Marc_Aurelius
Banned
Yep, saw this & 100% agree with his sentiment. There is plenty of actual *content* in the game, it just all needs to be connected together better-which is where fully chained missions will help *enormously* IMHO. A chat room & mission system for Power Play would be amazing too!
Saw it yesterday, and the arguments are brilliant for me. Totally agree.
Elite Dangerous just needs to connect all the pieces together to become a real full experience. Sometimes I get tired of playing ED like another games, and quit thinking: no more to do...
Next day I´m connected again and playing with no "lack of content" thoughts on my mind
Honestly, we all love this game, just sometimes we push devs to create more and more and more, and we don´t stop thinking about the game they have created. Its a**** diamond in our hands. Just enjoy it and let the devs polishing it.
In a few months with Rift/VIVE, the ED experience will be awesome.
Elite Dangerous just needs to connect all the pieces together to become a real full experience. Sometimes I get tired of playing ED like another games, and quit thinking: no more to do...
Next day I´m connected again and playing with no "lack of content" thoughts on my mind
Honestly, we all love this game, just sometimes we push devs to create more and more and more, and we don´t stop thinking about the game they have created. Its a
**** diamond in our hands. Just enjoy it and let the devs polishing it.In a few months with Rift/VIVE, the ED experience will be awesome.
I want those text pop ups in my game too please without using my , well the elite word. something so simple would be huge improvemt.
Nice vid , tnx for posting.
Nice vid , tnx for posting.
Obsidian has that elusive ability of not only being able to rationalize much of the criticism we have been seeing in the forums (he can see the wood for the trees), but also of being able to clearly express his views, and the views of others, in a concise and constructive manner. It is a very good example of how to offer criticism without damning the fine efforts and massive achievements of the developers so far.
Yet, in offering suggestions of how the chaining of meaningful gameplay can be achieved with the existing mechanics, he leaves us with a question that is on everyone's lips ..... "FD, how long will this take?"
I sincerely hope he (and we) receive an encouraging and positive response from FD on addressing this central issue, rather than its noticeable avoidance in forums and telecast interviews.
Yet, in offering suggestions of how the chaining of meaningful gameplay can be achieved with the existing mechanics, he leaves us with a question that is on everyone's lips ..... "FD, how long will this take?"
I sincerely hope he (and we) receive an encouraging and positive response from FD on addressing this central issue, rather than its noticeable avoidance in forums and telecast interviews.
Obsidian has that elusive ability of not only being able to rationalize much of the criticism we have been seeing in the forums (he can see the wood for the trees), but also of being able to clearly express his views, and the views of others, in a concise and constructive manner. It is a very good example of how to offer criticism without damning the fine efforts and massive achievements of the developers so far.
Yet, in offering suggestions of how the chaining of meaningful gameplay can be achieved with the existing mechanics, he leaves us with a question that is on everyone's lips ..... "FD, how long will this take?"
I sincerely hope he (and we) receive an encouraging and positive response from FD on addressing this central issue, rather than its noticeable avoidance in forums and telecast interviews.
I agree with everything you say, and also hope we will receive a statement form FD regarding the "merging-mechanics" issue. I'm not very confident though. I'm afraid they are waiting with the merging until all key mechanics are out, and as of now this point seem to be several seasons away.
I'm sure they can make some important steps until then.
^^^ ThisObsidian has that elusive ability of not only being able to rationalize much of the criticism we have been seeing in the forums (he can see the wood for the trees), but also of being able to clearly express his views, and the views of others, in a concise and constructive manner. It is a very good example of how to offer criticism without damning the fine efforts and massive achievements of the developers so far.
Yet, in offering suggestions of how the chaining of meaningful gameplay can be achieved with the existing mechanics, he leaves us with a question that is on everyone's lips ..... "FD, how long will this take?"
I sincerely hope he (and we) receive an encouraging and positive response from FD on addressing this central issue, rather than its noticeable avoidance in forums and telecast interviews.
+1
What I liked about this video is that it highlights the positive aspects of Elite as a unique game and doesn't try to suggest ED(H) should morph into a different style of game. In some sense, if you read between the lines, the video could be interpreted as a damning condemnation of the game (although he's not doing that). What I mean is that ED is all about procedural generation and not hand-crafted gameplay, yet he makes the point that it doesn't effectively leverage this in player motivation and experience. You could say that ED fails to deliver on its core mission - to some degree.
I love this game and congratulate Frontier on what they've achieved and have planned, however I certainly hope they do more in the future to truly leverage the essence of procedural generation and gameplay to create an even richer, motivating experience for players.
I love this game and congratulate Frontier on what they've achieved and have planned, however I certainly hope they do more in the future to truly leverage the essence of procedural generation and gameplay to create an even richer, motivating experience for players.
Marc_Aurelius
Banned
Obsidian has that elusive ability of not only being able to rationalize much of the criticism we have been seeing in the forums (he can see the wood for the trees), but also of being able to clearly express his views, and the views of others, in a concise and constructive manner. It is a very good example of how to offer criticism without damning the fine efforts and massive achievements of the developers so far.
Yet, in offering suggestions of how the chaining of meaningful gameplay can be achieved with the existing mechanics, he leaves us with a question that is on everyone's lips ..... "FD, how long will this take?"
I sincerely hope he (and we) receive an encouraging and positive response from FD on addressing this central issue, rather than its noticeable avoidance in forums and telecast interviews.
Well I am confident that we will see this happen over this season, based largely on comments made by Michael Brookes. In several Dev updates he has indicated the following (a) a strong desire to overhaul the Military Component of the game, this season, to make it
. (b) An intention to improve Community Goal Mechanics & the Power Play system (in the latter, he mentioned the addition of Bulletin Board Style missions & greater dynamism). (c) that fully chained missions (where one mission type can lead straight into a completely different mission type) will be coming this season & (d) to implement immersive ways in which the outcomes of the BGS can be relayed to the players (so when a Minor Faction takes control of a system, or when a system is in a Famine, or an Economic boom etc).
All of the above comments tell me that the Developers are keenly aware of the need to connect all of the existing game content into a cohesive whole, but I suspect that Season 1 was more about getting the content in, & making sure it all worked properly, independent of everything else. Now they can start connecting it all together. Also, I'm not concerned that this isn't getting mentioned in the "Season 2 Headlines", as around 60% of the improvements made to the game in Season 1 (such as improvements to the mission system & the introduction of Limpets) actually occurred with little to no fanfare.
So, going back to my original point. I suspect that Season 2 is where we will *really* see some major improvements in how much we can do in the game, & how meaningful those things we can do are!
I think (as was suggested in the video) FD are already heading in this direction. I received a timed mission the other day after picking up some abandoned canisters on a planet surface. Something along the lines of, "Hey, those <whatevers> actually belong to me. Deliver them to <x> and I'll pay you <$$>." Can't remember the exact details now and I actually only noticed I had received the mission (via chat panel) after the timer had expired. But it shows that these kinds of linked missions are at least in the works.
FD have taken on some major functionality pieces with planetary landings and I can't imagine things like multi-crew are easy to implement either. I think a lot of the gameplay ("content") improvements are going to have to take a back seat while they focus on completing these other bits.
FD have taken on some major functionality pieces with planetary landings and I can't imagine things like multi-crew are easy to implement either. I think a lot of the gameplay ("content") improvements are going to have to take a back seat while they focus on completing these other bits.
I don't have a problem with any of the suggestions OA is making in his video. They're great actually and I hope we see more of it, very constructive. HOWEVER, having an issue with Horizon's content at this point is a bit silly, of course it's empty, it isn't done yet. We got what was on the tin: a small portion of the season. FD have been very clear about this and that more is coming.
-
Let me try to explain by analogy; complaining that Horizons is empty is like going into a McDonald's, ordering food, getting your cup and receipt and complaining that the meal wasn't filling. Well of course it wasn't filling. You paid, you got the "on release" bit of the meal (your soft drink), but it takes time for the cooks to make your order and get it to your table. We don't have a problem with this at a fast food, because we are very familiar with the way it works. FD are trying a different model from the standard for gaming, lets call it the "fast food model", and I think there is some culture shock because of it, but they've been very clear about the way this was going to go down all along.
-
Moral of the story. Wait until next January to judge the content of Horizons, that's when the whole order will be at the table.
-
Let me try to explain by analogy; complaining that Horizons is empty is like going into a McDonald's, ordering food, getting your cup and receipt and complaining that the meal wasn't filling. Well of course it wasn't filling. You paid, you got the "on release" bit of the meal (your soft drink), but it takes time for the cooks to make your order and get it to your table. We don't have a problem with this at a fast food, because we are very familiar with the way it works. FD are trying a different model from the standard for gaming, lets call it the "fast food model", and I think there is some culture shock because of it, but they've been very clear about the way this was going to go down all along.
-
Moral of the story. Wait until next January to judge the content of Horizons, that's when the whole order will be at the table.
Marc_Aurelius
Banned
I disagree with you on this last point, Kheldar. The previous season proves to me that FD are more than capable of "walking & chewing gum at the same time". You said yourself that the precursors of what ObsidianAnt mentions are already showing up in the game, & they turned up in spite of them working on Planetary Landings, Wings & CQC. So with that in mind, & with the comments made by Michael in mind, I suspect you'll see a lot of these game-play improvements going on throughout season 2....just don't expect to see them trumpeted as loudly as multi-crew or ship launched fighters.
I also suspect that some of the Season 2 content will-slowly-be used to further improve the game-play elements of season 1. Bulletin Board & non-bulletin board missions centered around looting/salvage of ship parts, for example; avatar creation being used to put a face to some of those people who give you missions; non-credit based rewards for mission completion, like custom modules for your ship (again, tied to looting & crafting). Now these things may not happen all at once, but I wouldn't be surprised if they slowly get implemented over the next 12-15 months.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
McDonalds was a poor analogy, given that their stuff is already pre-cooked & sitting in the warmer
.....but point still taken. That said, I don't think OA was referring to Horizons on its own, but to Season 1 & 2 combined. The point of the video, though, is that the content is there-it just hasn't been fully brought together in a cohesive way. The thing about picking up canisters or answering distress calls is especially valid. I mean, imagine if you drop in to save a pilot from a pirate attack. If you succeed, the pilot sends you the document that he was transporting to a nearby system, but which he is now in no position to do. If you take the mission, & complete it, then the recipients might then give you a mission to rescue the hostages that the original document was referring to.....or maybe a pirate killing mission in another system, based on the intel in that document. See how all these pre-existing game mechanics then start to come together to form a cohesive mini-story?
Last edited:
Legacy_LuckyLuke
Banned
Yep spot on.
Game mechanics are brilliant, but not the b-all and end-all. I mentioned this previously in another thread - the universe we interact with is trgiggered programmatically - so something is needed to step outside of the program and make the experience feel more organic - real even.
Game mechanics are brilliant, but not the b-all and end-all. I mentioned this previously in another thread - the universe we interact with is trgiggered programmatically - so something is needed to step outside of the program and make the experience feel more organic - real even.
I don't think we disagree all that much actually. When I said, "take a back seat," I didn't necessarily mean that they won't be worked on at all. Just not the primary focus. So, yes, we'll likely see bits and pieces pop up during the season and that will be great. Should be interesting.
Each change to the game world needs to fight for resourcing... effectively competing with every other item on the "to do" list.
By default, the changes most likely to get resourced will be the ones that add new saleable functionality. That's a no-brainer. Spend dev resources, increase the likelihood of adding new sales. Effectively, more bullet-points on the feature list, more demo/stream/YouTube goodness, more things to add to the weekly newsletters and press releases. That's the same as in pretty much any industry, including mine (financial systems) - the "sensible" approach is to spend those scarce resources doing new stuff, as opposed to delving deep into the existing stuff to make it prettier/better/cleaner.
The only way to get those existing (often "minimum viable proposition") mechanics seen to is by having someone internal champion the benefits of doing that work, focusing on hard business benefits for doing so. I'm not sure who in FD is currently able to push hard on this front, as anyone capable of really coming to grips with it all would be in high demand as an experienced resource, so would be put on any one of a number of key "new" deliverables.
It's a tough job, trying to draw attention to the need to revisit existing mechanics... the ones were added efficiently to fill a need, ostensibly do an "adequate" job of filling that need... but aren't really up to the scratch. Particularly for those customers who are frequently exposed to them... the frequent players, who quickly learn how everything actually works.
Relatively inexpensive "smoke-and mirrors" game mechanics will indeed tick off bullet points, and will be seen as pragmatic/realistic/achievable/sensible, etc. However, if left in place beyond their use-by date, they'll devalue the game world... because they feel cheap and nasty to the player. Unfortunately, an "onwards and upwards" design focus can leave things in place long term... things that weaken the foundations of subsequent game world construction phases.
I won't waste thread space listing all the "smoke and mirrors" game mechanics. There are a lot of them, and FD will know every one from first design discussions through to final coding and testing. I simply hope that FD has the time, money and collective clarity of thought required to shine a light on their early efforts at game mechanics, see them for what they are, see richer alternatives... and fix them up!
I think that Frontier Dev would greatly benefit from having someone internal appointed (or appoint themselves) as a champion for game world integrity, cohesion and consistency.
By default, the changes most likely to get resourced will be the ones that add new saleable functionality. That's a no-brainer. Spend dev resources, increase the likelihood of adding new sales. Effectively, more bullet-points on the feature list, more demo/stream/YouTube goodness, more things to add to the weekly newsletters and press releases. That's the same as in pretty much any industry, including mine (financial systems) - the "sensible" approach is to spend those scarce resources doing new stuff, as opposed to delving deep into the existing stuff to make it prettier/better/cleaner.
The only way to get those existing (often "minimum viable proposition") mechanics seen to is by having someone internal champion the benefits of doing that work, focusing on hard business benefits for doing so. I'm not sure who in FD is currently able to push hard on this front, as anyone capable of really coming to grips with it all would be in high demand as an experienced resource, so would be put on any one of a number of key "new" deliverables.
It's a tough job, trying to draw attention to the need to revisit existing mechanics... the ones were added efficiently to fill a need, ostensibly do an "adequate" job of filling that need... but aren't really up to the scratch. Particularly for those customers who are frequently exposed to them... the frequent players, who quickly learn how everything actually works.
Relatively inexpensive "smoke-and mirrors" game mechanics will indeed tick off bullet points, and will be seen as pragmatic/realistic/achievable/sensible, etc. However, if left in place beyond their use-by date, they'll devalue the game world... because they feel cheap and nasty to the player. Unfortunately, an "onwards and upwards" design focus can leave things in place long term... things that weaken the foundations of subsequent game world construction phases.
I won't waste thread space listing all the "smoke and mirrors" game mechanics. There are a lot of them, and FD will know every one from first design discussions through to final coding and testing. I simply hope that FD has the time, money and collective clarity of thought required to shine a light on their early efforts at game mechanics, see them for what they are, see richer alternatives... and fix them up!
I think that Frontier Dev would greatly benefit from having someone internal appointed (or appoint themselves) as a champion for game world integrity, cohesion and consistency.
His video can basically be summarised as "Please implement proper chained missions", and that IS something already planned by FDev. Hopefully it's high on their priority list, because it would make a massive improvement to the game (if used correctly).