2.2 Reveal confirmed for gamescom

[Jex =TE=]

Yeh but in this case i spend 50 bucks beforehand for a season DLC and not the main game (which wasnt finished on 1.0 release not to forget). So and do you think people will trust FD again if they dont fulfill their promises...? Yes most of them will buy for the next season again because we will get the usual hype train when we reach the next cashing in fiscal period with eye candy pictures and revolutionary games changes.
Same for No men's sky.

All "release dates" are best guesses. Unless people who don't understand this have only started gaming in the last couple of years, they have no leg to stand on. It doesn't matter how much you spend - how does spending money alter reality?

We already had a ton of people leave because ED didn't deliver with 1.0. Horizens comes out and before the year is done, people are bored with it. You see, planetary landings aren't that amazing after you've done it 100 times and when you add in more rng infinitely repeating same bases you realize how cheap the coding is and that's another bunch of people leaving the game.

Now we see Passengers are seemingly nothing more than cargo missions. Some of these passenger missions will have you going to do something else, just like cargo missions. Persumably if we didn't have parcel delivery missions we'd have the same people creaming their pants over them if they were the next thing to put in?

No - nobody think parcel deliveries are that good to be featured as an "expansion" and people will take a look at this and won't buy season 3. If there's nothing different to do and it's more of the same, why are you paying full AAA price for this content.

So far, we should have COD mixed with BF4 - have we had that content yet? Season 3 should be adding in Armed Assault - sorry but what are you getting for your money here? Forget the fanboys, they'll buy anything we're talking about people who can still think clearly. What's going to keep them coming back for more?

If passsengers is an "expansion" then why is it the same as delivery missions? Why isn't there a whole passenger minigame that's a new thing to do? Shhip launched fighters - we already fly ships so yeah, go wow over a 5 second video and in 2 weeks you'll be bored of them.

For each season that fails to deliver anything new and just adds more of the same, less people will buy it because at FD's prices, it's just not going to be value for money.

That doesn't even begin to tackle the bugs that this is going to produce to a game already bugridden and with other things (PP) unfinished and as far as the devs go, will never be finished. Presumably Eng's are going to get the same too as they move on to new projects? Where's the dev time for all the stuff that doesn't work going to come from? With each thing they add, they need more bug fixing. So how are they managing resources around this?

 

[Ian Skippy]

I dont agree on, that it is a problem that their imaginations run wild", more i think its the job of a simulation (not only limited to space games)to do this. For example lets take a simulation game from a other genre like the civilization series. Before every new game i build up an idea and imagination how my new civilization would be throught all the centuries. Science, trade, religious, military, a mix of all or what ever etc and every game has had its own outcome and story. This all were made possible because the game offer me the tools to make this possible.

Haha, no. As a civ fan since civ2, that makes no sense. Play Europe Universalis for a bit and try to tell me you can really influence your civ in any real extent in any civ game. A fundamentalistically religious civ barely plays out differently than a non-religious civ. You have a few 'win conditions', a few key variables, and you try and get more points than the other. It is so obviously simplified and gamey that people dont expect anything deeper, your post is a great example of it. Civ is to EU as Rebel Galaxy is to ED: simplified, 'dumbed down', fairly easy but great fun all the same. Its an example that proves my point quite well: people are more happy about such games because it doesnt trigger the mind into seeking more depth.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Were you thinking about something like this ?

http://i.imgur.com/jBh2ChX.png

Just wondering, why is nothing considered a very high wage?

 

[sirius42]

Planetary landings and passenger missions in Frontier were extremely simplistic. Heck, you couldn't even mine asteroids!

Did you ever play Frontier ?

Planetary landing were revolutionary in 1994 and if you would add contemporary textures or gfx used nowadays there wouldnt not be much different from the planets and bases we can land atm in ED (from the visual aspect of the mechanic).

And yes you couldnt mine asteroids but you could buy yourself a mining factory place it on any planet, come some days later and collect your resource.

 

[Ozric]

magnificent?

come on.... i like those particular additions too but...

those are basic things that should have been with us from the start

ok, its a small underfunded developer, i get that... but than "magnificent" is not the right word

No because this is iterative development. It's how it works, so that you can have a game to play while all the time improving it, rather than trying to "make the game the best it can be" and never releasing it.

 

[Marc_Hicks]

Did you ever play Frontier ?

Planetary landing were revolutionary in 1994 and if you would add contemporary textures or gfx used nowadays there wouldnt not be much different from the planets and bases we can land atm in ED (from the visual aspect of the mechanic).

And yes you couldnt mine asteroids but you could buy yourself a mining factory place it on any planet, come some days later and collect your resource.

http://i.imgur.com/5hc9Nny.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/at8tvhO.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/kzVvUFq.png

Yes, actually, I did play both Frontier and First Encounters (was in my 20's at the time) & though the graphics were revolutionary for their day, they don't hold a candle to even the simplest landable planets of Elite: Dangerous.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

No because this is iterative development. It's how it works, so that you can have a game to play while all the time improving it, rather than trying to "make the game the best it can be" and never releasing it.

Yep, comments like that are why Jools got on my ignore list. In fact, I am doing well tonight.....6 people added so far. Life is too short to put up with the relentless negativity of some people.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Planetary landing were revolutionary in 1994 and if you would add contemporary textures or gfx used nowadays there wouldnt not be much different from the planets and bases we can land atm in ED (from the visual aspect of the mechanic).

Sorry man, but really? You dont notice the difference between the tectonic plate modeling, crater generation, shielding parts of the planet from craters due to the blocking effects of tidal wave-locked bodies etc from a flat plane with a better texture? You cant be Sirius...

 

[Marc_Hicks]

Yes definitely a great season 2 As for passengers missions i feel the same at the moment. But i do think with commander creator coming down the line and probably season 3 walking around, these ones will be fully fleshed out

Well, to be honest, just a few graphical improvements to the passenger mission "interface" (like seeing faces and names of passengers-& maybe even a short bio for VIP's-& a better representation of our passenger cabins) would make me very happy. I also hope there will be a change in how hostage rescue missions and retrieval of escape pods work.

 

[wowbagger667]

Oh,Sweet Memories.......... The Problem is that Elite Dangerous is gonna transform into an Elite 4 (Elite 2,Final Frontier) hybrid game with gameplay mechanics from the 90´s. Its a really "special" game. And the "younger" audience of players can´t handle this anymore.

 

[Marc_Hicks]

Sorry man, but really? You dont notice the difference between the tectonic plate modeling, crater generation, shielding parts of the planet from craters due to the blocking effects of tidal wave-locked bodies etc from a flat plane with a better texture? You cant be Sirius...

Damn, you didn't say "Shirley" .

 

[orfeboy]

Haha, no. As a civ fan since civ2, that makes no sense. Play Europe Universalis for a bit and try to tell me you can really influence your civ in any real extent in any civ game. A fundamentalistically religious civ barely plays out differently than a non-religious civ. You have a few 'win conditions', a few key variables, and you try and get more points than the other. It is so obviously simplified and gamey that people dont expect anything deeper, your post is a great example of it. Civ is to EU as Rebel Galaxy is to ED: simplified, 'dumbed down', fairly easy but great fun all the same. Its an example that proves my point quite well: people are more happy about such games because it doesnt trigger the mind into seeking more depth.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



Just wondering, why is nothing considered a very high wage?

So you are saying here that you require games to have more depth but when someone says they would like ED to be a game that is more than just s ship buying simulator they are wrong?

Do you really think ED is a deep game?

Seriously, I am not trying to be smart here, this is a genuine question

DO you think ED in its current condition is a deep game?

 

[Red Anders]

New Beluga Liner video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXs6pojh3OU

That is one good-looking ship.

YES! Apply filter to route in galaxy map!

https://youtu.be/PPkF-hKXSd8

Made a post about two weeks ago saying being able to filter a route by star type(s) is one of the features I would love to have. Being able to filter it by anything is therefore acceptable to me. I would still love being able to manually plot waypoints (I know we can kind of do it with bookmarks but we still have to keep going into the galmap and plotting each route individually ) but that will definitely be a useful feature. I would have thought traders will be pleased since they will now be able to automatically plot routes that don't take them into war zones and only fly through high security, for example. For exploration, I'm going to love being able to only plot to specific star types.

this all must be sacrasm! They must be kidding! They just have shown us a normal go to station and deliver cargo mission but with tourist instead o cargo! This can't be true, this all must be a joke... we know how to go to another station! Why they are showing us this?

What did you anticipate that passenger missions would involve other than collecting passengers and carrying them to destinations? I mean the concept is fairly clear. I do hope that we get the slaves feature from Frontier feature whereby if your passenger cabin becomes compromised by enemy fire your passengers turn into animal meat

 

[Frankymole]

Why are the videos on Youtube being made private shortly after we watch them?

 

[Barking_Mad]

Hey, I think a lot of things FD have added to the game are good. Some not so much. Power play was misguided. I can see what they are trying to do but did it in a way that does not appeal to people in a way that they feel anything they do actually delivers a reward to the player. It is just a grind and thus doomed to fail. Nobody can be enthusiastic about an endless grid that does not produce physical results you can be proud of.

CQC while does have value just makes me sad to see that development time not spent on vast problems that still so badly need love.

The assumption is that those developers could have been doing something else, when that's not necessarily the case. Those assets and the ships made it in to the actual game. All the design of them and the way they fly etc, all work that at least on the face of it (ie until we see launched fighters) has not been 'wasted'. CQC itself needs some improvement, because its actually rather good, but missing key features and some integration into the main game (which I thought was the right move initially).

For me, it is not so much about the things they have added to the game or stuff that is still broken. It is about the race they are running with the publics interest in their game. FD cannot continue this pattern forever. Sooner or later people will tire of seeing really important elements being neglected.

I see the word "broken" use a lot, but much of it looks like hyperbole to be honest. What it actually means is "this doesn't work as I would like it". Again, I have no idea what features will be fleshed out and which are fixed in stone, but either way to me, Frontier are choosing to paint lots of things in broad brushstrokes and then fill in some of the details at a later point.

Right now, ED's biggest problem is purpose. People can dance around it all they want by saying you make your own story blah, blah, blah. That is what you do in the absence of anything else. In order to create a true sandbox to enable players to work without the artificial frame work of a storyline, you need to provide a rich environment with levers to pull. You need an environment that can be moulded and sculpted bby the players. Without it, you are just fantasising in your head instead of actually playing the game in front of you.

But a lot of this needs a lot of development time, and without certain other assets, it's useless. It's a bit chicken and egg - and without you defining and example I cant comment either way.... People complain when there's a delay and complain when it comes too soon and is nt up to standard. They complain when the delay isnt what they wanted.

ED so far has had a lot of development time placed on ships, power ups, flight models, upgrades, RNG looting etc. Very little time has been spent on the actual environment we inhabit or a means of influencing it. THe BGS at the moment allows you to push one statistic up and down. Thats it! You can expand, but this provides no actual effect in the game. A minor faction is no better or worse off for it.

I'd like some explanation as to how this all works, I like the BGS but its utterly confrusing and im not sure why they havent at least given a guide. Best we have is some farily detailed but often shifting knowledge about how it works. Again though, the outcome might be simple, but there's a lot of stuff going on, so more outcomes = more stuff going on = more programming = longer development time = more bugs = less of something else.

The environment is static.

Being able to cause change a sculpt the environment we inhabit that has real physical evidence within the game is the key to providing genuine teamwork and comradre among players. It provides phyiscal evidence and reward for players toil and labour. Something Power Play never could. In a nutshell, it provides purpose and reason to play.

I do not see FD making and efforts in this area and still that clock ticks on and on...

Players become bored, leave the game and competition looms ever closer.

These are words though, not even ideas, just a general 'thing' you want. Which is fine, but it's not really a critique of what they could change and what is viable. As for players leaving - yes, they do and some come back and new people join. As I said, spacelegs I hope will change a lot in this game in that it will join lots of unconnected dots. But again, we'll have to wait and see.

As for the competition - that's largely in people's heads and a buggy alpha. Ill play the game that's out and know it will be improved and it will largely work really well. That's important to me.

I do not scorn ship launched fighters or multi-crew as features in themselves, but I see basic game mechanics that need addressing long before the shiny/ gimmick elements are introduced. Crowd pleasers are all well and good. But what happens when the thin vaneer wears off and everyone starts leaving the party?

Create a solid game. That is what people want.

Game is solid - it needs fleshing out where possible, but this isnt an FPS with maps and guns. How do you build all these game mechanics for all these different things and make them all work and be rich and detailed? That's pretty hard. Most other game do one thing, here people want lots of things - dependent on their imagination. Frontier are right in my view to build lots of stuff to do, even if it's not fleshed out. Had they just concentrated on a couple of things we'd have perhaps been bored of them and demanded some variety, and for it all to be just how they like it. "This is great but why not some sort of engineers where I can upgrade my ship". etc. "I dont want more of x I want more of y".

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Why are the videos on Youtube being made private shortly after we watch them?

If you mean the DB one, I think they put the wrong one up initially and then took it back down

 

[wowbagger667]

This Game is solid. Its just Elite (1,2,3) to the core.

 

[Fosdyke]

Well, to be honest, just a few graphical improvements to the passenger mission "interface" (like seeing faces and names of passengers-& maybe even a short bio for VIP's-& a better representation of our passenger cabins) would make me very happy. I also hope there will be a change in how hostage rescue missions and retrieval of escape pods work.

As a first step of graphical injection as you said (face+bio) should be nice

 

[sirius42]

Haha, no. As a civ fan since civ2, that makes no sense. Play Europe Universalis for a bit and try to tell me you can really influence your civ in any real extent in any civ game. A fundamentalistically religious civ barely plays out differently than a non-religious civ. You have a few 'win conditions', a few key variables, and you try and get more points than the other. It is so obviously simplified and gamey that people dont expect anything deeper, your post is a great example of it. Civ is to EU as Rebel Galaxy is to ED: simplified, 'dumbed down', fairly easy but great fun all the same. Its an example that proves my point quite well: people are more happy about such games because it doesnt trigger the mind into seeking more depth.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -



Just wondering, why is nothing considered a very high wage?

I dont agree again and i dont want to start a discussion on about how complex and deep the civ series are or how you can influence your civ in europe universalis but i can tell you i made mods for both of this games (currently working on a Rimworld modification). As a meanwhile decent modder i got a bit deeper insight how games work (then before), how games are created, whats is possible and easy to implement, what is not possible and hard to implement and if it were possible to create modifications for ED passenger missions in this form would be one of the easier tasks.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Sorry man, but really? You dont notice the difference between the tectonic plate modeling, crater generation, shielding parts of the planet from craters due to the blocking effects of tidal wave-locked bodies etc from a flat plane with a better texture? You cant be Sirius...

You didnt read ? I said from the core visual aspect ! Tectonic plates etc wouldnt have been possible 1994 with a 8Mhz cpu..

 

[Vasious]

Well, to be honest, just a few graphical improvements to the passenger mission "interface" (like seeing faces and names of passengers-& maybe even a short bio for VIP's-& a better representation of our passenger cabins) would make me very happy. I also hope there will be a change in how hostage rescue missions and retrieval of escape pods work.

When they selected the Passenger missions the face did change from the Faction Representative to that of the Main Passenger or VIP

 

[Ian Skippy]

So you are saying here that you require games to have more depth but when someone says they would like ED to be a game that is more than just s ship buying simulator they are wrong?

Do you really think ED is a deep game?

Seriously, I am not trying to be smart here, this is a genuine question

DO you think ED in its current condition is a deep game?

Firstly, I never said I required anything, or that you were wrong. I said your argumentation was iffy. I even said that Civ is a rather shallow franchise, but I have played it for an obscene number of hours, so 'depth' isnt always needed. Anyway, to answer your first question: yes, it is far more than a ship buying simulator. Simply put, I've about 1500 hours or so in, and never cared about getting more money about getting more ships. If its nothing more than that to you I am sorry to hear that.

As for whether or not it is deep, I am not sure how meaningful that is without comparing it with anything. But I have played with 'newbies' reasonably often, so let me present two situations.

1) When in combat once, my wingmate had his canopy blown out. As a result emergency oxygen was activated, which depends on the quality of your life support systems. Your choice in life support is not only decided by how much credits you can spend, but also by how much added weight and power consumption you can spare. After getting back to SC, it became apparant there was no station with a repair function in the system, and with an D-rated life support time was running out fast. So I recommended him to go to the station without repair function. At this point he was getting a bit panicky and started to doubt that would help much, but I convinced him to hurry up anyway. After he landed he was indeed unable to repair his ship. However, in the secured hangar he was able to re-fill his emergency oxygen, giving him another 7.5 minutes to reach safey. Meanwhile I used the galaxy map to buy system data, and found a station within one jump close to the primary star. He survived with two minutes to spare.

2) When helping a budding trader, I was asked why narcotics were illegal in that system. The player thought that commodity was legal, he had traded it a fair few times before there. I explained that different governments have different laws, and that there had been a war that resulted in a different faction assuming control. He asked how he could contribute to a war if it broke out. I explained you could obviously join the war zones, but you could also supply them with commodities (weapons and armor often paying very well then), or blow up civilian ships of the opposing faction. This would be considered a crime, but it was up to the player if you wanted to be a supplier, combat pilot or war criminal. Later the commodity became legal again, but the same faction was still ruling. It turned out that the region had been taken over by Delaine, who legalised narcotics (among other things), and opened black markets for stolen commodities.

You can call it shallow or deep, but when you compare this with any modern spacegame, either released or in development, this is relatively deep. And if you would have said that in a year of release this would actually be in-game, noone would have dared to believe it during the kickstarter. But we take everything we get for granted and just set the bar a bit higher after every new update. The game isnt finished, there is LOADS of stuff they can add or improve on, but the whole 'ED is shallow just grind and credits" complaints are really quite untrue.

 

[Sans Daring]

So you are saying here that you require games to have more depth but when someone says they would like ED to be a game that is more than just s ship buying simulator they are wrong?

Do you really think ED is a deep game?

Seriously, I am not trying to be smart here, this is a genuine question

DO you think ED in its current condition is a deep game?

Generic titles are a pain. Simulator is so vague. ED is a simulator, but it simulates more than one aspect. I would say Elite is incredible deep and complex, the problem is its also extremely broad, and as soon as anything is broad, the expanse makes it seem shallow. There are a hell of a lot of elements at play, interacting quite dynamically. Games tend to seem deep and complex because their boundaries are tighter and the space, be it geographical or mechanical, is more limited. I'd be interested to see what the average hour-play on Elite is. I do wonder those who feel it is shallow and lack depth have a low hour count accordingly. I would suspect Elite has a longevity most games would crave for. Not many games people play solid for a couple of years.

 

[Marc_Hicks]

Firstly, I never said I required anything, or that you were wrong. I said your argumentation was iffy. I even said that Civ is a rather shallow franchise, but I have played it for an obscene number of hours, so 'depth' isnt always needed. Anyway, to answer your first question: yes, it is far more than a ship buying simulator. Simply put, I've about 1500 hours or so in, and never cared about getting more money about getting more ships. If its nothing more than that to you I am sorry to hear that.

As for whether or not it is deep, I am not sure how meaningful that is without comparing it with anything. But I have played with 'newbies' reasonably often, so let me present two situations.

1) When in combat once, my wingmate had his canopy blown out. As a result emergency oxygen was activated, which depends on the quality of your life support systems. Your choice in life support is not only decided by how much credits you can spend, but also by how much added weight and power consumption you can spare. After getting back to SC, it became apparant there was no station with a repair function in the system, and with an D-rated life support time was running out fast. So I recommended him to go to the station without repair function. At this point he was getting a bit panicky and started to doubt that would help much, but I convinced him to hurry up anyway. After he landed he was indeed unable to repair his ship. However, in the secured hangar he was able to re-fill his emergency oxygen, giving him another 7.5 minutes to reach safey. Meanwhile I used the galaxy map to buy system data, and found a station within one jump close to the primary star. He survived with two minutes to spare.

2) When helping a budding trader, I was asked why narcotics were illegal in that system. The player thought that commodity was legal, he had traded it a fair few times before there. I explained that different governments have different laws, and that there had been a war that resulted in a different faction assuming control. He asked how he could contribute to a war if it broke out. I explained you could obviously join the war zones, but you could also supply them with commodities (weapons and armor often paying very well then), or blow up civilian ships of the opposing faction. This would be considered a crime, but it was up to the player if you wanted to be a supplier, combat pilot or war criminal. Later the commodity became legal again, but the same faction was still ruling. It turned out that the region had been taken over by Delaine, who legalised narcotics (among other things), and opened black markets for stolen commodities.

You can call it shallow or deep, but when you compare this with any modern spacegame, either released or in development, this is relatively deep. And if you would have said that in a year of release this would actually be in-game, noone would have dared to believe it during the kickstarter. But we take everything we get for granted and just set the bar a bit higher after every new update. The game isnt finished, there is LOADS of stuff they can add or improve on, but the whole 'ED is shallow just grind and credits" complaints are really quite untrue.

LOL, with Civ6 and 2.2 coming out at almost the same time-added to my recent purchase of Morrowind-I think I am just gonna have to give up on having friends .