Elite Dangerous plans for 2024

[Darkfyre99]

Decent rework of base mechanics for more crunchiness would probably work imo. Degrading the game by making it easier definitely hasn't improved it.

That’s one of the main reasons why I don’t play nearly as much as I used to, the other being the real time ticking timers on missions. Every time Frontier responded to the complaints of the Veruca Salts of the community by giving them what they demanded, this game became less interesting to me. I play games to make interesting decisions I don’t necessarily have to make in real life, not to indulge in power fantasies.

Trading in this game went from, “Responding to shifting supply and demand on an ABA trade route to maximize profit”, to “Always choose the same two commodities on an ABA trade route to maximize profit.” BGS manipulation went from “Trading influence and reputation among multiple competing factions, so I can manipulate faction states for maximum effectiveness,” to “Just run missions for one faction* for maximum effectiveness.” My own personal play style went from “Needing to consider the effects of my actions on my bank account against multiple competing priorities,” to “Any action I take will be very profitable, no need to worry about credits.” Ship design went from “Needing to consider any individual module’s rating and it’s impact on profitability,” to “Use A rated modules on everything that’s mission critical, otherwise use D rated to increase jump range." Ship engineering went from “Carefully considering the pros and cons of engineering modules above grade 3,” to “Higher grades are always* an improvement."

I wanted to play a struggling Commander, who was fighting a one woman war against the Evil Galactic Federation, and needed to make interesting decisions to do so, while still wanting improving her ship. Instead, I'm playing a wealthy dilettante with a large ship collection, who's most interesting decisions are on the order of "What do I want for breakfast?" The former is a lot of fun to me. The latter? Not so much.

This game went from something I would regret not being able to play more often due to time constraints, to one I have to both be in the mood for and have enough free time to play it. And someone who plays only occasionally doesn't have much desire to buy ARX.

And the most annoying part of this whole thing is that it all boils down to Frontier's "original sin:" Ship and module prices increased exponentially, while ship and module capabilities increasd logarithmically. For example, a power plant that maximize a Cobra Mk III's power output costs 813 times as much as the smallest module it run on, while providing only 2.4 times the amount of power. Elite Dangerous's initial economic sim ensured that ship expenses increased much faster than a ship's ability to produce income. Ships could rather quickly reach a point where they were no longer profitable to operate.

The best solution would've been to flatten the curve on ship and module prices, so that larger ships would be able to make a decent profit, while still making smaller ships easier to operate. Frontier's solution? Exponentially increase rewards instead. Which set the pattern for Frontier "fixing" issues: rather than addressing the underlying issue, just increase rewards until the complaints stop.

This game is still a fantastic science fiction space flight simulator, and it's brilliant in VR as well. But I want something more from a game like this. I want depth of gameplay, to make decisions that have in-game consequences. That used to describe this game, but Frontier's method of addressing complaints is to remove depth of gameplay.

And that makes me sad.
______
* There are some rare edge cases where this isn't the case, but they rarely come up in my normal gameplay

 

[Rainbro]

And the most annoying part of this whole thing is that it all boils down to Frontier's "original sin:" Ship and module prices increased exponentially, while ship and module capabilities increasd logarithmically.

Agreed, I don't feel this gets brought up much. It's like the original prices were a placeholder except it's now far too late to change it (well, not really, but it'd rock the boat and I don't get the impression Frontier want to do that) so instead we've had years of attempts at balancing the game across an insane range of costs, which isn't possible.

 

[aRJay]

Agreed, I don't feel this gets brought up much. It's like the original prices were a placeholder except it's now far too late to change it (well, not really, but it'd rock the boat and I don't get the impression Frontier want to do that) so instead we've had years of attempts at balancing the game across an insane range of costs, which isn't possible.

The balancing is rendered even more impossible by so many of the ranks in the game being progressed by how many credits you earned rather than directly from the activity, ship combat being the only one to get it right.

 

[Fizzatron]

I imagine Frontier is counting the tiny number of people willing to buy a ten year old game when it's not on sale as a bonus already, but we may well find out fairly soon because the half-year financials are due and they've usually put some information of that sort into the investor presentations.

The way the game market is now, I don't think Elite being 'old' is as relevant as some would make it out to be. My son started playing Fallout New Vegas during the summer of last year, that came out in 2010, also a couple of years back he started playing Team Fortress 2, which came out in 2007 - and still goes back to it (btw TF2 also being Number 14 in the Steam Charts with over 70,000 players concurrently ingame at the time I write this). Right now he's very much into Lethal Company which came out last October and has played lots of other games in between - I don't think how old a particular game is really plays a role in whether he gets into a game or not, and I don't think he's unique in that aspect either - he's turning 18 this year btw.

In general, the way I see it, as long as Elite Dangerous stays profitable there is little to no reason for Frontier to shut the game down, and as time goes on I think there is a greater chance that a new generation will pick up the game and make it more successful than its ever been than it withering and dying on the vine when the 'elite players from bitd' age out and/or knock it on the head.

Dare I say it, but in many ways it's some of us grumpy old farts that might actually be holding the game back with outdated notions and gerroff my garden attitudes to common and long established (but also long after the 80/90s era) game ideas being brought to Elite. To wit, in the SC thread the voiced dismay that that game might end up like Rust is interesting to read when Rust is Number 7 in the steam chart with 123,961 concurrent players as of writing this - it's puzzling if one wants to imagine a company wanting their game to be successful, even more so when the complaints come about why the game isn't as successful as one would like, though becoming like Rust is frankly the least of SC problems IMO.. but I digress no longer...

I'm not saying the above to insult, but a reasonably deep crafting system is nearly essential in new(er) games that can incorporate it (Baldurs Gate 3 - #2, Rust #7, Monster Hunter World #16, Elden Ring #20, Stardew Valley #26, Valheim #28, Terraria #36 - an "old and dead" game from 2011! etc..), as are things like basebuilding, customization/decoration options..

These things may seem irrelevant to some, but the combined concurrent player count for the aforementioned list of games is 602,278 - Maybe a vocal portion of Elite players don't want those things but there are many who do, and these are all potential extra players to join Squadrons, PMFs, mining crews, etc.. Meanwhile, Elite's concurrent players hovers around 4,000-5,000, which has been decently sustained over ten years, and not the full count I must add being that launching through steam isn't mandatory.

I know it's not as simple as Step 1 add crafting/basebuilding/customization, Step 2 Profit (before the "but akshually" complaints come about Elite that could equally be applied to some of the aforementioned games too), but I certainly would put them in the league of top reasons why these games are so popular, along with the fact that some of these games were the first of their kind to incorporate these sorts of things - something that Elite Dangerous is still in a position to do (even among NMS & Empyrion). Do I think that Elite could be a top 10 steam chart game? I won't say no, anything is possible, though I wouldn't say it's likely either, I think there are some core essential mechanics of Elite Dangerous that will keep it relatively niche, but the potential to increase average player count by tenfold+ is definitely there. The penultimate thing I'll say is that no-one's saying that No Man's Sky is dead/too old, but yet right now it's at #123 with ~8,000 concurrent players - again, not full story as there's consolers in that mix too, and probably quite a bit of them, though equally applicable to some of the other games I used as examples too.

Bottom line; As long as Elite is profitable it's doing ok, carry on playing. /rant.

EDIT; a typo and added my son's age for better context.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

Yes - a tricky thing for Frontier to balance. The things that could get a substantial increase in the rate of new players (and/or newish players sticking around past the 10-hour or 100-hour mark) are probably mostly disconnected from the things that will get a 1000-hour or 10000-hour player to keep playing or return.

Frontier got that part of it sorta right by making Odyssey progression completely separate, but unfortunately Odyssey was bad and adding new materials to the space game would complicate an already bloated materials system but they did it anyway with Caustic Shards and other stuff that doesn't even get used for much.

It's really the lack of content that's at fault here, for exploration having more interesting planets with the Odyssey terrain generator rework could have fixed a lot too, but again unfortunately Odyssey was bad.

I wanted to play a struggling Commander, who was fighting a one woman war against the Evil Galactic Federation, and needed to make interesting decisions to do so, while still wanting improving her ship. Instead, I'm playing a wealthy dilettante with a large ship collection, who's most interesting decisions are on the order of "What do I want for breakfast?" The former is a lot of fun to me. The latter? Not so much.

I love games that start you out and keep you poor for the early game, but it never lasts long before money becomes a non issue once you learn the game - that's just capitalism I guess.

I know it's not as simple as Step 1 add crafting/basebuilding/customization, Step 2 Profit (before the "but akshually" complaints come about Elite that could equally be applied to some of the aforementioned games too), but I certainly would put them in the league of top reasons why these games are so popular, along with the fact that some of these games were the first of their kind to incorporate these sorts of things - something that Elite Dangerous is still in a position to do (even among NMS & Empyrion)

A big draw of crafting/basebuilding/customization is that it's a cozy activity, something that's completely antithetical to how Elite is designed. It also runs against everything players claim they want/like about the game (actual danger) - the players are kinda wrong here.

I don't see a way for Elite to add a cozy base/player housing system into the game and I very much don't think they have the design skill and resources to design something that's mechanically deep and engaging enough on it's own merits. I think it would turn out like FC interiors rather than something like Satisfactory or a smaller scale base building game.

Not to mention anything that lets players build stuff has huge performance issues and Elite already struggles as it is so I don't see it being possible on a technical level in a time frame that didn't make it vaporware (unless it's already been in development since horizons).

 

[VR CMDR Novindus]

I don't expect the feature overhaul to materialise. I think story will remain the main focus, which isn't a bad thing.

The primary draw for me though, and I think a good number of other players as well, is immersion. Having on-foot gameplay supported in VR and being able to walk around my ships would be as much as I'd dare ask at this point, which may be too much given what some say of the technical difficulties. But I think it may also be quite lucrative for Frontier to allow players to walk around their ships even if no specific gameplay is attached, just for the opportunity of selling customisation options.

As it stands, when I do play, which isn't often anymore, I play exclusively in VR and remain glued to my cockpit chair because on-foot isn't supported in VR.

 

[CaptainPugwash]

I don't expect the feature overhaul to materialise. I think story will remain the main focus, which isn't a bad thing.

The primary draw for me though, and I think a good number of other players as well, is immersion. Having on-foot gameplay supported in VR and being able to walk around my ships would be as much as I'd dare ask at this point, which may be too much given what some say of the technical difficulties. But I think it may also be quite lucrative for Frontier to allow players to walk around their ships even if no specific gameplay is attached, just for the opportunity of selling customisation options.

As it stands, when I do play, which isn't often anymore, I play exclusively in VR and remain glued to my cockpit chair because on-foot isn't supported in VR.

I did wonder if the rework of an existing feature that they were ‘investigating’ may have been VR on foot. It’s certainly a requested feature, but difficult to justify spending much on it, as VR still applied to relatively minor portion of the player base.

Walking around cockpits would still require a major refresh to the models of most of the ships, but it is something they could do gradually. However what about the associated gameplay? Frontier could easily find themselves in the situation that whatever they do isn’t enough, so may have already decided “why bother”.

The main other avenue for development could be thicker atmospheres and an expanded atmospheric entry model, maybe some weather effects and extra stuff to explore.

Whatever frontier does in 2024, it’s difficult to see them maintaining anything more than a small size dev team.

 

[Markov Chaney]

Mainly the key is that the game doesn't need to solve those equations because the answers are irrelevant.

The rest of Ian's comments which I have snipped is a great explanation of why the answer would be irrelevant, but I thought I would also highlight that the game isn't "solving differential equations" anyway. It's using numerical methods to model the behaviour of the objects using the appropriate existing equations of motion; no calculus required. Someone else did the calculus 400 years ago; you can just apply the equations. The maths is super-super simple. It's arithmetic. The trick is knowing which equation to implement for a given piece of physics and that trick needs to be carried out once at development time by the developer.

The whole thing we are discussing here - choosing an appropriate frame of reference - is the One Weird Trick engineers use constantly in order to ensure they don't have to deal with obtuse physics. If you want a real-world example find an article on JWST and Lagrange points - that utterly weird figure-eight orbit around an empty point in space turns out to be a super obvious example of the telescope ratting around the bottom of a hollow, once you find the right frame of reference.

It's also worth noting that the important step in projecting a 3D world onto a 2D viewport, as with our specific example of a window in a station, is exactly the same thing as projecting a 3D world onto the viewport that cuts through the plane in front of your eyes with a resolution of 1920x1080. And that is what GPUs are designed for from the ground up.

I'm sure some of the tricks and shortcuts used in the maths were originally derived by a human mathematician using calculus but the game is not deriving things from first principles, it's making arithmetic as simple as possible. Even stuff like quaternions boils down to a function which carries out adds and multiplies in a specific order.

In classical mechanics if someone wants to know the energy involved in a collision they use 0.5*mv^2 - they do not re-derive the concept of impulse by integration across F=ma.

[1] If you try to do everything in a unified worldspace coordinate system, then yes, you'd get huge problems with imprecision on the scale of an ED system. Even just moving or rotating a ship might start to fail once you get too far from the star.

A well-known open-source space game which is not entirely unrelated and has an unusual number of vowels in the name ran hard into this problem more than a decade ago... there were a number of years of "can we have..." and the answer was a consistent "no because..."

[2] Not quite the right term - once you get into the coordinate systems themselves likely being rotated relative to each other then "multiply" might be more analogous - but good enough.

I'd just go with "transform" because "the transformation" is usually how you'd think about it even as a pure mathematician. (Unless you are a good mathematician rather than a failed particle physicist like me; good mathematicians probably don't even label it mentally, they just do it.) I sort of wish cross-products weren't called cross-products; it's useful because it's strongly analogous with arithmetic multiplication in some ways but it also sets up quite a lot of traps for the unwary.

Shouldn't be in this sense - more likely a problem with collision detection or the terrain generation.

I think the terrain clipping is to do with how the render process interpolates between vertices (and has to show every bump and wiggle) versus how the collision mesh interpolates (and is usually a much lower polygon count.)
Pretty much every new iRacing circuit has a "hole" in the mesh somewhere which gets a patch (ha!) in the next drop because it's just impossible to catch every example, even on these things which start as a laser scan of a deliberately flat surface and where the wheel physics is modelled obsessively. On procgen mountainous terrain, with two extra wheels and bags of suspension travel? Yikes.

 

[Markov Chaney]

Actually, I already have to pay a subscription to GeForce after Odyssey made the game unplayable on my computer. If Frontier fix that then sure, they can have that money instead.

So you're saying "no-one is going to pay a subscription for ED because they already paid £20 for the game five years ago" but you personally are paying a new monthly subscription to GeForce instead of investing £300 at most in whichever component is the bottleneck on your system, which would also benefit you for an unlimited number of other games?

 

[yianniv]

So you're saying "no-one is going to pay a subscription for ED because they already paid £20 for the game five years ago" but you personally are paying a new monthly subscription to GeForce instead of investing £300 at most in whichever component is the bottleneck on your system, which would also benefit you for an unlimited number of other games?

Assuming the upgrade process isn't too steep, meaning that he can upgrade just his graphics card without requiring also new power supply or other components, what you propose is a valid suggestion. I had to do it myself by abandoning my RX580 for a 6750XT, which breathed new air to Odyssey (and other games, but the change wasn't so obvious there).
Having said that, I won't pay a subscription for ED.

 

[Tyres O'Flaherty]

Not a fan of sub-based gaming myself. Gave that up with Everquest 2 quite some time ago.

 

[Darkfyre99]

I love games that start you out and keep you poor for the early game, but it never lasts long before money becomes a non issue once you learn the game - that's just capitalism I guess.

No, that's not capitalism. That's simply designing a game to fulfil power fantasies. Some people like that kind of thing. I prefer something with a lot more nuance and depth. But there's no reason why Frontier couldn't have appealed to both play styles, if they had fixed the underlying issue during the original ALPHA phase of testing, and not cranked rewards up to 11 and beyond.

The main reason for my compaints about the ease of credits wasn't the "struggling Commander" part of my description, it was the "fighting a one woman war against the Evil Galactic Federation" part. I started BGS manipulation as a proxy for espionage gameplay even before the game was released, during the Gamma phase of testing. As soon as I noticed that "criminal" missions actually had a negative effect on a faction's state, the BGS became my plaything. I started supporing brave freedom fighters, who were resisting their cruel corporate overlords from the Federation.

The thing is, BGS manipulation was an expense at first... assuming I wanted to offset the influence gain of taking that criminal mission of a rival faction. Charitable missions were best way to do that. Credits spent on that was credits not spent on improving my ship.

This created a situation where I had "competing priorities," which in turn lead to interesting decisions. "A neutral faction is offering a high paying mission! Do I take this, or do I take one that better fits my long-term plans to remove this cruel Federation corporate state from power? I'd really like to upgrade my ship's Powerplant, so I don't have to micromanage my power settings during combat. But that faction is also a corporate state, just an independant one, which is almost as bad. Decisions, decisions..."

As the levels of Monty Haul Campaign rewards increased, those kinds of decisions became rarer, as regular missions started paying enough to cover taking charitable missions as well. Then Frontier revamped the BGS system, simplifying it so that all faction states would fall on a spectrum (good), while simulataneously catering to a complaint from mission grinders that all missions should have a positive effect the faction giver (bad). Which transformed BGS play into something with quite a bit of depth, into a flat influence grind.

The most annoying part of Frontier addressing complaints about the rate of "progress" by inflating rewards, rather than addressing the root cause of the complaints, ship and module prices, is that it pretty much destroyed early game progression. In almost every other game I've played, starting over with a new character as an experienced player is still a fun experience, because it's basically like getting to skip the tutorial phase of the game. That's not the case in this game.

I have an alternate account in this game that I was hoping to regain that early game experience with. But the credit earning potential for small ships is so extreme that I was in an A-rated Cobra MK III within one play session. And I probably could've gotten there sooner if I'd used a 3rd party site like Inara or followed one of those "One Weird Trick" get rich quick guides. There's no point in starting a new game, because it will quickly get me right back to where I am now.

I even tried to starting over doing nothing but surface missions, but it didn't take long to get fully kitted out. Furthermore, most of the missions I prefer to take aren't a good fit for my schedule, given the real time ticking clock Frontier attaches to missions, leaving the ones that that are quick but relatively simple, or actually require your own ship. It was an interesting experiment, but not one that would make the game viable long-term. Especially given the fact that most of the quick on-foot missions are at "You can buy your own ship for that, what do you need me for?" levels of absurdity.

And that makes me sad.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I have an alternate account in this game that I was hoping to regain that early game experience with. But the credit earning potential for small ships is so extreme that I was in an A-rated Cobra MK III within one play session. And I probably could've gotten there sooner if I'd used a 3rd party site like Inara or followed one of those "One Weird Trick" get rich quick guides. There's no point in starting a new game, because it will quickly get me right back to where I am now.

And that makes me sad.

I hear you and agree. in many ways the game was far better balanced in 1.0 release, at least until you got to python levels of ship, at that point less the cost of the ship, but more the cost of the outfitting the huge price increases in the equipement did become an issue. sadly FD didnt balance it properly. i adored flying in my sidewinder and eagle, actually saving up to go from an E class to a D class item, or stretching to buy a 2nd pulse laser, or upgrading to a burst.
now people dont even consider flying if not A rated and indeed some players scoff at players who are NOT a rated claiming they are being irresposible for using gear which is unfit for purpose.... madness imo.

rather than starting again, because i could not face that.... i periodically bancrupt myself by putting all my money in expensive gear then dumping it in storage . its fun for a few play sessions by which point i am loaded again.... BUT for me this is better than wiping because all that money is still there, and will ultimately go into my fleet carrier pot one day (i am still a loooooooooooooooong way off one of those due to the in game rules i give myself to slow progress down.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I hear you and agree. in many ways the game was far better balanced in 1.0 release, at least until you got to python levels of ship, at that point less the cost of the ship, but more the cost of the outfitting the huge price increases in the equipement did become an issue. sadly FD didnt balance it properly. i adored flying in my sidewinder and eagle, actually saving up to go from an E class to a D class item, or stretching to buy a 2nd pulse laser, or upgrading to a burst.
now people dont even consider flying if not A rated and indeed some players scoff at players who are NOT a rated claiming they are being irresposible for using gear which is unfit for purpose.... madness imo.

rather than starting again, because i could not face that.... i periodically bancrupt myself by putting all my money in expensive gear then dumpinig it . its fun for a few play sessions by which point i am loaded again.... BUT for me this is better than wiping because all that money is still there, and will ultimately go into my fleet carrier pot one day (i am still a loooooooooooooooong way off one of those due to the in game rules i give myself to slow progress down.

Python was exactly the point when I gave up. The realisation of the exorbitant price hike of equipment, compounded by the inflation of busywork by the introduction of engineers gave a grim outlook.
It's kinda typical for MMO-likes that they have a good initial game hook with crisp gameplay, but later on you realise you'll just turn braindead zombie with all the ludicrous gathering, crafting and levelling. These games are fun in the beginning, but turn around after some time - I guess they just try to keep the addiction-prone players.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

No, that's not capitalism. That's simply designing a game to fulfil power fantasies. Some people like that kind of thing. I prefer something with a lot more nuance and depth. But there's no reason why Frontier couldn't have appealed to both play styles, if they had fixed the underlying issue during the original ALPHA phase of testing, and not cranked rewards up to 11 and beyond.

I think there's two fun outcomes here - a game that starts you out with very little and takes that away over time and it's only a matter of time before you die and start over OR a game where you can build up resources which ends up in you being a millionaire even if it takes thousands of hours. A game where you constantly stay in the same position doesn't have staying power. It's only a question of what the actual power curves and hard caps are.

Elite could achieve the poverty CMDR gameplay if it limited you to one ship, no module storage and capped your credits to 500m (and nerfed/balanced the incomes obviously), but that would be a significantly less fun game that exacerbates many of the other problems of the game without giving players workarounds to power through.

Elite could also easily have it both ways with a prestige system where you soft reset your account to complete some sort of challenge like that and get all your toys back after completing/abandoning it.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Elite could also easily have it both ways with a prestige system where you soft reset your account to complete some sort of challenge like that and get all your toys back after completing/abandoning it.

there are lots of things i would love to see in elite, much of which was waxed lyrical about back in the day by the devs, however i appreciate those would be a lot of work and may never happen now

BUT one of the things i dont understand why it was not implemented, as surely the work would be minimal would be missions which come with a specific ship / loadout

some of these may be beginner missions allowing you to have a taste of high end ships in game such as fly a T9 full of cargo to place X and drop the ship off, and then come back in a different ship, mission failure if the ship gets destroyed.

or system patrols with the local security services - the ship they give you would depend on your rank as well as your reputation with the system (an average rated person they do not know may get a viper).

other types - fly a ship to a small surface settlement which is loaded with bombs which will detonate at a certain time... also if your ship gets too banged up then .......... boom!.

but some of this could be longer term missions as well combining oddy content. build a reputation in a local pirate gang in your battered up cobra (which actually has a bunch of hidden scanning equipement in) doing missions with the pirate gang until the point when a certain target is met, and then when you get the order you could then have to go on foot into his base and then assassinate him before then escaping, delivering your ship back with all the intel you have gained.

all of this is using mechanics in the game already, just giving us a point to actually use them.

(extra gold star to FD if we could earn a skin for successfully completing some of them)

 

[zimms]

If you go on like this, you'll have to change your user name to Reasonable Mike.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Python was exactly the point when I gave up. The realisation of the exorbitant price hike of equipment, compounded by the inflation of busywork by the introduction of engineers gave a grim outlook.
It's kinda typical for MMO-likes that they have a good initial game hook with crisp gameplay, but later on you realise you'll just turn braindead zombie with all the ludicrous gathering, crafting and levelling. These games are fun in the beginning, but turn around after some time - I guess they just try to keep the addiction-prone players.

That’s the thing, though. The former didn’t have to be that way. I’m not sure if this is the case for all modules, but the cost and output of a power plant can be calculated with the following formula:

Power or Cost = b * x^S * y^R

where b=base price, power, S=Size, R=Rating, x=size multiplier, and y=rating multiplier

For power output, x=1.3, and y=1.1. For cost, x=2.5, and Y=3.

If this relationship does hold true over all of the original modules, then Frontier could’ve easily changed two variables to greatly tweak progression in large ships, without adversely affecting progression in smaller ships, because exponential growth is funny that way.

I’m not sure if this actually is the case, because it’s baffling that Frontier would’ve taken the more difficult route of constantly adjusting rewards upwards, but that’s my understanding for this one module.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

That’s the thing, though. The former didn’t have to be that way. I’m not sure if this is the case for all modules, but the cost and output of a power plant can be calculated with the following formula:

b * a*x^S * y^R

where b=base price, power, S=Size, R=Rating, x=size multiplier, and y=rating multiplier

For power output, x=1.3, and y=1.1. For cost, x=2.5, and Y=3.

If this relationship does hold true over all of the original modules, then Frontier could’ve easily changed two variables to greatly tweak progression in large ships, without adversely affecting progression in smaller ships, because exponential growth is funny that way.

I’m not sure if this actually is the case, because it’s baffling that Frontier would’ve taken the more difficult route of constantly adjusting rewards upwards, but that’s my understanding for this one module.

I think you missed placing the equal sign. And omitted assigning a for power. But the message is clear - with S and y you could manage any exponential curve involved. Maybe it would work better by even uncoupling rating and size. Y=3 would seriously snowball the cost curve.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

A well-known open-source space game which is not entirely unrelated and has an unusual number of vowels in the name ran hard into this problem more than a decade ago... there were a number of years of "can we have..." and the answer was a consistent "no because..."

Indeed. In that case, the useful part of the game world is small enough that changing the basic coordinates to use doubles rather than single-precision floats solved the problem well enough. But there are certainly ED star systems too big for even that to work, even leaving aside the massive simplifications in mathematics from being able to switch coordinate systems.