Where is the Promised Richness of a Living, Breathing Galaxy in Elite Dangerous?

[Cosmo]

In the Progress Diary videos and interviews, sir Braben says he envisions Elite Dangerous as a galaxy with lots of richness, which in large part comes from interaction with other players.

People may have different opinions on what richness means for them. Here are some examples:

The galaxy of Elite Dangerous doesn't feel or look vibrant, alive, bustling.

Examples:
- There are no NPC characters in stations or starports.
- no traffic between populated planets and stations.
- no NPC vehicles or traffic at starports.
- No NPC ship dog-fighting on planets.
- Too basic and simplistic interaction between players and NPCs.
- Stations controlled by different Powers look too similar.
- Players are unable to make guilds or group-chat for massively social interaction.
- Can't build an outpost on a planet or in space that's managed by players of a guild.

NPC Interaction

NPC interaction is still very basic. It boils down to scan, shoot or get shot. It lacks richness and depth.

NPC character customization is planned and a crew of up to 4 players per ship. I read it's 4 players per wing. If 4 players fit in 1 ship that's 1 wing. Massively multiplayer is 6 to 10 players per Wing and, or multiple-wings in one group.

Player Interaction

If player interaction is so important, why don't we have this yet:

- chat rooms
- clans, guilds
- multiplayer missions
- anything for wide-scale socialization between players

Tie All Game Aspects Together

All the different aspects of the game should tie together. We can't craft anything yet.

Example:
1. collect minerals. Not only to sell for credits, but to craft things
2. go to station
3. craft modules, new ships, build a player outpost on a planet
4. Trade or sell crafted inventory with other players
5. Share ships, modules with guild members.

Those features make the sandbox deep and massive.

Player Activities

Most player activities are basic and lack depth. It are independent activities that don't tie together. There aren't any deep sandbox objectives.

We point out flaws and lack of promised "richness" by Braben in the hope that Frontier will add said richness and depth to make ED a truly great space sim, or more, an immersive virtual universe. Can we get reassurance that such things are planned? That puts our minds at ease.

Gamereactor In interviews:

"Planetary Landings in Elite Dangerous is the closest most of us will ever come to visiting other worlds, and it's just the beginning of Horizons' new season of gameplay expansions," Frontier Developments CEO David Braben said. "There is so much new gameplay to experience, new things to discover, and new ways to bring our amazing community together. It's also a great technical achievement for our incredible team, using cutting edge technology to create realistic simulated worlds and add to the enormous depth and richness of the Elite Dangerous galaxy."

Xbox Wire Interview:

David Braben: Your life can be anything you want to make of it. You’re given a small amount of money and a not-terribly-good spaceship, and you can get on with it. You can go out, do missions for people, trade, work with other players, etc. The richness of the world – and it’s becoming richer and richer with time – comes in large part from interactions with other players.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

- There are no NPC characters in stations or starports.

Tier 2 NPCs will probably have something to do with this.
.

- no traffic between populated planets and stations.
- No NPC ship dog-fighting on planets.

With Horizons this is definitely warranted. I'm surprised it's not there. I can't say I ever recall seeing an NPC in orbital cruise or glide.
.

- no NPC vehicles or traffic at starports.

Uhh? Yes there is?
.

- Too basic and simplistic interaction between players and NPCs.

This is improving with every major update, so I wouldn't be too concerned.
.

- Stations controlled by different Powers look too similar.

I don't see why this is necessary. A station doesn't go transformer on you when it changes hands. And I imagine a station is a lot harder to model than a ship.
.

- Players are unable to make guilds or group-chat for massively social interaction.
- Can't build an outpost on a planet or in space that's managed by players of a guild.

None of these are necessary, with the exception of maybe some kind of social tool for private groups. ED is not an MMO (despite how much they want to say it is) and traditional MMO social mechanics will not make it an MMO. You spam this idea around the forum and it's quite annoying.
.

If player interaction is so important, why don't we have this yet:

- chat rooms
- guilds
- multiplayer missions
- anything for wide-scale socialization between players

Because that's what makes player interaction so meaningful - the lack of interaction.
Nothing about the quotes you pulled says anything about player interaction being common or easy. If it were common and easy, it wouldn't be meaningful. Direct player interactions are rare, in many cases. There's no chat rooms, etc. Rare and meaningful player interactions enrich the galaxy far more than galaxy chat.
.
We have things such as powerplay and it seems that minor factions are getting love too. There's also CGs and what not. All these things affect the galaxy and by extension, are interactions with other players.
.

Tie All Game Aspects Together

All the different aspects of the game should tie together. We can't craft anything yet.

Example:
1. collect minerals. Not only to sell for credits, but to craft things
2. go to station
3. craft modules, new ships, build a player outpost on a planet
4. Trade or sell crafted inventory with other players
5. Share ships, modules with guild members.

Those features make the sandbox deep and massive.

None of these work in the way you claim it without a rigid MMO infrastructure and that can't really exist with P2P architecture, as I understand it.
.

Most player activities are basic and lack depth. It are independent activities that don't tie together. There aren't any deep sandbox objectives.

We point out flaws and lack of promised "richness" by Braben in the hope that Frontier will add said richness and depth to make ED a truly great space sim.

I think you are fundamentally misguided on how the galaxy is intended to work. I believe that it's less 'buzzing space highways' and more 'wild west frontier'. A lot of the mechanics (such as reduced player interactions, death penalties, etc) align with the latter, so it makes sense to me.

 

[Iskariot]

That is not a very good poll. It's a bit loaded I'd say.

I do agree in general. That's not the point.
Everybody wants more richness and depth anyway.
But we do need to realize that this is a huge project by a relatively small dev.
FD doesn't have multiple departments in countries all over the planet like UBI, EA or Rockstar.
This stuff needs time. Lots of time.
It is a ten year project after all.

But I will copy here what I have said in other threads repeatedly:

I believe the ED universe desperately needs to get dressed up.
The gameworld needs more assets to make it feel alive and give it variation.
We need more types of space structures and it wouldn't hurt if some of them looked a bit dramatic and awe inspiring:

- Imperial bases need to look the part. Imperial core systems should have Imperial styled space stations and other structures.
When we enter Imperial space, it should feel different.
- More internal and external variation of existing stations
- Prison Installations
- Industrial Complexes, Factories
- Military fortresses, battlestations, military outposts (that look the part), military shipyards, secret military deep space maintenance and military refueling stations
Some with large capital ships docked.
- Huge mining and ore processing installations
- Corporate headquarters
- Scientific observatories with huge telescopes and radio dishes.
- Asteroid bases (f.e. pirate bases)
- Solar arrays
- Waste Recycle Installations
- True shipyards and space docks with ships under construction, or being repaired
- Large container shipping areas
- A few truly unique stations
- Multiple installations in each others visible range, for example a container yard near a commercial outpost.
- Some large sprawling outposts with much more sub modules, that almost look like cities in space..

etc. etc.

What is also needed is more npc traffic, npc only ships that make the universe feel more alive, richer:
- Tugs
- Repair and Maintenance vehicles
- Huge tankers and container vessels
- Military npc vessels like frigates, destroyers, corvettes, large troop transports, Battleships, military tankers, hospital ships etc. etc. and also different classes of them.
For example there could be different sub classes of cruisers or destroyers or battleships.

Many of these assets should have their own sets of missions of course.

I would love to be able to dock with a large military vessel to get a special mission for example. Or just add military capital ships and other npc ships as mission givers.

I believe adding assets should be a priority because it influences directly how we perceive the game world itself.
Currently it is too dry, too lifeless, too samey.

 

[Psycho Romeo]

It's a bit loaded I'd say.

...A bit?

 

[AJW]

Pointless 'poll', which can only ever get one answer. Please don't insult everyone's intelligence.

 

[dxm55]

Mile wide, and inch deep.
Someone said that about the game.

I'd say it's somewhat true, but it's slowly getting better. Just need to allow more player to player transaction. Starting with Credits transfer.
Maybe I could pay some guy in a Vulture or Viper to escort my T9 as I make a cargo run?

 

[jabokai]

Worst. Poll. Ever.

So loaded it's pointless. The way it's worded if you vote for "richness and depth" that means you're voting for the OP's personal view of what adds that, not for that in general. Stupid, stupid poll.

 

[RhymeRhyme]

...A bit?

The poll is 100% accurate. It's a yes or no thing. Why? Because the poll asks if you would like FD to finally give us what they sell Elite for. A living, beathing, emergent game. It's not breathing at all. Emergent level near zero. It's a hardcore repetitive, 90% NPC-based, procedurally generated game. CGs are the first step but there has to come much more. And please, connect all the events to it becomes meaningful.

Elite is totally lacking of the emersiver, living and breathing Thing that they sell it for. Player interaction is a key to that. No, it's not meaningful if it is or has to be complicated. What argument is that? It's simply not possible to easily interact with other players. The game mechanics have to be improved. The game has to give us tools to interact in a better way. A multiplayer game where the multiplayer part has to be arranged 'offline' (forum) is totally lacking ... the multiplayer part. Elite failed 100% here. But there is hope ...

 

[jabokai]

The poll is 100% accurate.

No, it's a crap poll because the OP details what he thinks gives it richness and depth and he will use the vote to say "look people voted for guilds and for guild controlled stations", etc.

If the poll didn't have the OP description it'd still be pointless because everyone would vote for richness and depth - it's a no brainer.

So, it's simply stupid.

 

[amigacooke]

I suspect everybody wants more richness and depth, but it is how that is defined and realised that is the issue.

 

[Cosmo]

No, it's a crap poll because the OP details what he thinks gives it richness and depth and he will use the vote to say "look people voted for guilds and for guild controlled stations", etc.

It's not a crap poll. Everyone may have different opinions on what richness means for them. Those are some examples. I've added that to the OP. There's no edit button for the poll.

The poll is 100% accurate. It's a yes or no thing. Why? Because the poll asks if you would like FD to finally give us what they sell Elite for. A living, beathing, emergent game. It's not breathing at all. Emergent level near zero. It's a hardcore repetitive, 90% NPC-based, procedurally generated game. CGs are the first step but there has to come much more. And please, connect all the events to it becomes meaningful.

Elite is totally lacking of the emersiver, living and breathing Thing that they sell it for. Player interaction is a key to that. No, it's not meaningful if it is or has to be complicated. What argument is that? It's simply not possible to easily interact with other players. The game mechanics have to be improved. The game has to give us tools to interact in a better way. A multiplayer game where the multiplayer part has to be arranged 'offline' (forum) is totally lacking ... the multiplayer part. Elite failed 100% here. But there is hope ...

Spot on. Yes there's still hope that it'll get better.

 

[jabokai]

It's not a crap poll.

Of course it is, look at the wording - who is going to vote for the words "simple and shallow" over "richness and depth"? Of course people will only vote for that - it's utterly pointless. If you can't see that then maybe leave polls to people who can create neutrally worded ones.

Here's Cosmo's poll question for the Scottish Independence question...

Should Scotland be free of tyranny and oppression from an evil empire stealing it's resources and treating it's people like servile scum [ ]
Should Scotland remain a slave, it's people subjugated and broken by the cigar smoking leaders laughing at them in Westminster [ ]

 

[Cosmo]

Of course it is, look at the wording - who is going to vote for the words "simple and shallow" over "richness and depth"? Of course people will only vote for that - it's utterly pointless. If you can't see that then maybe leave polls to people who can create neutrally worded ones.:

Nope, some people like it simple and shallow. How would you make the poll?

 

[CMDR Byr Goefin]

They went to Mobius.

 

[Winterwalker]

Uh, yeah. Patience, Commander of the OP?

Most player activities are basic and lack depth. It are independent activities that don't tie together. There aren't any deep sandbox objectives.

Disagree. Combining deep space mining, exploration, bounty and scavenging missions for the benefit of my local faction, tie things together pretty well.

So yes to shiny things but no to criticising the game on a "lack" of features, not when a great many are planned for the future anyway, or put the game beyond the framerates of anything but supercomputers.

 

[silentphoenix]

The poll, it burns...

 

[Stellar Gambit]

at the risk of being a hypocrite by reply to this post, I wish people would stop posting on this thread and let it die the forum death it deseves.

 

[Time Streamer]

I beg your pardon, if i wanted simple and shallow I could hit play on my abandonware DOS classics (Those were pretty solid by that time btw). Sure OP has the right to have is own opinion but i'm sad (or happy) to announce that Elite already has the most rich and breathing galaxy ever presented in a space game of this genre. Well SC ain't out yet (and even if it was it would be a different game with different methods and other limitations and possibilities) and all the space "sims" in the past were more shallow than Elite (i'm not talking about single player immersion but ofc game mechanics). These guys ain't building a scripted 600MB game. It's a sandbox 1:1 scale galaxy with a complex background sim dealing with politics and stuff where you have an "endless" playground (feel free to try to visit all the systems once in your lifetime). So instead of waiting 3660476521 years for game conclusion with that richness and depth, they gave you the chance to start playing earlier and have loads of fun with it, while new content is being developed. Bugs do arise (any game of these dimensions WILL HAVE bugs), some are harder to solve. Others, not really. Many of your points (OP) could be considered valid at a certain point, but they're just eye candy. Why can't you guys see the big picture?

 

[Psycho Romeo]

Nope, some people like it simple and shallow. How would you make the poll?

Specific question, generic answers. Specific answers only work if you are able to encompass all the possible answers someone could have, and unless you're working with numbers, that's unlikely. The most criminal thing you can do is make the answers "Yes, because X" or "No, do Y". Because, for example, someone may respond to your question "No, it's already rich and deep".

For the most part, specifically referencing the OP and asking for agreement or disagreement is a very safe and effective way to go. Especially if you want discussion. "Will the following features bring life to the galaxy?", "Yes", "No", "On the fence".

 

[jabokai]

Nope, some people like it simple and shallow. How would you make the poll?

I wouldn't make this particular poll because it's nonsensical. Nobody wants shallow, everyone wants depth, it's what creates that depth that is worthy of discussion, polls, and prioritisation. Your poll is stupid.