Copy what works from the competition.
- Thread starter MUTILADOR
- Start date
- Status
readers know what we mean by "the same kind of space games"
poor arguments do not change reality.
If you want to divert the topic of the post, it's up to you.
Greetings
O7
Starfield is a quest-driven RPG. with fast travel replacing space flight with very weak exploration and janky combat, allegedly.
ED is more a flight-sim with some extras (DLC).
"Flight sim" and "RPG" are genres and are completely different.
Hope that helps.
The truth about that game won't be kmown for a while.
Fan boys on both sides are muddying the waters somewhat.
Best to let the dust settle and discuss it in the off-topic thread..
ED is more a flight-sim with some extras (DLC).
"Flight sim" and "RPG" are genres and are completely different.
Hope that helps.
The truth about that game won't be kmown for a while.
Fan boys on both sides are muddying the waters somewhat.
Best to let the dust settle and discuss it in the off-topic thread..
I'm curious to know exactly what aspects of the Starfield ship creation would fill what gap in ED.
Ship interiors ain't happening any time soon, if at all, so with that excluded what would be gained? Flexibility and different build designs wouldn't be it. Certainly not if I can find 7 different ways of building just an FdL for example.
Ship interiors ain't happening any time soon, if at all, so with that excluded what would be gained? Flexibility and different build designs wouldn't be it. Certainly not if I can find 7 different ways of building just an FdL for example.
are you equating ship kits to starfield's ship designer ? I mean, if ship kits allowed for that extensive of a change (and it actually mattered for the physics hit boxes and collision models) then you would have a point.
Otherwise the idea of changing identical or teeny tiny modules that dont change the look and personality of a ship is not the point i think being made here.
ie. my miner T10 looks exactly the same as my hauler t10 and exactly the same as my murder-t10. I could throw different ship kits on them but they're tiny little tweaks that you'd have to be right on top of to even seen ...and they aren't real as far as the game is concerned when it comes to collision models / etc. A modular ship designer could make those look very different. Could make them behave differently. Could provide a better mechanism for creating unique "characters" to play.
Maybe a better question is why wouldn't we want a ship builder if we could get one?
Last edited:
So you could turn an Eagle into a passenger liner? I wonder if people go to the Star Wars Squadrons forum asking if they can put shields and bombing capabilities on a standard TIE fighter.
Would it be nice though, sure, but let's not think that every new feature from new games are going to work if plagiarised into 10 year old ones. There's got to be a reason that 60 FPS in Starfield is an aspiration not an expectation as it is in ED.
Not sure what you are imagining here. A ship builder wouldn't have eagles being turned into anacondas. It would literally create new unique ships, not repurpose existing designs. In fact, the current game's magic modules in elite dangerous is closer to that fear of yours than what a ship builder would do.
Elite's ship balance is in the poor state that it is in because it lets you take a ship originally balanced for say, cargo hauling, and turn it into a combat ship. Take a combat ship and change it so it's more than capable at being an explorer or cargo hauler. A ship builder could make that need to have different roles and variations within those roles be balanced to the choices of the modules used better than elites' current method of variation. The modules would dictate hardpoint placement, mass, thruster behavior, etc... and thus balance would be easier to maintain while providing customization and variability.
Elite's been around for 8 or so years now. In that time it's taken some swings and huge misses. Fdev doesn't have a problem incorporating game mechanics from other games. Or maybe you can show where fps foot gameplay was a traditional part of elite and not something hundreds of other games did first that they didn't just copy in the mechanics from. Nothing about a ship builder is contrary to the lore within elite dangerous. Ships are mass produced effectively by vending machines at stations (not specialized shipyards or anything). Modularization and fabrication ala a ship builder fits right in. Your example doesn't really reflect the feature as you're trying to portray it.
And it could be that there's just no technical way to combine performance with such variability in ships. But that's not a given and so hardly a good reason to think it wouldn't be a good fit in elite dangerous. A better fit than magic modules that can obliterate ship balance. NMS has modular ships and high performance. Zelda can do modular vehicles on switch level hardware pretty well. I'm sure there is a good reason starfield has a 60fps goal...and since most of it is played on foot, i doubt it has to do with the ships.
And to throw additional crap into the mix the modern definition of "RPG" is so loose it doesn't conform to my definition of RPG.
poor arguments do not change reality.
The reality is ED and Starfield are not the same kind of space games.
ED is a career based space sim sandbox with asynchronous and direct multiplayer while SF is a single player space themed story driven RPG (more specific a Bethesda RPG)
In other words, SF is not a space game, is a space themed game - space playing little to no role in the game, it's mostly a gimmick.
So, as a result, whatever they do to ships in SF is and should be treated like Housing in Skyrim and not like ship building.
the graphics aren't what makes modular ships impact performance in ways that singular ship models dont. it's the physics and mesh models along with other design complications of how its communicated over network.
I have not played Starfield yet. Honestly not sure I will. Game looks interesting, but I am not sold on it yet.
Starfield is an RPG, that is single player. I do like the on foot mining, combat and exploration. ED does not do all of that.
ED has FC interiors to walk around. SF does not have a FC like ship that I saw yet anyway. So the jury is still out on that.
ED ship interiors... I am not interested unless there is gameplay associated with them. EVA from our ships would be great, cmon Fdev give us EVA abilities.
ED has two surface SRV's, SF has ZERO. Kinda surprised they did not do that. Same for no circumnavigation on a moon or planets surface.
ED has a way better flight model and ship combat in my opinion. SF has ship building and I think base building but I have not seen alot of that yet.
Two very different games. For now I plan to keep playing ED and keep an eye on SF. I want to see some SF optimization patches, as the look of the textures for the performance you get seems out of balance. And for alot more people to get through the campaign and into the 'end game' and see what the possibilities are
Starfield is an RPG, that is single player. I do like the on foot mining, combat and exploration. ED does not do all of that.
ED has FC interiors to walk around. SF does not have a FC like ship that I saw yet anyway. So the jury is still out on that.
ED ship interiors... I am not interested unless there is gameplay associated with them. EVA from our ships would be great, cmon Fdev give us EVA abilities.
ED has two surface SRV's, SF has ZERO. Kinda surprised they did not do that. Same for no circumnavigation on a moon or planets surface.
ED has a way better flight model and ship combat in my opinion. SF has ship building and I think base building but I have not seen alot of that yet.
Two very different games. For now I plan to keep playing ED and keep an eye on SF. I want to see some SF optimization patches, as the look of the textures for the performance you get seems out of balance. And for alot more people to get through the campaign and into the 'end game' and see what the possibilities are
From my perspective: Because Elite strives for a certain... realism, if you will. We don't get a ship builder because, in real life (pardon the beaten to death car analogy), you don't assemble your car from module parts, you buy a car from a manufacturer, any maybe you strap a body kit to it or change out a few parts to improve performance. You don't break it down to the very bolt and re-assemble it into something completely different. Well most people don't.
That's what we do in Elite. The ship builder in Starfield is a nice toy, it is fun. You can strip down your ship down to it's last bulkhead and replace everything so nothing is left of the original ship. It's a typical single player hero fantasy. And probably a nightmare to do properly in a multiplayer game.
Also, this being a ship interiors thread in disguise - Don't forget: The interiors of the SF ships are basically dynamically built game levels originating from the settlement build system of Fallout 4. When you are in the interior of your ship, it never moves, it is a static object.
I wish these "but.. but... Starfield!" threads would die down. Everyone who actually plays Starfield should know that the only thing it and Elite have in common is... space. Apart from that: Two completely different games. Both very good games, but with very different focus and core gameplay. I am enjoying both for very different reasons.
Is that a "fact"?
Opinion, surely?
I play EDO
I won't be buying Starfield, it is a RPG and I'm about RPG'd out after many years of playing them...
I pledged to SC years ago, it went the way of the dodo for me...
I bought NMS at the same time as ED, don't play it... (more of a resource gathering game IMO)
I have the X series, don't play it as it is just a management game.
So, over 6 years of playing ED/O and nothing has attracted me away from playing - odd, isn't it?
So not a fact. Games like Starfield and Elite don't remotely cater to the same audience. And those who are attracted by the mere label of "space game" are usually those who want to transform Elite into Starfield, or vice versa, or wish every other "space game" to be like every other "space game".
Starfield and Elite are completely different games. The former caters to people who either have a history with BGS through the Elder Scrolls and Fallout series, or like action RPGs in general no matter the setting. It certainly doesn't attract people who like to play flightsim'ish games. Being set in space doesn't make it the same type of space game as Elite. Yes, you can "fly" and build spaceships. Yes, you can visit distant star systems. But that is just the setting. The core of Starfield (stay with me) is the single player storylines in a single player action RPG centered around your player character. You don't really fly your ship anywhere, flight mechanics are borderline non-existent, and you travel everywhere via point and click, not plot and fly. There are no proper orbital mechanics as far as I know. And guess what? People who expected "Skyrim in space" are happy they got exactly that.
Elite's core identity is flying spaceships in a simulation of the milky way based on real-world physics, including orbital mechanics as well as a simulation of the population and its economy. You're a nobody in a galaxy full of nobodies, you don't get a hero storyline (or multiple ones), you're just a cog amongst other cogs. And that is fine, too.
Last edited:
elite doesn't have ship yards building ships for manufacturers. for all intents and purposes, ships are manufactured on site from pieces similar to how slf's are but at a larger facility.
that sounds exactly like a ship builder. the only difference is that it only allows specific recipes to be used. your 'in real life' ignores that elite isn't reflecting your real life. it's reflecting a ship builder reality. show me the ship yards and manufacturing bases building the ships and sending them across the galaxy. you can't because that's not how it works in the elite universe.
you are trying to make a point that the game is making the opposite of. you'll have to give some other contrived reason why a ship builder doesn't make sense in elite.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Moderation Message said:
The fact that we have a handful of... I don't know... ship manufacturers should tell you all you need to know.
It makes no difference they will never implement player ship building other than internal modules and ship kits, the simple reason is pad sizes and mail slots.
Its bad enough having muppets block ports with a T9, try that with some idiot building a replica of a Warlord Titan and blocking the entire station.
Its fine in a single player game, sadly there are too many folks that dont get out much in an MMO.
O7
If somehow it would be possible to merge some Starfield systems into Elite, it would be fantastic. Modular ship building with interiors, planetary Outpost building and mining... That would certainly not hurt.
At the very least Frontier could take a look at space suit designs in Starfield and learn something too.
At the very least Frontier could take a look at space suit designs in Starfield and learn something too.
- Status