But we were never meant to be able to fly to Sag A*, or cross the galaxy in such ludicrously short time spans. The bubble of civilised space would have made perfect sense if they hadn't half baked the exploration system by copping out of the original plan for discoverable hyperspace links. That said, even then the expansion rate would make no sense. Sadly we have a smattering of half cooked mechanics and half baked ideas thrown ad hoc onto the shell of what cuold have been a wonderful game.
Does anyone at FDEV understand the word 'Incongruent' ?
- Thread starter CMDR_Havok
- Start date
But we were never meant to be able to fly to Sag A*, or cross the galaxy in such ludicrously short time spans. The bubble of civilised space would have made perfect sense if they hadn't half baked the exploration system by copping out of the original plan for discoverable hyperspace links. That said, even then the expansion rate would make no sense. Sadly we have a smattering of half cooked mechanics and half baked ideas thrown ad hoc onto the shell of what cuold have been a wonderful game.
Actually it's very simple to explain the flight model with ingame logic: Insurance.
Your insurance company doesnt pay if your ship is faster than 500 m/s in normal space. That's why every ship has a built-in engine brake, so you dont forfeit your insurance claim by accident. Problem solved. Next!
No; all those things could work in a in a P2P Solo/Co-op game, but not a P2P multiplayer game: Huge lag, and (much more) game destroying 'stuttering'.
Oh and by the way; the combat speed mechanism decision by FD decided on for interacton/playability, -thought through thoroughly.
Last edited:
The more mods post things like merging with the "thread of doom" (a Moderator phrased it so, not me), the more emotion there will be against FD's apathy toward the issue. Let's be honest, a major part of the PowerPlay concern is the exploitation of the different modes which completely invalidates any sort of counter mechanisms (like patrolling).
I get it, running a forum takes a lot and having repetitive discussions on a similar issue should be compiled into a single thread, but it also means that it is something that deserves imperative attention and decision to address said issue.
We get the opposite of that, the community moderator and manager either do not coordinate and communicate with the company or the company just ignores the issue with blatant apathy.
There is no other valid explanation. This issue literally was something that people raged, debated, flamed, screamed, argued over since day one.
FD has no interest in addressing the issue, the apathetic attitude expressed to the community can be translated to be:
"We aren't fixing it, we don't care, take it as it is or quit the game, we have your money already anyway."
Quite simple really.
I get it, running a forum takes a lot and having repetitive discussions on a similar issue should be compiled into a single thread, but it also means that it is something that deserves imperative attention and decision to address said issue.
We get the opposite of that, the community moderator and manager either do not coordinate and communicate with the company or the company just ignores the issue with blatant apathy.
There is no other valid explanation. This issue literally was something that people raged, debated, flamed, screamed, argued over since day one.
FD has no interest in addressing the issue, the apathetic attitude expressed to the community can be translated to be:
"We aren't fixing it, we don't care, take it as it is or quit the game, we have your money already anyway."
Quite simple really.
Last edited:
For OP:
Meeting to discuss incongruities:
Call to order meeting to discuss the above listed agenda: All present? No, the chairman is missing, had a dentist appointment. Where is the minutes keeper? She's preggers and out on leave. Can we get a sit in? Get Margret from accounting to sit in, she likes meetings:
Call to order:
The item for discussion is a few incongruities present in the game. A example list is on the table before you. Please turn to page 2 "incongruities".
Any questions regarding the item for discussion?
Paul: Yes, we don't have resources to make ED a galactic sim. I thought we discussed this prior to beta, are we now contemplating adding resources to address this?
Mike: Not exactly. We cannot get funding for more programmers. What we can do is brain storm to see where the low hanging fruit are.
Paul: I don't want to come across as contrary, however we've picked the low hanging fruit by now.
Mike: Maybe, but let's look at one example and get feedback from the panel
Item one: Buying weapons at stations that reside in systems you've actively attacked. Should we, can we create circumstances that don't allow for players in those situations to purchase weapons, should they be forced to fly to friendlier systems to reload?
Panel: No. We don't have the resources to do that. We're fully utilized dealing with Powerplay, manipulating the power struggles and mostly, working cross functionally on the X-box release. That's where the money is so that's where the management has decided to allocate most resources.
Mike: So is there a single item on this list we have the resources to address?
Panel: Probably the 2nd to last one, blinking lights in the station bother a guy with epilepsy. we can randomize the blinking.
Mike: Great, so let's do that and can we umbrella the rest of this under that project and call it addressed?
Panel: Works for us
Mike: Great.. next item, Anaconda, too powerful?
Panel: Absolutely, we can nerf it in the next update, same with trading. We found some imperial slaves selling at the black market for almostt 8K per... that's absurd. We'll change that today, in fact Paul is doing so on his laptop right now.
Mike: What about stuttering?
Panel: Have no idea what you're talking about. We don't experience it here in the office connected hardline to the server, but we have decent systems. Could be end user created issue, probably 3rd party software, not our problem.
Mike: Ranking? is that still broken?
Panel: No, someone in India ranked up yesterday. It's fixed now.
Meeting to discuss incongruities:
Call to order meeting to discuss the above listed agenda: All present? No, the chairman is missing, had a dentist appointment. Where is the minutes keeper? She's preggers and out on leave. Can we get a sit in? Get Margret from accounting to sit in, she likes meetings:
Call to order:
The item for discussion is a few incongruities present in the game. A example list is on the table before you. Please turn to page 2 "incongruities".
Any questions regarding the item for discussion?
Paul: Yes, we don't have resources to make ED a galactic sim. I thought we discussed this prior to beta, are we now contemplating adding resources to address this?
Mike: Not exactly. We cannot get funding for more programmers. What we can do is brain storm to see where the low hanging fruit are.
Paul: I don't want to come across as contrary, however we've picked the low hanging fruit by now.
Mike: Maybe, but let's look at one example and get feedback from the panel
Item one: Buying weapons at stations that reside in systems you've actively attacked. Should we, can we create circumstances that don't allow for players in those situations to purchase weapons, should they be forced to fly to friendlier systems to reload?
Panel: No. We don't have the resources to do that. We're fully utilized dealing with Powerplay, manipulating the power struggles and mostly, working cross functionally on the X-box release. That's where the money is so that's where the management has decided to allocate most resources.
Mike: So is there a single item on this list we have the resources to address?
Panel: Probably the 2nd to last one, blinking lights in the station bother a guy with epilepsy. we can randomize the blinking.
Mike: Great, so let's do that and can we umbrella the rest of this under that project and call it addressed?
Panel: Works for us
Mike: Great.. next item, Anaconda, too powerful?
Panel: Absolutely, we can nerf it in the next update, same with trading. We found some imperial slaves selling at the black market for almostt 8K per... that's absurd. We'll change that today, in fact Paul is doing so on his laptop right now.
Mike: What about stuttering?
Panel: Have no idea what you're talking about. We don't experience it here in the office connected hardline to the server, but we have decent systems. Could be end user created issue, probably 3rd party software, not our problem.
Mike: Ranking? is that still broken?
Panel: No, someone in India ranked up yesterday. It's fixed now.
Actually it's very simple to explain the flight model with ingame logic: Insurance.
Your insurance company doesnt pay if your ship is faster than 500 m/s in normal space. That's why every ship has a built-in engine brake, so you dont forfeit your insurance claim by accident. Problem solved. Next!
Doesn't explain magic space brakes that keep on working when your ship's completely turned off, or slower speeds when travelling backwards or sideways (you know, the way a spaceship WOULD without a problem). What explains that is "we can't make our AI fight very well if you insist on flying backwards, so we're gonna nerf it till you no longer want to do so". Apparently "lazy coders" is the same thing as "playability".
LOL hit the nail right on its head.
Oh man, dockers. You should listen to the dockers radio play.
<blip> (bored voice) I don't care who you areee... you don't shoot inside the station. (very bored voice) Engaging lethal response. <blip> ... (station lasers firing... explosion)
This is the heart of the problem, and why it will never be fixed.
Market prices make no sense (backwaters don't pay more for goods) - because FD didn't model realistic market response
Turrets are crap - because instead of tracking based on realistic turn rates, FD fudged an inaccuracy factor to 'balance' them
Done for murder, when all pilots escape in invisible escape pods - because implementing a realistic escape sequence would apparently make the game less playable
GalNet at 10,000 LY? Playability over realism.
NPC spawns at Res that come from nowhere (ever see wanted Anacondas In SC heading to RES sites?) - not realistic, added for playability
Slow down after boost, when thrusters are off - playability over realism
So, we can't do fun things like kill traders, and see price rises in the systems they were servicing: the traders spawn and despawn and never actually get to the station, and are not part of any coherent trade network. Because FD didn't value realism, so didn't implement it.
For a simulation game, it's surprising to see that everything is fugded. No effects occur based on interaction between physically defined parameters. It's really disappointing, but permeates the whole game. It means we can only do the actions the devs have tested; anything else is likely to be ineffective or an exploit.
The whole fine/bounty system is what I find incongruous. What's the point of joining a large power if you can't share crime data or benefit form your fines becoming power-wide? The first super power that offered this would see masses of new members. Imagine your criminals hunted in other systems.. it's revolutionary!
Why do stations even allow criminals to dock? Why do the police treat you the same regardless of a 100cr bounty or a 1m cr bounty? Why do stations? I tend to ignore NPCs with very low bounties as not worth my effort, why don't the NPCs or police?
Why do stations even allow criminals to dock? Why do the police treat you the same regardless of a 100cr bounty or a 1m cr bounty? Why do stations? I tend to ignore NPCs with very low bounties as not worth my effort, why don't the NPCs or police?
+ rep if I could but I have to spread more around...
You forgot my favorite - when someone complains here in the forums and they ask that you give specifics as if we haven't complained about the same things so many times that most of us old Alpha/Beta backers have just given up reporting anymore. your post is one they should take seriously, but I no longer have any hope for that.
Missions are so poorly written and so unimaginative that you almost have to ask if it's just a lack of talent or is it in fact being done on purpose. Throw in the propensity for throwing in so many situations leaving a player scratching their head wondering what's going on leaving them asking if it's their fault or is it something they just haven't figured out or is it broken or working or who knows what.
From the early beta days I consistently called attention to poor decisions and poorly designed features, not because I enjoy being critical, but because really hope the game survives and improves. The fact that almost everything in the game constantly shifts beneath your feet and you have no way of confidently predicting what's going to be changed, removed, modified or rendered pointless seems almost to be designed to exasperate any long term players. the only logical explanation is that everything is designed to maximize the Ponzi scheme financing that depends on new players to support the platform and needs to purge older players who are now only an expense that are consuming server cycles.
Inevitably it takes a bit of time for new players to get the full scope of what's going on here and I'm often amused by the criticism some of my posts get by new posters and then I get to watch their attitudes change over time and grow more negative as they start seeing more and more of the things that make no sense to them.
As always - I really hope I'm wrong. I truly want FD to turn things around and focus on giving the community a dependable platform that we can all enjoy for many years to come. It's unfortunate that they continue to create more doubt and concern than confidence and satisfaction.
Last edited:
It's an entirely justified response to the kind of one liner drive-by posts you sometimes see in patch note discussions. Imagine a post like: "CQC? Srsly FDev? Fix g congruency first!111" Tell that a dev or game designer who might not have followed the the whole forum the whole time. He will know exactly nothing about what you'd like to have changed. Even if they had, they might still not know what congruency is for that specific person. Typical software engineering problem not specific to games...
On the other hand, this OP is specific enough, so we know which incongruences they're talking about. And I have to agree - Elite has tons of such incongruences. Problem is: While some of the mentioned ones are definitely fixable (if fixing them is prioritized enough), they will never be all fixed. Hazarding wild guesses what prevents the devs/designers from fixing them - especially implying they might have no clue that the issues are there or that they are just too incompetent to fix them, will also not get the fixable issues fixed any faster. You have to accept that their time and budget is limited.
However: Understanding why not all of those issues are fixable in the first place and having realistic expectations does help both sides - a lot. Heh, so much for managing my expectations.
The way I see it, the congruency issue during moment-to-moment game world simulation is a persistence and logic issue.
Elite is an instanced game and as such an instanced game it will only simulate a small slice of the game world around you. Leave your current instance and come back later - the game will only know and react to your previous actions if the devs have explicitly programmed it to remember them and to react accordingly. It's the same as in GTA games. Wreak havoc at a crossing, lose the cops by driving around a couple of blocks and come back to that crossing - nobody will remember that you just crashed a jet fighter into a school bus, beat up the fire fighters and pulled a guy out of his car to escape the arriving police. That's because the game doesn't store all that. It just loaded the particular static part of the town again and populated it according to some randomization and maybe some paramters that persisted. Add several layers of instancing (normal flight, supercruise, witchspace) and it all gets pretty complicated to the point that fixing general congruency issues takes a lot more time and thought than anyone might think from the outside. Worse: Because you coul get into limitless details with the congruency, you will never be able to store all your actions and provide the game world with a unfailingly reasonable (from a social human being perspective) response. The complexity is simply not manageable within a time and budget limit.
There is a theoretical alternative: If you had one instance of the game's world and every object/character within, much of that issue would be solvable "pretty easily". You could see the ships approaching a RES in supercruise and later find it there. You could buy X amount of ware Y from a station and every other player would see the lowered supply. Imaging that across the game's galaxy though and you'll find that you'd also have to have a central server(-cluster) with practically limitless storage and CPU resources, not to mention network bandwidth. Apart from maybe having the technical capabilities, you'd also have somebody programming all the logic, which may take surprisingly long.
So, abstraction and incongruences aren't going anywhere any time soon. Especially not with some patches half a year after release. Pointing them out in a more constructive manner (the thread title is about the opposite of constructive) might help in small steps, eventually.
There are of course things that might and should be improved, partly by avoiding the issue by means of game design: E.g. implement an extensive mission system (whichever form that may take, apart from amounts of resources that I doubt FDev have available), that provides occupation and financing for players in their various careers. In return: limit the spawning of pirates and wanted ships in RES/Nav Points to instanced missions and rare occasions rather than having a constant stream of them. There can't be that many stupid pirates in the galaxy waiting to be shot up after all.
Oh, and have stations attack the OP if he has sided with their enemy factions recently (edit: Provided they are scanned). That should really be a relatively simple fix.
Last edited:
Problems like this are exactly why there won't be much "emergent" gameplay as the game currently stands. Most of the "living" aspects of the universe aren't simulated, so they can't be manipulated or influenced.
Last edited:
I thought the hostile base thing was fixed.
A pirate station close to a fav RES will no longer service my ship at all.
A pirate station close to a fav RES will no longer service my ship at all.
Last edited:
I agree, and this is something I've raised myself numerous times since January when it dawned on us that the travel mechanics weren't temporary placeholders, but where how its going to be from now on. That was a choice FD made and have thus backed themselves into a corner over it because now this 400 billion star system galaxy they were so proud to announce during the kickstarter has become a watered down gimmick. Its nonsense that we can travel anywhere in hours yet humans haven't bothered building colonies beyond our or borders and still fight over a tiny cramped speck of systems with power play.
The short sightedness of the decision-makers within FD is now making a mockery of what this game could have been. They need to either go back to the original travel mechanics, ditch all the pre-defined hyperspace routes beyond the frontier, and make the galaxy a mysterious and challenging place to explore, or they need to start thinking of new game lore and features that take into account how easy it is for humans to conquer and colonizes beyond our borders and start putting infrastructure out there, and make the whole galaxy one sprawling urban mess.. because there is no excuse not too with the current mechanics.
I think this is why exploration seems to be a taboo subject with FD. They rarely comment on exploration threads.. its a playstyle that has had no real attention since gamma and my feeling is its become an embarrassment to them (FD). They can't justify how shallow the galactic content is, and how easy it is to go visit every nook and cranny, so they ignore it and still implement features (like power play) that don't take into account all that unclaimed space out there that is mere minutes and hours away. Its yet another bit of incongruent gameplay that the OP is talking about... all brought on by watering down a game that promised so much and delivered so little.
Last edited:
Havok, that is one of the reasons why I stopped playing this game, look at my old thread were I point out this same issue:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=144055
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=144055