What's working, what's not working and what's working as intended?
- Thread starter Sanderson
- Start date
+1 general agreement with all of that list.
Most issues are matters of tweaking, balance or redesign that can be done over time. However the single biggest problem I sense with the game is the lack of a persistent background NPC culture with which players can interact.
In the original proposals there was supposed to be a 4th avenue for player advancement alongside combat, exploration and trade. This was essentially "influence/diplomacy" but unfortunately it didn't make it into the initial release and it's absence is what I think many players sense as emptiness or lack of meaningful goals. The devs are trying to compensate by manually injecting events etc, but it shouldn't be necessary to do this.
It would be a great improvement to have the ability to forge relationships with individual persistent NPC merchants, traders, combat wingmen, naval officers, bureaucrats, faction members, ship engineers, researchers, academics, etc. The benefits could include discounts, access to unusual cargos, extra missions separate from the mission listings, etc. All of this could be procedurally generated and would give the player a genuine sense of immersion and character development.
The interactions between NPCs caused by player actions could be really interesting - eg one player forms a relationship with a trader on a given station and eventually builds up trust and a permanent 10% discount/profit modifier on all trades on that station. Meanwhile another player does the same with a different trader but manages to make his "patron" so successful that the first NPC is eventually driven out of business so the first player loses his trade bonuses. The first NPC might then take out a "contract" to assassinate the second NPC, etc. The possibilities are endless.
Essentially, it replaces the missing perks, buffs and levels of a traditional MMORPG with a more subtle and interesting mechanic, and provides background and context that is glaringly absent.
Last edited:
Graphics engine is working quite well(we'll have to live with the horrible post AA).. The flight model is good and appears to be Working as intended.. Trading seems to function though its predictable and doesnt seem to have any effect on the systems your trading between (but here in lies the problem - is it supposed to, is the game supposed to be that deep).
The rest really seems to be placeholders that need fleshing out. - fingers crossed
The rest really seems to be placeholders that need fleshing out. - fingers crossed
We will remain ambiguous on this subject. You see clearly (I was talking of communication, of course)
What I'm seeing (as always) is people complaining about stuff not working, when it's just that they do not understand it. If you don't understand it how can you tell if it is working or not? You can only say it is not working how you personally expected it.
Having said that, there's a lot of things that look like they need a tweak to get them into line, not broken, just a little glitchy.
Having said that, there's a lot of things that look like they need a tweak to get them into line, not broken, just a little glitchy.
Snakebite
Banned
Have you tried bounty hunting ? It does not work at all. for a multiplayer game.
A friend of mine has been getting repeatedly blown up by a bunch of pirates in the Lave system, when I arrived there to help her out I found the pirates and they all had *clean* status.
1) Pirates are not legitimate targets because they have clean status.
2) There is no reasonable way to track a target down.
3) There is no method of paying a BH for work done.
So whilst you can earn good money killing random npc you cant actually go bounty hunting in any meaningful way.
<snip>[/QUOTE]
I think, in common with others, the flight model and graphics work; not 100% of course, that would indeed be impossible, but as intended.
For me, I don't think as an explorer, trader and occasional fighter the whole risk / reward system is working correctly, and I have far too few choices. Failures of any kind (inattention, pause-not-pause, low hull integrity, squeezing through a landing slot, boosting in a station....etc) are punished mercilessly, normally with destruction, loss of cargo and loss of all data. I would much rather the game gave me options. I made a mistake, now which is the best choice, at this point, with these funds, with this cargo, to try to salvage something from a bad situation.
For me, I don't think as an explorer, trader and occasional fighter the whole risk / reward system is working correctly, and I have far too few choices. Failures of any kind (inattention, pause-not-pause, low hull integrity, squeezing through a landing slot, boosting in a station....etc) are punished mercilessly, normally with destruction, loss of cargo and loss of all data. I would much rather the game gave me options. I made a mistake, now which is the best choice, at this point, with these funds, with this cargo, to try to salvage something from a bad situation.
That is an awfully long list, but unfortunately IMHO all points are true. Now taking into account that just implementing the wings feature takes at least 3 months to develop makes me think we are riding a dead horse here.
Whilst I agree that the list is long, I don't think the horse is dead. I do think our current mount should have been described as an 'early-release foal' that needed another year or so to grow into a thoroughbred. Hopefully, little Dobbin will get his year, and not be sent to the glue factory before then.
.
Anyway, look at other horses. That standalone zombie horse has been released for ages, and it isn't finished by a long shot. Horses take years to mature these days, as they are complex beasts. But that's enough metaphors, let we all get the impression this post is a one-trick pony.
At least that standalone zombie horse comes with a warning that's it's not yet fully grown race ready thoroughbred
but, I digress. I sure wish we knew what was complete, near complete, not complete or complete as it will get. It's difficult and frustrating guessing what's what. DDF/DDA used to be the "go to" for questions like the OP but, my understanding (although not officially stated) is that the DDF/DDA doesn't and never did apply as an actual design document, rather it was just a fun place to talk about "dream features".
I did get the chance to ask David about it and his reply was "No game is ever finished" so, yah, there's that nugget of rubbish that helps 0%
Another +1 to this. Thanks for making the effort - couldn't agree more with your assessment.
Basic chat not working.
At least that standalone zombie horse comes with a warning that's it's not yet fully grown race ready thoroughbred
I sure wish we knew what was complete, near complete, not complete or complete as it will get. It's difficult and frustrating guessing what's what. DDF/DDA used to be the "go to" for questions like the OP but, my understanding (although not officially stated) is that the DDF/DDA doesn't and never did apply as an actual design document, rather it was just a fun place to talk about "dream features".
I did get the chance to ask David about it and his reply was "No game is ever finished" so, yah, there's that nugget of rubbish that helps 0%
I did get the Edge magazine (#277) in the UK for an interview with Dave Braben. The first question is "The game is out; it's far from finished, Are you viewing Elite Dangerous differently now, or does it simply feel like an ongoing project?", to which the response is "You're right, there has been a change..." followed by a 'political' answer about the game being great, "a solid release", and for anything unfinished there is "concept beta testing". Now first of all the answer doesn't address the obvious questions - to wit: "what changed? and why?", and secondly, we know from experience now that the concept of dropping a beta one week before release, and trying to pick up (potentially long-term) balance changes and newly minted bugs via the usual ticket system in that time is a bit of a nonsense. I really wish the interviewer had fleshed out the question, and pressed the "it's unfinished" point in follow up questions.
what I find seriously not working is,
how another faction your deliberately not supporting
can just take away the mission you are working on.
and change it into their advantage.
get out of my sandbox I then think.
as a result I now have missions in my agenda I cannot even delete.
they just sit there.
( there's a bug in here as well the text sometimes is placed on top of each other.
this happens only with these missions)
we should at least have the option to ignore those AI pilot or even kill them for interfering.
to be clear I do only imperial missions by choice.
thus I only hold imperial titles. (count atm)
another thing is how the game decides you cant take a hauling mission
cos your flying a ship that doesn't have the cargo hold.
this seems logical but its not.
because when we can have multiple ships you are perfectly capable to fulfil those missions.
besides from making the mistake when we do not have a ship that can take it,
is or own mistake , not something the game should decide.
best would be as the game states "your current ship is too small , take it anyway yes-no ".
Count and Earl !!??
they are basicly the same le only Earl is English and Count is French.
( okay not a game breaker ).
being able to defend a different allegiance all the time.
we all know what loyalty is , this does not need explanation.
I see this as the wrong heritage from the offline versions were it didn't matter cos its offline anyway.
still a shame cos it leaves out identity and makes all strangers potential hostile,s.
I think this is done deliberately to prevent all out war.
but in my opinion this should be done differently.
and I think it can be easily implemented in the way the game already is.
for example:
attacking a faction member outside of the designated battle zones could be seriously punished.
unless its in anarchic space.
like a one million fine or so would be sufficient.
I do see this could be problematic for explorers , but setting of for exploration on your own is not a realistic thing anyway.
(don't shoot the massager ).
another possibility is diplomatic invulnerability for them like we even have in present times.
I would even like it if we should have to gain some title before you earn the right to set of.
this would or could create beautiful game play.
for another example.
as you then would have to apply for diplomatic immunity it would have it own set of rules.
and it would create data for FD to work with.
other factions might want to see you fail and set saboteurs on your tail.
those saboteurs could be other explorers.
same as what happen t in the past to the new sailing nations , think British Spanish the Dutch and the Portuguese.
at the time those missions would often fail , it was high risk and those misons were some time rescued by nations that were at war with each other.
and so on blabla bla.
its awesome inspirational I love it.
how another faction your deliberately not supporting
can just take away the mission you are working on.
and change it into their advantage.
get out of my sandbox I then think.
as a result I now have missions in my agenda I cannot even delete.
they just sit there.
( there's a bug in here as well the text sometimes is placed on top of each other.
this happens only with these missions)
we should at least have the option to ignore those AI pilot or even kill them for interfering.
to be clear I do only imperial missions by choice.
thus I only hold imperial titles. (count atm)
another thing is how the game decides you cant take a hauling mission
cos your flying a ship that doesn't have the cargo hold.
this seems logical but its not.
because when we can have multiple ships you are perfectly capable to fulfil those missions.
besides from making the mistake when we do not have a ship that can take it,
is or own mistake , not something the game should decide.
best would be as the game states "your current ship is too small , take it anyway yes-no ".
Count and Earl !!??
they are basicly the same le only Earl is English and Count is French.
( okay not a game breaker ).
being able to defend a different allegiance all the time.
we all know what loyalty is , this does not need explanation.
I see this as the wrong heritage from the offline versions were it didn't matter cos its offline anyway.
still a shame cos it leaves out identity and makes all strangers potential hostile,s.
I think this is done deliberately to prevent all out war.
but in my opinion this should be done differently.
and I think it can be easily implemented in the way the game already is.
for example:
attacking a faction member outside of the designated battle zones could be seriously punished.
unless its in anarchic space.
like a one million fine or so would be sufficient.
I do see this could be problematic for explorers , but setting of for exploration on your own is not a realistic thing anyway.
(don't shoot the massager
).another possibility is diplomatic invulnerability for them like we even have in present times.
I would even like it if we should have to gain some title before you earn the right to set of.
this would or could create beautiful game play.
for another example.
as you then would have to apply for diplomatic immunity it would have it own set of rules.
and it would create data for FD to work with.
other factions might want to see you fail and set saboteurs on your tail.
those saboteurs could be other explorers.
same as what happen t in the past to the new sailing nations , think British Spanish the Dutch and the Portuguese.
at the time those missions would often fail , it was high risk and those misons were some time rescued by nations that were at war with each other.
and so on blabla bla.
its awesome inspirational I love it.
You are always supposed to be able to do the original mission (yes, in some cases this is bugged). The idea is they give you an alternative, but you have the choice of which option to take.
Actually, while perhaps not realistic, I think this is a great gameplay choice because it means there's no fundamental need to "balance" the three factions. Alliance, for example, is basically the Third World (in the Cold War sense of the term). It's the weakest of the powers and it shows in game. Different factions can give different rewards of unequal value because we're not limited to picking just one to get rewards from. It also opens the door to adding or removing factions as the game progresses (for example, a faction undergoing civil war and splitting in two, or a faction being defeated and consumed by another faction, etc.)