever it may be. This is their game, they should do what they feel is best for its lasting appeal.

[Koizuki]

I'm not participating in the Beta, but I have been reading the various threads around here and on the Beta subforum to see how things are shaking out.

I was under the impression that this sort of "forced start" was a beta feature because they needed feedback on the mechanics of it once it gets underway, and that it'd be changed to be like other plots when testing concludes and it gets prepped for release.
Having said that, I understand that it also might actually just ship as-is, so I will also vote for it to be "optional, activate-able at the player's discretion" without being extorted for 500 million each in-game day. As it currently stands, it appears to be both unpopular sidestepping that player agency, as well as not particularly "crisis" inducing because of how the Xenon appear to be relatively weakened in general in 7.0, amounting to a mere "existential annoyance" for play testers.

There should be relatively simple ways of fixing this within the bounds of the existing game format. I recall reading some others' suggestions, and I'll quickly summarize (if any devs wish to take it into consideration) a few of them that I feel works well within the current framework:

1) Xenon should be given a new, heavily fortified cluster (can repurpose the Pirate Alley sectors if necessary; By fortified, I mean multiple Wharves/Shipyards, several Defense Stations right at the gate to make even player assets suffer losses when attempting to enter without a fleet large enough for a "Final showdown")
2) These should be behind de-activated gates
3) Crisis plot should start via Boso at PHQ, similar to the Boron plot, activating and investigating these gates
4) "Oopsie" they've unleashed a torrent of new Xenon upon the galaxy; Xenon should not simply spawn out of thin air, but instead pour through those gates in greater numbers, thus affecting not just the player, but the galaxy as a whole
4a) Can implement the "pay 500 million here" for Boso to temporarily buy stuff from the factions to delay these gates once the player triggers the activation step (in case they stumbled into it accidentally.)

Optionally, can be made to be after the Heart for Pirates quest, simulating a "Xenon returning with a vengeance after losing the Tharka's sectors" but this may be problematic since there is a route where this quest cannot trigger.

In addition to that, the Xenon need to be made slightly stronger again. The PE/SE need their second shield generators back, and Xenon Jobs as a whole need to be increased during this crisis. The new cluster can be a different branch of Xenon with more jobs allocated if there exists a wish to keep the original Xenon sectors roughly as-is, but I think they could do with some more now anyway since the Commonwealth factions now are better at defending against them.

Either way, I believe all these should be doable using existing functions in the game, and gives the player finer control over the crisis, as well as creates a feeling of an actual crisis to the entire galaxy (due to sheer, continuous numbers, like early-game Hatikvah's Choice -- the only time the Xenon felt like a legitimate threat.)

[Arisaya]

I wish this was truly opt in (so, the 'yes' option) - no fees for opting out, basically like all the other dal busta missions which let the player opt-in to make big sweeping changes to the game world.

also...

I wish this had some real strategic and tactical counterplay that wasn't just goofy cheesy exploits to completely avoid it (as much as spawning it on top of VIG's sectors was the singular fun part of the crisis)
I wish this was a real crisis instead of just getting in a bunch of annoying but ultimately meaningless cheap shots via spawning stuff behind the lines and plopping mini-asgards (ravagers) on top of stations - again, no counterplay to that besides cheesing the spawning system entirely
I wish this was more paced, and required a massive economic and military ramp-up by the player and/or helping the npc faction economies (maybe have an initial phase suggesting the player build up, and the NPC factions offering large fleet building missions), and wasn't a constant micro-intensive marathon when you do play it "as intended"
I wish this had a reward at the end of it that was more than just cpu ship cameo (ex, being able to capture the cpu ship and manufacture some xenon ships)
I wish it was actually about a big war with the xenon, rather than the xenon being a side-show and a cameo at the end
I wish the ravager had some kind of non-cheap-shot (ie, not just spawning in directly on top of something in weapons range so it can evaporate the target before you can do anything) mechanic outside of this, such as occasionally kha'ak installations spawning one (..or more) with a large fleet and sending it on its slow way towards a sector in the installation's coverage radius if there is way too much mining activity in that sector.
I still think it needs a complete rework to be able to accomplish those things

[flywlyx]

Although, in many cases in gaming history, it's been established that the majority of players overestimate their understanding of what they want, and end up ruining the game when they get it.

I've never come across this concept. Can you provide an example? From what I know, game developers who aim to meet players' expectations have a better chance to achieve outstanding sales numbers.
Developers often overestimate their grasp of the player base. Egosoft has faced multiple failures in this regard, and I hope they have learned valuable lessons from these experiences.

[xant]

Well, I think I have made my point for a truly optional option sufficiently clear in other threads.

But I'll gladly say it here again: yes to truly optional. Optional as in you have to click a button to start the event.

[geldonyetich]

I've never come across this concept. Can you provide an example?

Oh, you're asking me to point out things that I have seen subjectively, so I'm doomed from the start if you want to argue it's cherry picking.

But here is some cursory googles for you that point out part of the issue as I see it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments ... y_feedback

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_g ... _criticism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

https://www.mula.me/post/the-evolution- ... en-content

[Actually that last link doesn't say what I wamt it to say, which is that creator driven content is generally better, but I am at work and don't have time to find one, so have a link about death of the author instead.]

[flywlyx]

Oh, you're asking me to point out things that I have seen subjectively, so I'm doomed from the start if you want to argue it's cherry picking.

But here is some cursory googles for you that point out part of the issue as I see it:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments ... y_feedback

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_g ... _criticism

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author

https://www.mula.me/post/the-evolution- ... en-content

[Actually that last link doesn't say what I wamt it to say, which is that creator driven content is generally better, but I am at work and don't have time to find one, so have a link about death of the author instead.]

You can easily discern from all the referenced titles you've linked that they lead to the same conclusion: if an author wants their product to be well-received by most people, they not only need to listen to what people like but also adapt based on real-time feedback from multiple sources.

[GCU Grey Area]

I wish this had some real strategic and tactical counterplay that wasn't just goofy cheesy exploits to completely avoid it (as much as spawning it on top of VIG's sectors was the singular fun part of the crisis)
I wish this was a real crisis instead of just getting in a bunch of annoying but ultimately meaningless cheap shots via spawning stuff behind the lines and plopping mini-asgards (ravagers) on top of stations - again, no counterplay to that besides cheesing the spawning system entirely
I wish this was more paced, and required a massive economic and military ramp-up by the player and/or helping the npc faction economies (maybe have an initial phase suggesting the player build up, and the NPC factions offering large fleet building missions), and wasn't a constant micro-intensive marathon when you do play it "as intended"
I wish this had a reward at the end of it that was more than just cpu ship cameo (ex, being able to capture the cpu ship and manufacture some xenon ships)
I wish it was actually about a big war with the xenon, rather than the xenon being a side-show and a cameo at the end
I wish the ravager had some kind of non-cheap-shot (ie, not just spawning in directly on top of something in weapons range so it can evaporate the target before you can do anything) mechanic outside of this, such as occasionally kha'ak installations spawning one (..or more) with a large fleet and sending it on its slow way towards a sector in the installation's coverage radius if there is way too much mining activity in that sector.
I still think it needs a complete rework to be able to accomplish those things

Agree with this. The current crisis as I understand it (have not yet experienced it personally) is simply not appropriate for the way I play. I build things like this & trying to fight a battle against enemies spawning anywhere within sight of it simply wouldn't be viable (5-10fps at best). That happened in a few missions during the Venture beta, was invariably a horrible experience & it's only got bigger since then.

Instead would much rather the existential crisis was one which threatened the entire universe. Massive reinforcement waves delivered into Xenon sectors from which they remorselessly expand, on a sufficient scale that no NPC faction can survive without significant help from the player. Perhaps the X3 Hub could be used as a delivery system for all those new Xenon forces; created in an otherwise unconnected cluster of resource rich sectors & sent to a different set of Xenon sectors every couple of hours (i.e. Hub cooldown timer). That way the player would never know which direction the next batch of Xenon are coming from. Rewards for finishing the the crisis by defeating the Xenon would therefore be control of the Hub & a bunch of new resource rich sectors.

As for the Ravagers, a little disappointed that (as far as I can tell) these only appear during the crisis. Seems a waste. Would much prefer it if they were a rare spawn during normal gameplay, much as Kha'ak capitals were in the old games.

[geldonyetich]

You can easily discern from all the referenced titles you've linked that they lead to the same conclusion: if an author wants their product to be well-received by most people, they not only need to listen to what people like but also adapt based on real-time feedback from multiple sources.

I like how you asked for links, ignored them, and pretended they supported your original set of beliefs.

That's not how this whole, "critical thinking," paradigm is supposed to work you know?

[flywlyx]

I like how you asked for links, ignored them, and pretended they supported your original set of beliefs.

That's not how this whole, "critical thinking," paradigm is supposed to work you know?

I like how you google search something, copy the link, and don't even read the content.

in: https://www.reddit.com/r/Games/comments ... _feedback/
Multiple players talking about Devs make some mistakes by listening to some players and later fix these mistakes by listening to the new feedback.

in: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_g ... _criticism
The whole topic is about how to avoid data collection influenced by the limitation of focus group.

in https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_of_the_Author
The main point is avoiding "a single, corresponding interpretation to it".

And since you don't even want to mention the last link, I guess we don't need to discuss that.