The Planetary landing and planetside missions discussion Thread

Herik

Herik
Alien said:
I'm sorry to be negative here, but I would have thought David or Michael actually saying "Yes, you will get Planetary Landings ... " etc and not some website saying "David did confirm ...."

Come on David/Michael/Frontier ... it's not hard.
I know E3 is for the journos, but I don't find it acceptable to hear these things from a 3rd party source. You still haven't officially announced the cancellation of The Outsider, and the only reason we even know you did, is a 3rd party gaming website. This simply isn't good enough.

You may not have $83 million, but you still have a forum and now a community blog ... stop leaving us in the dark.
Click to expand...

Ho humm; the usual pablum from posters; even less pertinent now...
 

Cmdr Eagleboy

Cmdr Eagleboy
FD uses servers for matchmaking - as they are used for ED on XBO too. Local combat is peer to peer, nothing changes there.

How do I know? Because they would have to rewrite colossal parts of the game to do server/client. Judging by how fast ED appeared on early access XBO program, it's same code as Windows, with new things patched in for controls. They don't even have CQC yet.
 

Cmdr Eagleboy

Cmdr Eagleboy
random_tangent said:
Welllllll in my experience most P2P on PC sucks rather badly, compared with dedicated servers. Look at the battlefield series in recent years. The netcode is awful. Compared with CS back in the day, it feels very artificial. So, one could argue XBONERs get some of the best dedicated server provision in the gaming world for a fairly paltry fee. Again, assuming my recollection of the way this works is at all accurate.
Click to expand...

Most of games on consoles uses peer to peer for local combat afaik.
 

Cmdr Eagleboy

Cmdr Eagleboy
andrak said:
To quote the article "There is more free stuff to come, but I don’t want to pre-announce what they are!"

Would this perhaps be referring to the CORE GAME that is still missing completely, devoid of life or underdeveloped? Or just more gimmicks like Powerplay?
Click to expand...

PP is core gameplay.

As for 'core game' you talk about you will need to be specific. Devoid of life? Really? They can always strive for the best, and I have lineup of improvements written down already, but for last releases calling ED devoid of life is long stretch. It can be improved - and I want it to be improved. But let's not slip into angry hyperbole here.

What I can agree though that NPC interaction is basic, and professions could be more fleshed out (including adding passenger transportation).
 

Herik

Herik
random_tangent said:
Welllllll in my experience most P2P on PC sucks rather badly, compared with dedicated servers. Look at the battlefield series in recent years. The netcode is awful. Compared with CS back in the day, it feels very artificial. So, one could argue XBONERs get some of the best dedicated server provision in the gaming world for a fairly paltry fee. Again, assuming my recollection of the way this works is at all accurate.
Click to expand...

You might be right; better netcode. Less stuttering, rubberbanding, graphical glitching. Almost makes up for an underpowered console toaster..
 

[HJ]-RedRaven

[HJ]-RedRaven
The Ars technica article was updated: no 3rd person walking round ships yet... at least tnot mentioned by DB -

Ars:
"Correction: This piece originally said that "third-person walk-around-the-ship mode" was one of the upcoming features. This was a mistake by the author, who is suffering from E3-induced psychosis. No point-of-view was specified and what we know of the walk-around-the-ship mode remains consistent with the descriptions in the Elite: Dangerous design discussion forum. The piece has been updated and we regret the error."
 
Last edited:

SteveLaw

SteveLaw
Pecisk said:
PP is core gameplay.
Click to expand...

Read the article again, David considers it an "extension activity" (as I called it when I was a teacher) - something to do when you've done everything else and actually recommends newer players don't take part.

- - - Updated - - -

[HJ]-RedRaven said:
The Ars technica article was updated: no 3rd person walking round ships yet... at least tnot mentioned by DB -

Ars:
"Correction: This piece originally said that "third-person walk-around-the-ship mode" was one of the upcoming features. This was a mistake by the author, who is suffering from E3-induced psychosis. No point-of-view was specified and what we know of the walk-around-the-ship mode remains consistent with the descriptions in the Elite: Dangerous design discussion forum. The piece has been updated and we regret the error."
Click to expand...

He meant he didn't say "third-person" but he did say "walking-around-the-ship".
 
Last edited:

medwyn

M
Nothing can show the "news-hunger" more than a topic stretches this long about news which have no news value.
I'm amazed how a little bit of "soon" mixed up with "more to come" can repeatedly light fires like there was any reality to back the assumptions up.
DB really doesn't have to be creative to keep a community on fire...

You seem to overcook this "use your imagination"-thing here.
 
Last edited:

andrak

andrak
Pecisk said:
PP is core gameplay.

As for 'core game' you talk about you will need to be specific. Devoid of life? Really? They can always strive for the best, and I have lineup of improvements written down already, but for last releases calling ED devoid of life is long stretch. It can be improved - and I want it to be improved. But let's not slip into angry hyperbole here.

What I can agree though that NPC interaction is basic, and professions could be more fleshed out (including adding passenger transportation).
Click to expand...

A few "cards" with faces on them in a board game totally disconnected from the rest of the game doesn't equate to life for me. Neither does seeing a generic male faceless player model in cockpits regardless of gender choice in the menu.

There's along way to go before this game feels like it has any life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom