Elite: Dangerous Discussion

[EPICTHEFAIL]

I’m not holding my breath. But go on. Tell me how “wrong and incoherent” my factual statements are again.

Just as soon as you become able to distinguish between facts (objective truth) and opinions. And seeing as you have for the past four years seen “I don’t like this game” as a perfectly valid reason to libel its developers, I highly doubt that’s possible. Not to mention you decided to misrepresent the contents of a post a mere five spaces above yours, which frankly amazes me.

But okay, I’ll bite, since I’m waiting for a call and have nothing better to do: ignoring for a moment that the games only partially converge in stated and accomplished design goals (NMS aiming more for the Ark-Minecraft style of gameplay with a space sim overlay, as opposed to Elite’s classical space sim design), I find arguing against Elite on the basis of “RNG grind” (the former of which, by the way, is getting carpet bombed by the Q4 patch) and praising NMS by, presumably, the same metric, more than a bit ludicrous when NMS has not only become infamous for its random grind, but has in fact doubled down on it through the addition of two separate mini-management games, both of which are directly patterned on Facebook games (and the worse parts of AssCreed, back when they still did that crap - the fleets are basically a Ctrl-C Ctrl-V of Black Flag’s little Farmville-in-a-game).

Arguing that NMS is “more complete” is… completely pointless, since both games are MMOs. By definition, they will never be complete as MMOs are defined by, among other things, a continuous feature creep throughout their life cycle, due to their dependence on player retention, which in turn requires constant updating. But I suppose it has fulfilled almost all of Sean Murray’s promises, and in the process wandered off in a direction entirely opposite to the one I’d have liked to have seen it taken (i.e. a game focused on exploration, as opposed to survival-crafting). I personally don’t like this direction one bit, but if you do, more power to you.

As to whether you find it more fun and enjoyable. That’s up to you. It’s a personal opinion, which means the only way you can describe it as a “fact” is either by encapsulating it in a statement about yourself - “I think NMS is more fun” is a fact, the sub-clause “NMS is more fun” is not - or by not having a very good grasp on epistemology.

[TheDreamlord]

the former of which, by the way, is getting carpet bombed by the Q4 patch

What changes are the making to the RNGing??

[EPICTHEFAIL]

What changes are the making to the RNGing??

Basically, random PoIs and USS are being phased out in favour of a mostly or even purely deterministic system (yes, yes, I know technically all RNGs are ultimately deterministic, but you know what I mean). The new exploration mechanics are introducing surface and ring scanning probes and an as yet not detailed in-space scanning mechanic of some kind (possibly related to the analysis mode introduced in the mining design doc) to detect both the new exploration content and older content adapted for the new system. I don’t know if random USS are being entirely removed right away when Q4 drops, but FD have stated they are looking to replace them as part of the exploration changes. We don’t yet have a design doc for the new exploration - what we do know was gleaned from livestreams relating to the mining FF and information given at Lavecon - but we do know these are at the very least going to be implemented for missions and the new in-space phenomena, and from there it really isn’t all that great of a leap to apply them to all USS. Also, it seems likely the exploration probes will be providing more detailed information on material availability on planet surfaces, making it a lot easier to find stuff.

It doesn’t entirely eliminate the grind, no (and really, if you’re expecting it to be removed after all these years, you must be horribly naive), but I expect mitigating or entirely removing the RNG part to make finding materials a lot less frustrating. Not to mention making star systems actually matter in gameplay terms, rather than just being a matter of essentially picking a preferred skybox for your content to spawn in. I nearly punched a cat cheering when I heard FD were going to do this, that’s how happy I was to hear it.

[Wednesday]

I often ponder how you could make a genuinely good exploration game.

I keep coming back to something a bit like FTL, with branching narratives, ala Stellaris, alongside the procedural nature of Elite. Gameplay would effectively have to be resource management. How many probes are you going to expend on this promising moon, when there might be an ever elusive habitable planet in the next system? How far out are you taking your ship, how much will you risk? I’d want some crew management, preferably with CKII style traits and personalities.

I my head this game is bloody brilliant, but I have to wonder how hard it would be to make it actually playable?

[EPICTHEFAIL]

Well there is the Fig campaign for Starflight 3, so… maybe that? The older Starflights had quite a lot of that IIRC.

[Shadoko]

I often ponder how you could make a genuinely good exploration game.

Well, by having interesting stuff to discover in the first place.
I mean yeah it’s stupid but I’ve very seldom encountered space sims, or games at large, with the universe/worldbuilding required to make discovering stuff actually thrilling and enjoyable, without having to use ruins/derelicts/faraway planets as a simple background for the next enemy encounter.

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

Arguing that NMS is “more complete” is… completely pointless, since both games are MMOs.

Neither game is an MMO in any real sense of the word. NMS is particularly not an MMO since you can run the game -offline- and save your state independently of any world server. ED is only an MMO in the loosest, expansively extended version of the term (in the same way “racist” can be applied to people if you use the American version to cover all white people), NMS offers persistence but it’s not true online persistence as most people would recognise it (since you can opt out of it), and ED doesn’t offer any persistence beyond the laughably terrible BGS which is an excel spreadsheet with bits to flip.

more than a bit ludicrous when NMS has not only become infamous for its random grind, but has in fact doubled down on it through the addition of two separate mini-management games

Except with the complete overhaul, the grind is now entirely deprecated (go go large refiners) and the material “tree” is much more easily understood. Even the grind for money is massively shortened since the moment you can pump out circuit boards you just need a half decent hydroponics setup and you can turn over 10m a day without significant effort.

But I suppose it has fulfilled almost all of Sean Murray’s promises, and in the process wandered off in a direction entirely opposite to the one I’d have liked to have seen it taken (i.e. a game focused on exploration, as opposed to survival-crafting). I personally don’t like this direction one bit, but if you do, more power to you.

Clearly you’ve not worked with the new freighter mechanics which allow you to set up shop in space

Yeah, the new features look nice (second Farmville base-building activity in a row aside), but at this point we’re maybe 6 months away from Elite’s own giant salvage patch which, even going off of the limited number of features announced right now, is fixing most of the things that made Elite’s exploration and open-world gameplay (y’know, 90 per cent of the game) terribly unpleasant.

Beyond as a whole has been the salvage patch and you know what? It really hasn’t done a great deal aside from polish the turd at this stage. Elite has been tinkering at the edges when it really needs a root and branch overhaul of just about everything except the flight model. Starting with the netcode and finishing with the BGS.

That’s before I even touch upon the mess of Powerplay (still a mess) and Engineers (still a mess, and a necessary one to boot).

[Matt_W]

I often ponder how you could make a genuinely good exploration game.

You just have to make Subnautica.

[Wednesday]

You just have to make Subnautica.

In space!!!

Yes, Subnatuica is just The Best Thing, but that hand crafted approach wouldn’t really work on a million million stars.

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

Yes, Subnatuica is just The Best Thing, but that hand crafted approach wouldn’t really work on a million million stars.

99.9999- (recurring) … will never be visited or even touched upon.

I’d rather have 10,000 systems that are interesting and worth visiting than 300 million jumps with most of them being proc gen random nonsense that I scan, then jump again, scan, jump. I can’t even LAND on things to break up the boredom, at least NMS gives me that option (ironically this is one of the few things NMS misses - gas giants and planets you can’t directly land on).

[Chaz]

I can’t even LAND on things to break up the boredom, at least NMS gives me that option

Presumably you are one of the few remaining ED players that doesn’t have Horizons then?

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

Barren rocks do not count.

Get back to me when we have something approximating some kind of atmo.

[Blackcompany]

So yesterday, Brett at FDEV finally let the cat out of the bag. Page 39 of this (now locked, of course) discussion on their own forum:

Game's future

Brett basically admitted that the tech cannot handle the promises they made. He tries to backpedal later in the thread, to blame consumer tech, specifically GPU’s, for their not being able to deliver. But basically, Frontier have stated that promised mechanics “are probably still planned…especially once tech can handle it.”

Translation: We made a bunch of promises on which we knew we couldnt deliver…but hey, dont blame us. Its your PC’s and consoles that are too weak to play the game we promised." So here, have some RNG grind instead, I guess.

God this game is like a living model for squandered potential.

[Chaz]

If so, I believe we still intend to have such features in the future. Especially when technology can properly handle such content.

So basically all he is saying, is yes they’re still intended features, but first they’ve got to do the development work to support them. I don’t see what is wrong with that. The current engine is not a fixed unimprovable thing. Note the planetary tech updates coming out in the Q4 update for instance, where they are “improving” upon the current tech. As for peoples PC’s not being up to it right now, quite probably true for some of it, like landable living atmospheric planets with mega cities and flora and fauna etc etc. Remember they have to support a wide range of hardware and VR as well.

As for the thread being locked, it was because about 3 posters ended up turning the thread into a shit slinging match for the last 3 pages or so. No great conspiracy there. People bitch about the game all the time in various different threads, nothing new there. You’re usually one of them, despite the fact you supposedly don’t play it any more. Your favourite game you love to hate huh?

BTW, Brett C is just a community manager, not one of the devs per se.

As for this recent update announcement. Yeah it is pretty disappointing, but to be honest not unexpected given the near total lack of any prior info about it. I think most folks knew this one was just going to be more Thargoid stuff. The new SLF’s look cool, but yet another Chieftain/Challenger variant, a lot less so. New surface wing missions, I’ll be amazed if they’re anything different form the usual templates, and I’m full expecting wing missions to shoot skimmers, but I hope I’m proved wrong.

Anyway, I’m currently about to wing up with someone and go off and do the Ram Tah missions and get some Guardians stuff to go shoot Goids with.

[Blackcompany]

So, just to clarify: You’re ok with the fact that Frontier made promises they could not deliver, based on tech they knew they didnt have. That we are four years into this shitshow, and they are now talking about the POSSIBILITY of being able to develop their promised mechanics ONE DAY…at some vague, indeterminate future point.

I ask, because that makes Elite every bit the scam Star Citizen is. Every bit. Which, frankly, I had begun to suspect was the case earlier this year. I mean, the Dinosaur CEO and his sock wearing sidekick had already proven incapable of delivering a modern game in any aspect save visuals. That they cannot do depth and meaningful player agency has already been proven. So its no surprise to see them looking to excuse their own ineptitude at this point, to be honest.

[Chaz]

What makes you think they can’t deliver? Where have they said “we can’t do this”? When I bought ED I was always aware that it was a long term project and the roadmap/feature list has never been “promised”. It’s always been, this is what you get now, and in the future we’ll see how it goes.

I’m pretty sure they could develop whatever they want right now. The main problem is doing something that will be up to the quality of what is expected, ie looks good and performs well. Just take SC and NMS for instance. They both look great in screen shots, but the performance of both is still terrible. The pop in of all the plants and trees etc when you’re flying around planets in NMS is still utterly atrocious.

One thing I do have a beef with is the LEP (Lifetime Expansion pass). Since that was sold for the second time during the Horizons release, there has been no premium/exclusive content and there is still no word about it or if any exists or is even being planned. Fortunately I bought mine during beta when it was £35 and I got Horizons as part of that. Those that paid £135 for it on top of buying Horizons, must be feeling they better had start getting a return for that money soon. From what I’ve read though, Frontier have no intention of announcing anything else until the Beyond updates are done. If the next updates after that aren’t another major addition like Horizons, then I think there’ll be trouble brewing for sure.

[Blackcompany]

What makes me think they cant deliver? Oh, I dont know. Maybe…the four years in which THEY HAVE NOT EVEN TRIED. I mean, seriously…if they were going to deliver the mechanics they actually promised, as opposed to the simplistic, time sink garbage they have focused on, I think they would have done so by now.

Unless, of course, their tech was incapable of doing so. In which case, they outright lied to their backers. And early buyers. And have lied ever since, seeing as how every time someone asks, its always, “Those are things we are interested in doing.” Never mind that they CANT do them. That doesnt seem to matter.

And the LEP owners? Yeah, they got scammed. Or at least, its looking that way so far. I mean, a YEAR+ with no premium content? The pace of development is its own special little joke, at this point.

[riesje]

Frankly I was suprised this kind of snafu from a community manager, he should know better, or maybe it was deliberate. In any way I think it can be two things, either he’s completely out of the loop and just posted what jumped into his mind to ease the pressure to the devs.

Or he is in the loop, and to be honest it would make sense if this is the case, and would explain the big gap between real (paid) expansions (Horizons will be 3 years old this november). Remember when Horizons launched it bumped up the hardware requirements considerably, they prolly looked at that and though lets wait before we attempt more complex planets (atmo, gas giants, ect) and so introduced seasonal DLC, where they pushed the next slew of planets to land at least a year later.

I dont mind though, I still enjoy the game for what it is. But it would do FDEV well if they just be transparant about this. Honestly the people still playing the game wouldnt mind if they just said “Look we know we promised these planets, but currently the hardware bump would be too great to introduce it now” instead of the beating around the bush what they are doing now.

[Chaz]

Yeah it would be nice to have some transparency, as you say, and some updates of what they’re working on or, have in the pipeline. Their general excuse for not doing this is that, if they say they’re working on XYZ and then decide that it’s not a good feature or then change it considerably, or say that this is the roadmap but then decide that actually Y feature needs developing before X, that folks will get pee’d and call them liars etc. I can kind of understand that, as they want to see how new features fit in and change things before moving onto the next thing, but at the same time they’re just far too secretive about what info they do give out.

The way they dish out their info is odd though and I don’t get why they’re so guarded about it. I mean we’ve had quite a bit of info about the Q4 update and new mechanics planetary tech updates etc, and yet we knew almost nothing about the Q3 update right until the last few days before its release, and I just don’t get the reasoning for that. Why not tell us about the Q3 update in advance? I expect it’s probably got more to do with their internal organisation and office politics than any kind of great desire to keep things hushed and secret.

[Chaz]

Well, they’ve actually taken the unusual step (unusual for them) of posting an update re the discussions over the life time expansion pass content and what not.

Important Community Update!

So basically, after the Beyond update they’ll be working on the next big major paid update since Horizons, but in typical style they’re not saying what that is. Since the Beyond update was supposed to be focused on adding more base content to the game, the big Q4 patch has been refocused a bit and now won’t include the lovely looking ice planet upgrade, which is a real shame, nor the squadron carriers. Apparently they’re being “reprioritised” out of the Beyond update to some time later, who knows when, presumably to make way for more gameplay mechanics.

So basically it’s a “don’t worry, we’re working on a big paid update” type post to assuage any fears or dissatisfaction, but with the caveat of “we’re still not prepared to talk about it yet”.