ED is not EVE. They are different type of games, dot

Erasmus Dynamo

E
antonygoldrick said:
Which is understandable seeing as Eve have said previously that it was influenced by Elite and Frontier

I see possible issue with either game existing. People like different things.

At present Elite Dangerous is not even a month past launch. Eve has been evolving for over 10 years.

I really don't see how you can compare the two game apart from they are based in space.

Eve has it good point and people wouldn't play it if they didn't enjoy it so I won't know it.

But then again ED has a lot of developing to do and will do.

I love this game and really get a lot out of it but I admit it will need further updates, development and further content.

but it will get there so please all be patient.
Click to expand...

Nobody here is saying "hurry up and make this more like EVE, hehe. We're being patient.

But, if we need a list of things that CAN be compared, here's just a few things off the top of my head the games have in common.

The player owns a spacecraft.
The player takes out "insurance" on the spacecraft.
The player can make various upgrades and changes to their spacecraft to reflect their play style.
The player is free to do anything they want in the galaxy, including taking quests.
The player can trade commodities freely on an open market.
The majority of this trading takes place on space stations.
The player can pirate other players, but there are consequences for doing so.
The player can visit systems in which there are no laws.
The player can visit systems in which there isn't much of anything at all.
The galaxy is comprised of various government factions, which over the course of the game's life will no doubt be at war, at peace, and everything in between.
The player can be a part of these governments and take on various missions to help them.
The player can hear sounds in space!
 

antonygoldrick

antonygoldrick
Erasmus Dynamo said:
Nobody here is saying "hurry up and make this more like EVE, hehe. We're being patient.

But, if we need a list of things that CAN be compared, here's just a few things off the top of my head the games have in common.

The player owns a spacecraft.
The player takes out "insurance" on the spacecraft.
The player can make various upgrades and changes to their spacecraft to reflect their play style.
The player is free to do anything they want in the galaxy, including taking quests.
The player can trade commodities freely on an open market.
The majority of this trading takes place on space stations.
The player can pirate other players, but there are consequences for doing so.
The player can visit systems in which there are no laws.
The player can visit systems in which there isn't much of anything at all.
The galaxy is comprised of various government factions, which over the course of the game's life will no doubt be at war, at peace, and everything in between.
The player can be a part of these governments and take on various missions to help them.
The player can hear sounds in space!
Click to expand...

Which seeing as they are both space sim's / opera's its not surprising :D

Both games are based on future human developments so we will see similar. its not a bad thing.

There is only so much original content you can do with the same theme
 

k1llm0re

K
Resentina said:
Ofc yes, i am not saying that you have not to improve your product. But I hope FD are not looking at EVE gameplay at all. I don't want to be forced to only cooperate. Corporation life is funny, is really incredible about socializing, doing things together, but sometimes, often in the last period, is stressing. sometimes is frustrating you only need cooperation to proceed. For Example: on EVE I need corp help to do high end 1on1 pvp, because i need assets. ofc i want pvp on ED, but maybe not that much corp dependent.
Another general example: i want an improved resourcees collecting (mining, trading etch)/economic system/logistics, but i am not looking at FD to achive that using EVE mechanics.
Because the genre is so different
Maybe i would look at X world. Much more close genre.
Click to expand...

you're wrong, you don't need a corporation for high end 1v1. that has never been the case.

honestly, it sounds more like you have never really played the game and are just afraid of this game becoming something different than what you're used to... and that's fine, but get your facts straight about EVE before you start criticizing a game that has much more intelligent design behind its player interaction.

ED could stand to gain a LOT from looking at the successful player interaction mechanics that EVE has pioneered - things like factional warfare (purely volunteer system that allows players from opposing military factions to attack each other anywhere without police intervention) , planetary mining/interaction, group missions... hell, ED could take the incursion system from EVE and turn it into a full-fledged tradtional-style MMORPG raid group activity, complete with support ships "healing", vipers/cobras "DPSing" and bigger ships "tanking".

the point is, while EVE is a very different game, the mechanics they've implemented over the years for players interacting with each other are time-proven gameplay mechanics that could be applied in theory to other games, without needing to completely "turn into EVE".
 

Corwyn

C
Hyena said:
The same reason you made this thread, because they can.

There are comparisons to be drawn from how both were bare-frames on launch and the subsequent roll out of improvements over months and years.

There is also a comparison to be made regarding their customer service and launch issues as both are multiplayer online platforms.

The game play and mechanics may be different but a lot of the practical side is similar.
Click to expand...

But that's where the argument ends. FD is it's own company. The game was created on a different publishing model. They crowdsourced the funds in order to create ED, and they self-published the game.

Eve was published by CCP, a corporate run publishing house.

What are the differences you ask?

A company that self-publishes gets to make the decisions based on their own thoughts, ideas, and if they choose, input from others.

A corporate published game has to swing to the way the investors demand. If there's a risk of losing customers (players), therefore income, the investors tell the publisher what to do, or cause a buyout and bring in a different company to run things, the way the investors want it done. You end up getting changes made to games, in the name of money.

Self-publishers haven't got that to stand in their way. Yes, they'll make less money in the shortrun, but they are free to make their own decisions as well, being able to be creative. They don't end up having to cater to whiners wanting free things. They can run a game without subscriptions if they so choose, because they've put something in place to keep the game running, due to income from other sources.

The world is changing, quickly, I suspect that self-publishing and alternate initial fundraising, is going to be the norm, and games will become enjoyable again, no more being a drone to the money people.
 

Corwyn

C
Whiterose said:
Why is everyone comparing ED to EVE when in actual fact it is closest to the X series?
Click to expand...

It's because people can't think for themselves, they need to compare apples to oranges, then create arguments to prove that apples and oranges are the same. Then they have a need to find others that they can bend to their way of thinking, then form a movement, and try to make as much noise about it as possible, just to prove that apples are oranges.

The problem here is, those publishing the apples, know better, and have filtered ear muffs, so don't have to listen to the arguments to have them change their apples to oranges, they can keep doing apples, and maybe do other types of apples, or engineer better apples. But their apples will still be apples, not oranges.
 

MirusCrosius

M
I agree about forced co-operation. EVE is a lonely place on your own. I like the idea that this game can be played alone... but opening up the multiplayer side need not be bad - if the solo people can enjoy the game.

Genre aside, the comparisons are possibly made because many EVE players / ex-Players were Elite fans who now have adopted Elite : Dangerous. I think that's perfectly fair. There are many things EVE got really right in terms of look and feel that would be excellent in Elite. It's also very fair to say that EVE has been a long genesis from its release state and much of EVEs ideas are born from the grandfather of them all; Elite.

FPS flight combat (in a fashion) was mooted in EVE. It was brought up at a presentation in the 2004 Fanfest in Rekyavik (I was there, man \m/). Nothing came of it, AFAIK - like planetary combat (videos were shown of the latter). You never know - They may just look at Elite and SC and revisit it; because a fan of one - might just be a fan of the other.

What goes around comes around, huh?

(I don't play EVE any more because, you know, life. I want to switch on, play a bit, save, come back later.)
 

ascendence

ascendence
Resentina said:
Why most of the people are always comparing these 2 games while talking about future devoloping, new features, marketing strategy, and such? They are different, they are not comparable. so all those eve/ed arguments i can read pretty everywhere are atleast pointless, maybe stupid (imo really stupid).
Click to expand...


>i dont see the point of adding new space sim content such as ships , stations, walking on stations and everything else that adds content and more fun, i just dont get it, i dont want the game to advance in any way from this point on!!1
 

Heathy

Heathy
Corwyn said:
It's because people can't think for themselves, they need to compare apples to oranges, then create arguments to prove that apples and oranges are the same. Then they have a need to find others that they can bend to their way of thinking, then form a movement, and try to make as much noise about it as possible, just to prove that apples are oranges.

The problem here is, those publishing the apples, know better, and have filtered ear muffs, so don't have to listen to the arguments to have them change their apples to oranges, they can keep doing apples, and maybe do other types of apples, or engineer better apples. But their apples will still be apples, not oranges.
Click to expand...

except we're basically comparing apples to apples we ate a few years ago that tasted better, oranges in this case are a completely different genre like comparing elite to bf4.

no oranges just apples being compared to other apples, like pink ladies vs granny smiths.
 

DreadPirateRoberts

DreadPirateRoberts
Erasmus Dynamo said:
Make sure you're comparing like things, sir.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying EVE is a bad game but it's not for everyone. And 90% or more of its gameplay is uninterested clicking while watching Netflix. Or...if you're into ship to ship combat...you can sit outside a jumpgate watching paint peel while some scripts play the game for you.
 

MirusCrosius

M
I rather like Elite a lot - but I played four hours the other night with the First Season of Father Ted playing on a second monitor; cause the trading runs are not exactly fraught with risk... :)
 

Resentina

Resentina
yes, but you have also to consider how you achive all that.
You have to massivly cooperate to run through resource collection/logistics/prototyping/producing.
Maybe ED is not intended To be this. Because they are different type of games.
So eve elite comparison is illogical
 

Erasmus Dynamo

E
Resentina said:
yes, but you have also to consider how you achive all that.
You have to massivly cooperate to run through resource collection/logistics/prototyping/producing.
Maybe ED is not intended To be this. Because they are different type of games.
So eve elite comparison is illogical
Click to expand...

Now I know you're definitely trolling. Either that or your English isn't up to par and you're not getting what we are saying.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom