Is that bad? I don't think so as long as their vision is similar to players'
As for me, it mostly is Liked Elite, loved Frontier: Elite II, so Elite Dangerous shoud also be in the mood of previous games, why not if the same person is at command?
Near future of Elite:Dangerous - clickable sky, orrery, outside view, planet landing
- Thread starter domel
- Start date
Is that bad? I don't think so as long as their vision is similar to players'
As for me, it mostly is Liked Elite, loved Frontier: Elite II, so Elite Dangerous shoud also be in the mood of previous games, why not if the same person is at command?
I think Elite is not your "game", because it was that way, and I don't think it'll change much.
With all that "Rather have 1000 planets and more content, than 400.... etc" - you missing one important point - Elite is one of two Space-sims/Sci-fi games (as of now), which are using nextgen idea - procedural generation.
We have 3 space-sims in development right now (yes E: D development didn't stop with release). One of them is using old tech to make "interactive game" with new graphics. It is not something bad, it's just not something new.
Procedural generation on the other side is new (on this scale of games), and while it give developers a lot more possibilities, it also make it hard to put a lot of different content from the start. Plus, there is no examples how to do it right, so it is almost pure invention of something new. Only time will tell if it's good or bad thing.
And if you don't like it, that it is simply not your cup of tea. Because I don't think that developers will change core technology, especially when it is this good.
So don't be sad/annoyed because developers don't want to make game more themepark'y, it just the way this game is/was planned/would be. Maybe another one from "current 3" will be more like you like it.To OP:
I think near future of E: D
- Continue to iterate and add features to existing game mechanics/interface/things/etc.
- Proceed with ingame story and events
- Adding new ships (have no idea at what rate)
- Start work on "Walking in space stations" (it could bring hangars, walk in ships, and other changes to existing stuff)
- Then "start with landings on airless moons"
- Then planets....
What are time frames for any of those - have no idea, as there was no official announcements. And it is not likely that announcements of this importance will be given as an answer to a forum post. But I thing we will see at least "Walking in space stations" next year in december
Thank you for your opinion.
However, *I* am the one who decides what is and what isn't "my" game. And Elite is doing me just fine, thank you very much. Where do you get off telling people what they can and can't enjoy?
This may be difficult for you to hear, but some of us want Elite to improve and improvements require (gasp) change.
Now, it is still VERY early - the game has been out only a couple of weeks and much of that has been holiday period - so it is entirely possible that the developers have a whole raft of exciting and game-improving updates to launch throughout 2015. Good.
What *I* asked for was more depth, and not just cosmetic frills. That doesn't mean "Elite is not my game". And, if they do change it and add more depth, that doesn't mean it's "not your game" either. You have my permission to still enjoy it if you wish to.
DEV promisses (serious) a bear machine in stations. I can wait.
Polar or grizzly?
So glad I have not got your problem...
I don't understand this anguished cry for content NOW! I've been following the game since alpha and they have steadily improved, added features, fixed bugs.
There is absolutely no reason to think that will stop now, and every reason to assume that they will continue development in the months and years ahead as they have said they will
If I say "the game is fine now" I don't mean "the game is perfect - no changes, improvements or new features needed, ever." The latter is just the straw man being constructed.
To the OP: The orrery view and being able to target objects from it is my biggest wish for new content. As you said even being able to target from the current "system map" (more of a schematic than a real map IMO) would be nice.
EDIT: Some improvement of the "route planner" is on my wish list too. What's in is better than nothing but it's pretty limited. Being able to actually plan a route a lot farther than 80 or so Ly or so by selecting waypoint systems is what I'm hoping for.
There is absolutely no reason to think that will stop now, and every reason to assume that they will continue development in the months and years ahead as they have said they will
If I say "the game is fine now" I don't mean "the game is perfect - no changes, improvements or new features needed, ever." The latter is just the straw man being constructed.
To the OP: The orrery view and being able to target objects from it is my biggest wish for new content. As you said even being able to target from the current "system map" (more of a schematic than a real map IMO) would be nice.
EDIT: Some improvement of the "route planner" is on my wish list too. What's in is better than nothing but it's pretty limited. Being able to actually plan a route a lot farther than 80 or so Ly or so by selecting waypoint systems is what I'm hoping for.
Last edited:
Source please? Last I heard they said planetary landing if they can find a way to make it interesting and gave no indication of a time line
What?! lol
You need to stop overreacting (Not telling you what to do, just a kind suggestion
). I was not telling people what they can and can't enjoy. But if you would like the main (key) aspect of the game to change to something else (since you were quoting "Rather have 1000 planets....") and you don't like "to bring all the imagination" - maybe you are trying to enjoy the wrong game (once again, not telling, just a kind suggestion ).Ofc, game will evolve. We all know about it from dev-videos/ddf/newsletters/etc. Ofc, it will be more content in the future.
This may be difficult for you to understand, but with so much negative attitude and drive to prove your point, you misread my post.
So yeah, game will change at some points in the future, more content will be added, etc. But I don't think that it'll be "themepark" content. More likely - tools for players to play in this sandbox for more enjoyment of the process and more "things to do" (using their imagination ofc).
And here is a secret (shhh, be quiet and don't tell anyone else) - developers and players want this game to improve and understand that improvements require change, and even more - all of them want Elite to evolve and are excited about it and what will change and how. Can you imagine that?!
Thank you for your permission. You have my permission to overreact and whine more, if you wish to.
Anyway - Have fun! ^^)
I also would like to see any official info about this.
It is not an official dev time line or anything like that. Just a vision of what developers what to see in the future.
Given that they are making the game they would like to play, I can assume that it looks like it it'll be in first expansion/DLC.
[video=youtube;8yd-m9AR7mY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yd-m9AR7mY[/video]
Yeah, unfortunately this limit was set because developers don't want ridiculously high-speed combat and multiplayer thing. You can find more info in DDF section. Not that I agree with this decision, but I don't think I would like it for a long time if it there was no limit (maybe bigger limit). Never know until you try I guess ))
Last edited:
1. I think they said they're not looking at this at the moment, though I'd like to see it.
2. Won't be for a while. There is a ton of stuff that didn't make release that they'll want to get done first. More ships (they have 15 to do) and wings/groups will be first, early next year. Along with the Mac version you mentioned though I expect that would be developed in parallel.
3. Looks like it will happen but isn't a high priority. Sounds like it will be a drone system.
4. I think they've said they consider this to be unnecessary, which I guess it is in terms of functionality. Hopefully it'll get in eventually but it won't be a priority.
5. Not going to change. They decided early on that they wanted a flight model that was closer to aircraft than a pure Newtonian space sim. Incidentally you're confused about the speeds. It's not km/h, it's m/s. 300 m/s = 1080 km/h, good luck finding a car to do that on the autobahn.
Last edited:
Thank you for your answers. As for 5th, this is bad news... As with the units - good point, too bad they are not mentioned in the game, just pure numbers
I'm already missing this: (two things - speed freedom and outside view
Also as speeds get much faster than that combat becomes more and more silly. At over 1 Mm/s you cannot really have combat. I would say at over 1km/s there aren't going to be many kills and those that there are will be just luck.
Modern fighter planes have a max speed of about mach 2.5 to mach 3 (mach 3 is approx 1km/s) however that speed is used for interception (getting to a target after launch). Dogfights even with those aircraft are well below 300m/s (usually about 700 knots which is 200m/s) and sometimes drop right down to less than 100 m/s.
So if people want combat the ships have to be relatively slow in normal space.
I think that the limit should not exist - fighters should find their best velocity for combat by themselves... Limit removal would not make anything easier or allow to cheat. Instead, would give more reality and further, Mr. Braben and the rest of Frontier Dev. team would be allowed to interpret near-light speed behaviour of objects
Yeah, in this video, just before 5 minutes the dev said planetary landing is a terrifying undertaking and *hopefully* they'll have enough time to do it. That sounds really sketch to me. They were far more confident in their laguna ge about offline mode so I would not hold my breadth for planetary landing. Its looking very unlikely to ever materialize
I think that the limit should not exist - fighters should find their best velocity for combat by themselves... Limit removal would not make anything easier or allow to cheat. Instead, would give more reality and further, Mr. Braben and the rest of Frontier Dev. team would be allowed to interpret near-light speed behaviour of objects
true,
I think it should be similar to flight assist on/off, and separate from it to give more control over movement and ability to emergency brake if needed:
- flight assist off give "newtonian" flight model with speed limit
- speed limit off speaks for itself
- if flight assist turn on, it will turn speed limit on
- if speed turned off, it will turn flight assist off
this is something I would like to see in game ))
Fully agree, those are the 4 must for me, except that the clickable should be HOTAS compatible
Wont happen because of the online aspect
On my side I would ask for
6. thargoids !
as well.
Etienne
Last edited:
I do not mean time compression. I only want to accelerate to, say, 10000 km/h or 1/10 c (something like this) using conventional drive
Let it take minutes, hours, anything. Why not? No coding, thinking; only removing the limit...Edit: of course, relativistic effects should be taken under account near the speed of light... that's another question.
Last edited:
For me it looks like they are also excited and enthusiastic even about trying to do it. And this is what (Excitement/Enthusiasm) makes people to create impossible things. But maybe it's just me little bit more optimistic about such undertakings. Nevertheless I think that it is possible with appropriate level of enthusiasm and development skills (none of which Frontier is lacking).