If you think ED's too difficult...
- Thread starter Captain Zoe E Summers
- Start date
I think the difficulty is about right. I felt right at home from the beginning with the flight model, it took me back to the original... and docking is fine. I did it first time by taking it slow, but you get better and faster with practice. (I have crashed a couple of times tying to go barreling in at full speed)
The AI is getting better and fights can be tense, multiple opponents can be very hard, as it should be.
You definitely get better and learn new tricks with practice.
Main thing is to get your controls set up how you want them somewhere safe.
The AI is getting better and fights can be tense, multiple opponents can be very hard, as it should be.
You definitely get better and learn new tricks with practice.
Main thing is to get your controls set up how you want them somewhere safe.
Wow…. That’s a stretch. Comparing a 2D computer simulation to a real world situation? Both had to be learned, one is even taught. It does surprise me this venomous fervor that swells up if mentioning helping paying(paid) customers use their product. Docking computers were in the original Elite. If you do not want one then don’t get one. Not everybody is going to fly as well as you not everyone is going to mine asteroids or joyride the universe. But if they want to they’ll try to, learning at their own pace with their own sense of rewards.
I think we should calm down a little, on both side of the argument.
I agree with the OP: yes Elite has a learning curve, and it's a good thing.
As for being frustrated with all the recent complaining in the forum, we have to remember that people having difficulties are much more likely to come to the forum than the others. There is 10000 new commanders, there's bound to be a few pilots in distress. But in game, what I saw wasn't so dramatic (maybe I was too involved in my own learning process?).
As for the "in good'ol'times, games were properly hard, now young gamers are just lazy", this is just not true (and yes, I was there in the 80's). Some of the most popular games today require incredible skills (e.g. some multiplayer FPS), some require to learn an astounding volume of data and tactics (most DOTAs), some require to invest vast amount of time (MMOs).
What is true is that the space sim genre is probably new to many gamers, and a lot of what we take for granted will seem weird to them. IMHO we should try to be helpful, and not intimidating...
So yes, there is some skills to learn in order to enjoy Elite. But I'm pretty sure they don't require any particular predisposition: with a bit of patience, anyone can learn to dock or handle themselves in a fight.
I agree with the OP: yes Elite has a learning curve, and it's a good thing.
As for being frustrated with all the recent complaining in the forum, we have to remember that people having difficulties are much more likely to come to the forum than the others. There is 10000 new commanders, there's bound to be a few pilots in distress. But in game, what I saw wasn't so dramatic (maybe I was too involved in my own learning process?).
As for the "in good'ol'times, games were properly hard, now young gamers are just lazy", this is just not true (and yes, I was there in the 80's). Some of the most popular games today require incredible skills (e.g. some multiplayer FPS), some require to learn an astounding volume of data and tactics (most DOTAs), some require to invest vast amount of time (MMOs).
What is true is that the space sim genre is probably new to many gamers, and a lot of what we take for granted will seem weird to them. IMHO we should try to be helpful, and not intimidating...
So yes, there is some skills to learn in order to enjoy Elite. But I'm pretty sure they don't require any particular predisposition: with a bit of patience, anyone can learn to dock or handle themselves in a fight.
Last edited:
Stay at it!
I myself used to play flight sims a lot in the Amiga. Thought I was good.
So I brought a ton of complex add-ons for Flight Simulator with a Yoke, Throttle set and pedals. I knew all the basics of flight and physics ect..
Oh boy did I get frustrated learning these add-ons..
Did I quit? NO!
I stuck with it and can now Comfortably program the Flight Management Computers..
Although wrote for WW1 Air Combat its sill somewhat relevant to combat in elite.
The Dicta Boelcke
1. Try to secure the upper hand before attacking. If possible, keep the sun behind you[edit]
Advantages for World War I aircraft included speed, altitude, surprise, performance and numerical superiority.
Speed: the pilot with the faster of two machines has control over the combat. He has the choice to break off combat and retire. The slower machine can not catch him. The pilot of a slower machine must stay on the defense. He can not run to safety. A fast moving aircraft can perform elaborate maneuvers, giving its pilot many options. A machine flying close to its stall speed can do little beyond wallowing in a more or less straight line. Aircraft engines available in 1914 and 1915 provided just enough thrust to keep machines airborne at 150 km/h (93 mph), and not much more. Level flight was fine, but climbing to a higher altitude took several minutes and cut air speed nearly in half. Diving, on the other hand, could add half again to a plane's top speed. By 1916, engine power and speed increased. By the end of the war, aircraft were operating regularly at speeds over 200 km/h (124 mph). Speed was critical.
Altitude: From the advantage of flying above his opponent, a pilot had more control over how and where the fight takes place. He could dive upon his opponent, gaining a sizable speed advantage for a hit and run attack. Or, if the enemy had too many advantages- numbers for instance- a pilot could fly away with a good head start. At best, World War I aircraft climbed very slowly compared with later types. Altitude was a hard earned 'potential energy' store not to be given away capriciously.
Surprise: getting the first shot before one's opponent is prepared to return fire was the 'safest' and preferred method for attack. Most air victories were achieved in the first pass. Without all-seeing devices like radar, a pilot could approach his foe stealthily, using clouds, haze or even using the enemy aircraft's own wings or tail to conceal his approach. The glare of the sun, especially, provided an effective hiding spot.
Performance: Knowing the strengths, weakness and capabilities of your own aircraft, and that of your foe, was also critical. Who was faster, who could turn tighter, how many were there, etc. He argued against foolish acts of 'heroism.' If he could not 'secure advantages,' he would not attack. One of Boelcke's pupils, Manfred von Richthofen (better known as the Red Baron), learned this rule very well and later became World War I's top scoring ace.
A documented example of Boelcke 'securing advantages' took place on 17 September 1916. Boelcke and his pilots intercepted a flight of bombers and fighters crossing the lines. He chose not to attack right away, but had his Jasta climb higher above the bombers, keeping themselves between the bombers and the sun. There they circled and waited. When the bomber pilots, observers and fighter escort pilots were preoccupied with the destruction they were causing on the ground, Boelcke signaled for his pilots to attack. Several enemy aircraft went down and Jasta 2 lost no one.
2. Always continue with an attack you have begun[edit]
Rookie pilots would start a fight, but instinct (fear) would convince them to break it off and run. This inevitably presented the rookie's tail to his opponent's guns, making the rookie an easy victory for his enemy. Boelcke learned that it was far better to stay and continue mixing it up — waiting for his opponent to make mistakes or flee — than to break and run. To turn tail and run was to surrender most, if not all, of the advantages a pilot might have had. As an example, when Manfred von Richthofen met British ace Lanoe Hawker in November 1916, each persisted in trying to get on the other's tail. Both stuck to Boelcke's second dictum. When their endless circling had brought them down near the ground behind German lines, Hawker had to choose between landing and capture or fleeing. He chose to flee. Richthofen was then able to get behind him and shoot him down.
3. Open fire only at close range, and then only when the opponent is squarely in your sights[edit]
A common rookie's urge was to start blasting away upon sighting his first enemy machine. Shots taken at ranges of 1000 m (3280 ft) stood little chance of hitting their mark. The rattle of machine gun fire would alert the intended target and gave them time to react.
The machine guns available for aircraft during the First World War were not highly accurate at longer ranges. Add to that the difficulty of aiming from a moving, bouncing gun platform at a fast moving target and it is a marvel that anyone ever hit anything. Boelcke preferred to fly to within 100 m (330 ft) or less before firing, to ensure hitting what he aimed at with his opening burst. Once the rattle of his guns was heard, the advantage of surprise was gone, so it was best to make that first shot most effective.
Another aspect of making each shot count was the limited supply of ammunition carried in World War I aircraft — usually only a few hundred rounds. This could amount to less than 60 seconds of sustained fire. Reloading in the air varied from dangerous to impossible. Spraying the sky with lead in hopes of hitting something, eventually, was not an option. Shots had to be chosen carefully. Early in the war, when a sense of chivalry still held sway, some men allowed their opponents to depart if they were out of ammunition or had jammed guns. Total war did not allow such courtesies to last for long.
4. You should always try to keep your eye on your opponent, and never let yourself be deceived by ruses[edit]
The first part, 'keeping your eye on your opponent,' sounds obvious enough, but it needed to be stated. In the hustle and bustle of an air fight it was easy to lose sight of your adversary. A restatement of this rule might be: never assume you know where your opponent is or will be. If a pilot 'lost' his foe, the advantage shifted to the foe. A successful pilot did not allow himself to be distracted from his opponent. As far as ruses go, it was not an uncommon practice for a pilot to feign being hit, going into a supposedly uncontrolled spin or dive, in order to exit a fight that was not going well. This practice traded on the chivalry of their opponents. To continue hammering a man who was already going down, was thought unsportsmanlike. Boelcke recognized that too many enemies were being allowed to escape and return to fight another day. War for national survival was not sport. He taught against the accepted notion that once a machine began to spin down, that one could move on. If it were a ruse, the enemy pilot would pull out at the last moment and either escape or return to attack, perhaps now having gained the advantage of surprise. Boelcke wanted his pupils to follow their opponent down, and make sure they were out of the fight or resume the fight if necessary.
5. In any type of attack, it is essential to assail your opponent from behind[edit]
Firing at a machine flying across one's path required 'leading' the shot—aiming ahead of a moving target to compensate for its speed. While a few pilots were adept at the mental calculations necessary and good aerial marksmen, most were much less adept. The velocity of a moving gun platform, the speed of bullets plus the speed and direction of a moving target could be a lot to consider in the heat of battle. Furthermore, in deflection firing, the target could cross the stream of fire whose bullets were 50 m (165 ft) or more apart. Such crossing gave less exposure to the bullets.
Head-on attacks or head-to-tail attacks required little or no calculated deflection in aim. A head-on attack, however, exposed one directly to the enemy's guns. It was far safer and more effective to have one's target and bullet stream all traveling in more or less the same direction. This required little or no 'leading,' and exposed the target to a greater concentration of fire.
Because of the prevalence of attacks from the rear, aircraft design adapted to allow for rear firing guns in two-seaters and larger bombers.
6. If your opponent dives on you, do not try to get around his attack, but fly to meet it[edit]
This rule is related to dictum #5 above. The instinctive reaction of many rookies was to turn and flee from an approaching attacker—especially a diving one. This simply presented their tail to the attacker, usually with disastrous results. Boelcke taught that a pilot had to conquer that instinct. Turning to face the attack could force the attacker onto the defensive, or at least keep the situation unsettled, which was far better than presenting your tail. Even though climbing to meet an attack would reduce speed, it was better to try to bring one's own guns to bear than to flee, and approaching the enemy still increases the relative velocity between the two fighters and thus reduces the time during which the enemy can fire. Furthermore, if both fighters miss, the diving attacker must now pull out of his dive, while the defender is now in position to circle around and counter-attack with his own dive.
7. When over the enemy's lines, always remember your own line of retreat[edit]
If a pilot chose to flee a superior force, or was coming down with a damaged machine, it was critical to spend what little time he might have going in the right direction. This rule sounds as though it is stating the obvious, but Boelcke found it necessary to include it. More than a few pilots came down behind enemy lines because they got confused and lost their way. In World War I, aerial navigation was done mostly by sight. Taking regular note of landmarks helped a pilot get his bearings quickly, perhaps making the difference between safety and captivity.
8. Tip for Squadrons: In principle, it is better to attack in groups of four or six. Avoid two aircraft attacking the same opponent[edit]
In the first year or so of World War I, air combat was more of a one-on-one affair. The early aces, like Pegoud, Garros, Boelcke and Immelmann, hunted the skies alone. As the war progressed, the sheer number of machines in the sky increased. Several reconnaissance machines traveled together for mutual protection, further protected by escorting fighters. Boelcke recognized that the days of the lone hunter were over. Many young pilots, however, still came to the front expecting to dash valiantly into battle as an errant knight, alone, but in reality they would be quickly overwhelmed by multiple enemies. Boelcke tirelessly lectured his pupils on the need for teamwork—sometimes scolding them for acting too independently. Attacking in a group allowed the leader to concentrate his attention exclusively on his target, while his wingmen protected his tail.
I myself used to play flight sims a lot in the Amiga. Thought I was good.
So I brought a ton of complex add-ons for Flight Simulator with a Yoke, Throttle set and pedals. I knew all the basics of flight and physics ect..
Oh boy did I get frustrated learning these add-ons..
Did I quit? NO!
I stuck with it and can now Comfortably program the Flight Management Computers..
Although wrote for WW1 Air Combat its sill somewhat relevant to combat in elite.
The Dicta Boelcke
1. Try to secure the upper hand before attacking. If possible, keep the sun behind you[edit]
Advantages for World War I aircraft included speed, altitude, surprise, performance and numerical superiority.
Speed: the pilot with the faster of two machines has control over the combat. He has the choice to break off combat and retire. The slower machine can not catch him. The pilot of a slower machine must stay on the defense. He can not run to safety. A fast moving aircraft can perform elaborate maneuvers, giving its pilot many options. A machine flying close to its stall speed can do little beyond wallowing in a more or less straight line. Aircraft engines available in 1914 and 1915 provided just enough thrust to keep machines airborne at 150 km/h (93 mph), and not much more. Level flight was fine, but climbing to a higher altitude took several minutes and cut air speed nearly in half. Diving, on the other hand, could add half again to a plane's top speed. By 1916, engine power and speed increased. By the end of the war, aircraft were operating regularly at speeds over 200 km/h (124 mph). Speed was critical.
Altitude: From the advantage of flying above his opponent, a pilot had more control over how and where the fight takes place. He could dive upon his opponent, gaining a sizable speed advantage for a hit and run attack. Or, if the enemy had too many advantages- numbers for instance- a pilot could fly away with a good head start. At best, World War I aircraft climbed very slowly compared with later types. Altitude was a hard earned 'potential energy' store not to be given away capriciously.
Surprise: getting the first shot before one's opponent is prepared to return fire was the 'safest' and preferred method for attack. Most air victories were achieved in the first pass. Without all-seeing devices like radar, a pilot could approach his foe stealthily, using clouds, haze or even using the enemy aircraft's own wings or tail to conceal his approach. The glare of the sun, especially, provided an effective hiding spot.
Performance: Knowing the strengths, weakness and capabilities of your own aircraft, and that of your foe, was also critical. Who was faster, who could turn tighter, how many were there, etc. He argued against foolish acts of 'heroism.' If he could not 'secure advantages,' he would not attack. One of Boelcke's pupils, Manfred von Richthofen (better known as the Red Baron), learned this rule very well and later became World War I's top scoring ace.
A documented example of Boelcke 'securing advantages' took place on 17 September 1916. Boelcke and his pilots intercepted a flight of bombers and fighters crossing the lines. He chose not to attack right away, but had his Jasta climb higher above the bombers, keeping themselves between the bombers and the sun. There they circled and waited. When the bomber pilots, observers and fighter escort pilots were preoccupied with the destruction they were causing on the ground, Boelcke signaled for his pilots to attack. Several enemy aircraft went down and Jasta 2 lost no one.
2. Always continue with an attack you have begun[edit]
Rookie pilots would start a fight, but instinct (fear) would convince them to break it off and run. This inevitably presented the rookie's tail to his opponent's guns, making the rookie an easy victory for his enemy. Boelcke learned that it was far better to stay and continue mixing it up — waiting for his opponent to make mistakes or flee — than to break and run. To turn tail and run was to surrender most, if not all, of the advantages a pilot might have had. As an example, when Manfred von Richthofen met British ace Lanoe Hawker in November 1916, each persisted in trying to get on the other's tail. Both stuck to Boelcke's second dictum. When their endless circling had brought them down near the ground behind German lines, Hawker had to choose between landing and capture or fleeing. He chose to flee. Richthofen was then able to get behind him and shoot him down.
3. Open fire only at close range, and then only when the opponent is squarely in your sights[edit]
A common rookie's urge was to start blasting away upon sighting his first enemy machine. Shots taken at ranges of 1000 m (3280 ft) stood little chance of hitting their mark. The rattle of machine gun fire would alert the intended target and gave them time to react.
The machine guns available for aircraft during the First World War were not highly accurate at longer ranges. Add to that the difficulty of aiming from a moving, bouncing gun platform at a fast moving target and it is a marvel that anyone ever hit anything. Boelcke preferred to fly to within 100 m (330 ft) or less before firing, to ensure hitting what he aimed at with his opening burst. Once the rattle of his guns was heard, the advantage of surprise was gone, so it was best to make that first shot most effective.
Another aspect of making each shot count was the limited supply of ammunition carried in World War I aircraft — usually only a few hundred rounds. This could amount to less than 60 seconds of sustained fire. Reloading in the air varied from dangerous to impossible. Spraying the sky with lead in hopes of hitting something, eventually, was not an option. Shots had to be chosen carefully. Early in the war, when a sense of chivalry still held sway, some men allowed their opponents to depart if they were out of ammunition or had jammed guns. Total war did not allow such courtesies to last for long.
4. You should always try to keep your eye on your opponent, and never let yourself be deceived by ruses[edit]
The first part, 'keeping your eye on your opponent,' sounds obvious enough, but it needed to be stated. In the hustle and bustle of an air fight it was easy to lose sight of your adversary. A restatement of this rule might be: never assume you know where your opponent is or will be. If a pilot 'lost' his foe, the advantage shifted to the foe. A successful pilot did not allow himself to be distracted from his opponent. As far as ruses go, it was not an uncommon practice for a pilot to feign being hit, going into a supposedly uncontrolled spin or dive, in order to exit a fight that was not going well. This practice traded on the chivalry of their opponents. To continue hammering a man who was already going down, was thought unsportsmanlike. Boelcke recognized that too many enemies were being allowed to escape and return to fight another day. War for national survival was not sport. He taught against the accepted notion that once a machine began to spin down, that one could move on. If it were a ruse, the enemy pilot would pull out at the last moment and either escape or return to attack, perhaps now having gained the advantage of surprise. Boelcke wanted his pupils to follow their opponent down, and make sure they were out of the fight or resume the fight if necessary.
5. In any type of attack, it is essential to assail your opponent from behind[edit]
Firing at a machine flying across one's path required 'leading' the shot—aiming ahead of a moving target to compensate for its speed. While a few pilots were adept at the mental calculations necessary and good aerial marksmen, most were much less adept. The velocity of a moving gun platform, the speed of bullets plus the speed and direction of a moving target could be a lot to consider in the heat of battle. Furthermore, in deflection firing, the target could cross the stream of fire whose bullets were 50 m (165 ft) or more apart. Such crossing gave less exposure to the bullets.
Head-on attacks or head-to-tail attacks required little or no calculated deflection in aim. A head-on attack, however, exposed one directly to the enemy's guns. It was far safer and more effective to have one's target and bullet stream all traveling in more or less the same direction. This required little or no 'leading,' and exposed the target to a greater concentration of fire.
Because of the prevalence of attacks from the rear, aircraft design adapted to allow for rear firing guns in two-seaters and larger bombers.
6. If your opponent dives on you, do not try to get around his attack, but fly to meet it[edit]
This rule is related to dictum #5 above. The instinctive reaction of many rookies was to turn and flee from an approaching attacker—especially a diving one. This simply presented their tail to the attacker, usually with disastrous results. Boelcke taught that a pilot had to conquer that instinct. Turning to face the attack could force the attacker onto the defensive, or at least keep the situation unsettled, which was far better than presenting your tail. Even though climbing to meet an attack would reduce speed, it was better to try to bring one's own guns to bear than to flee, and approaching the enemy still increases the relative velocity between the two fighters and thus reduces the time during which the enemy can fire. Furthermore, if both fighters miss, the diving attacker must now pull out of his dive, while the defender is now in position to circle around and counter-attack with his own dive.
7. When over the enemy's lines, always remember your own line of retreat[edit]
If a pilot chose to flee a superior force, or was coming down with a damaged machine, it was critical to spend what little time he might have going in the right direction. This rule sounds as though it is stating the obvious, but Boelcke found it necessary to include it. More than a few pilots came down behind enemy lines because they got confused and lost their way. In World War I, aerial navigation was done mostly by sight. Taking regular note of landmarks helped a pilot get his bearings quickly, perhaps making the difference between safety and captivity.
8. Tip for Squadrons: In principle, it is better to attack in groups of four or six. Avoid two aircraft attacking the same opponent[edit]
In the first year or so of World War I, air combat was more of a one-on-one affair. The early aces, like Pegoud, Garros, Boelcke and Immelmann, hunted the skies alone. As the war progressed, the sheer number of machines in the sky increased. Several reconnaissance machines traveled together for mutual protection, further protected by escorting fighters. Boelcke recognized that the days of the lone hunter were over. Many young pilots, however, still came to the front expecting to dash valiantly into battle as an errant knight, alone, but in reality they would be quickly overwhelmed by multiple enemies. Boelcke tirelessly lectured his pupils on the need for teamwork—sometimes scolding them for acting too independently. Attacking in a group allowed the leader to concentrate his attention exclusively on his target, while his wingmen protected his tail.
Right, for a start, you shouldn't presume sexism where there isn't any. I'm Irish, and lads is a generic term where I'm from. One of my wife's best friends is an Irish girl, who refers to my wife and their group of girlfriends as lads as well. In America, that's substituted out for "guys". Yes, I know many girls who use that term to refer to a mixed group.
So I'm wrong in saying that Alpha backers have had longer to get used to combat zones, PVP interactions, supercruise, and an expanded universe? ******, and there was me playing the combat missions - if only I'd known I had access to the later builds.
Apologies if everyone isn't an old hand like yourself, it's unfortunate that people can't jump in and "pick the game up within an hour." Those of us in this supposed "willy club" just aren't up to snuff. I'll keep practicing, I'll try and do better. We're sorry we're all letting you down.
There are a few people complaining that the game is far too difficult. A few. Far more, like myself, are surprised at the learning curve being as steep as it is, but are still plugging away and happy to be doing so. I suggest you take a leaf out of your own book when you say that you're sick of people complaining, and ease off on your own moping.
Are you complaining about someone complaining about people complaining?
You of ALL PEOPLE shouldn't be complaining about someone complaining about people complaining about people complaining!!!
I know i said the same about flight simulator x tried to get them to put in automatic takeoff and landing as well as the autopilot of course. It would have been great it would have allowed me to travel the world taking passengers wherever without me laying a hand on the controls.
They just said thats not a flying simulator thats a passenger simulator.
Everything you said is true but you also have to remember that the game wasn't made easier...Alpha backers, myself included, got better by practicing. That's what most are suggesting the beta players do...practice, rather than demand the game be made easier.
As to your comment about found cargo I have two words.....Black Market. Admittedly you won't get as much for it but then it's going to be 100% profit, less any bounty that may be placed on you for having "stolen" cargo.
Exactly, and completely agree. And the point I was making was that Alpha backers have had a couple of months to do that, whereas Beta players have just had the single player combat missions to twonk around with. No beta tester has had to start from nothing with a sidewinder and a pulse laser and be stuck with it until they earn something different - remember in the combat missions, you might always have a sidewinder, but your weapons loadout improves depending on the opposition. So from a personal standpoint for example, I'm used to fighting a cobra while armed with a beam laser or a railgun. And I'd never faced an Eagle before (those things are a pain in the backside!!)
As someone in here mentioned, there's 10,000 new commanders suddenly in the universe. Of that 10,000 there's maybe a dozen or so complaining about it being too hard. Maybe a hundred or so have chimed in that yeah, it's a bit harder than we expected, but oh well. It's just a squeaky minority causing issue.
You're not wrong, you're just ... (I'm tempted to say it
... not realising that user experience is more important than you give it credit for.A sense of achievement is what we all want as gamers. If yours came at a high cost, well done; but don't place arbitrary restrictions on others because it was hard for you.
We all want the best game, and the best game is not a trial by fire and its not a mountain that needs to be climbed, or a marathon; its a rewarding experience, and the greater the reward for the least perceived effort the better.
No work and pay... No work and pay.. No work and pay!
Well I certainly don't want the game to be dumbed down as that goes against what FD have wanted to do. I do think there is a lot to take in at the beginning and if someone skipped the single player missions and didn't watch any of the videos, then they probably would struggle. The feedback from new players is valuable to FD and if a significant number are struggling FD will perhaps need to expand the single player missions into a tutorial that covers the main aspects of the game.
If you are currently stuck search the forums, read the solutions to questions already answered, then ask for help.
The game is meant to be player skill based, but equally no measure of success applies but your own so stick with it and surprise yourself.
Thanks Jack! I think this is a very pertinent point. And I suspect that a lot of Premium Beta players have just gone straight for the multiplayer portion of the game, completely ignoring the single player part and then found things a bit more difficult than they imagined.
Perhaps they never played them when they had access in 1.1? I see a lot of posts from people complaining the game is too hard with very low post counts so I am making the assumption that these are brand new players.
A whole generation (arguably, already two of them) has been grown to believe games should be all about instant gratification, easy access and success, and easyness of understanding and playing instead of gratification by mastering something you initially sucked at, or having fun while learning to get better at something.
gone are the 90s where a lot of games had a sharper learning curve than the Everest and people loved them because of it. Today most of the gaming industry is based around making "casual-accessible" games and "gratifying" from the very beginning, so 11 year olds can play it instead of joining another CoD or BF4 server and feeling "l337" in a game where twitch reaction is everything, thinking means little difference, and practice and training mean nothing except at the competitive level.
Which is allright as there should be games for every taste, but not every game has to comply with those rules, and maybe the target audience of those games should bother with games that are designed for them, and stop moaning about games that are targetted at an audience which likes to master difficult things and become good at them, going through the long (and extremely fun for them) steps of learning and practicing in the way of becoming good.
So it's normal that ED is going to cause a lot of *****ing from the "casual" gamers. No offense intended to them, as I think liking CoD is perfectly fine. It's just that, the same way I don't pop into Battlefied 4 and moan about how easy that game is and how little actual thinking is requried to become at least decently good, I don't expect them to come here and ***** about how difficult Elite is.
In any other game I'd be worried for the developer surrendering to the masses. I've had plenty of experience with games that when started showed impressive promise and were ruined because of the masses of "casual" players that couldn't stand the idea of actually having to learn how to master a complicated game (last instance: War Thunder. A game that 1 year ago showed impressive promise, yet nowadays has turned into nothing but another arcade MMO for the 11 year olds)
Thankfully I have blind faith in David Braben and his team and I'm reasonably sure that, for once in the modern computer gaming industry, a complicated game (and enjoyable as heck in it's complication) won't be dumbed down for players who like instant gratification and that should really look for games that are targetted to their immediate success tastes if they're not ready to spend the time, dedication and effort to become good at Eliteangerous, instead of moaning and crying about how hard it is.
gone are the 90s where a lot of games had a sharper learning curve than the Everest and people loved them because of it. Today most of the gaming industry is based around making "casual-accessible" games and "gratifying" from the very beginning, so 11 year olds can play it instead of joining another CoD or BF4 server and feeling "l337" in a game where twitch reaction is everything, thinking means little difference, and practice and training mean nothing except at the competitive level.
Which is allright as there should be games for every taste, but not every game has to comply with those rules, and maybe the target audience of those games should bother with games that are designed for them, and stop moaning about games that are targetted at an audience which likes to master difficult things and become good at them, going through the long (and extremely fun for them) steps of learning and practicing in the way of becoming good.
So it's normal that ED is going to cause a lot of *****ing from the "casual" gamers. No offense intended to them, as I think liking CoD is perfectly fine. It's just that, the same way I don't pop into Battlefied 4 and moan about how easy that game is and how little actual thinking is requried to become at least decently good, I don't expect them to come here and ***** about how difficult Elite is.
In any other game I'd be worried for the developer surrendering to the masses. I've had plenty of experience with games that when started showed impressive promise and were ruined because of the masses of "casual" players that couldn't stand the idea of actually having to learn how to master a complicated game (last instance: War Thunder. A game that 1 year ago showed impressive promise, yet nowadays has turned into nothing but another arcade MMO for the 11 year olds)
Thankfully I have blind faith in David Braben and his team and I'm reasonably sure that, for once in the modern computer gaming industry, a complicated game (and enjoyable as heck in it's complication) won't be dumbed down for players who like instant gratification and that should really look for games that are targetted to their immediate success tastes if they're not ready to spend the time, dedication and effort to become good at Elite
angerous, instead of moaning and crying about how hard it is.
Last edited:
One of the most ignorant comments I've heard, comparing driving a car to a computer game, if you want to manually dock that's fine, but I'll want an autodock option, even if it's buying a module for it. All the flight sims I've played over the years have core mechanics covered in tutorials including the more mundane things such as landings/takeoffs. And my first experience with computer games was with a ZX81, I here a lot of talk about dumbing down of games over the years and I don't agree with it in this type of genre, but the most important thing about a game is that it should be fun.
A game which is hard to master is fine. A game which thoroughly and unnecessarily difficult to pick up, in this day and age is not.
Yes I remember just being dropped on a landing pad with no docking computer, no hyperdrive or whatever and figuring it out. And having done that I found this to be easier than I was expecting. But there's still a lot to pick up that isn't necessarily intuitive.
Yes, it's learnable anyway and yes this is beta, it's unreasonable to expect a bunch of training missions at this stage. But that should change by launch. It's easy to look down on people who are struggling with it. But difficulty is one thing, not explaining the controls is something different. It is how games used to be in the past out of necessity. It is not how games should be or some great feature. It is thoroughly unrealistic that the pilot of a spacecraft would not know how its systems work.
We should also bear in mind that most of us have played games like this before and have followed this one for a long time. We have kept up with the different gameplay mechanics and heard what people have to say about the game as is for many months. A new player buying the game at release will not have this wealth of knowledge. They may be a very intelligent, capable gamer who's up for a challenge - but will they know why their ship just started taking damage in silent running, or why they keep getting bumped out of super cruise and seemingly can't move? No, but they need to.
There may be a big temptation to hope this game is just for old school players, but no game - certainly not one that hopes to have continued development for years to come (and sold expansion passes) - should make itself inaccessible to new players.
TLDR; Hard to master is fine. Hard to understand (beta aside), not so much.
Yes I remember just being dropped on a landing pad with no docking computer, no hyperdrive or whatever and figuring it out. And having done that I found this to be easier than I was expecting. But there's still a lot to pick up that isn't necessarily intuitive.
Yes, it's learnable anyway and yes this is beta, it's unreasonable to expect a bunch of training missions at this stage. But that should change by launch. It's easy to look down on people who are struggling with it. But difficulty is one thing, not explaining the controls is something different. It is how games used to be in the past out of necessity. It is not how games should be or some great feature. It is thoroughly unrealistic that the pilot of a spacecraft would not know how its systems work.
We should also bear in mind that most of us have played games like this before and have followed this one for a long time. We have kept up with the different gameplay mechanics and heard what people have to say about the game as is for many months. A new player buying the game at release will not have this wealth of knowledge. They may be a very intelligent, capable gamer who's up for a challenge - but will they know why their ship just started taking damage in silent running, or why they keep getting bumped out of super cruise and seemingly can't move? No, but they need to.
There may be a big temptation to hope this game is just for old school players, but no game - certainly not one that hopes to have continued development for years to come (and sold expansion passes) - should make itself inaccessible to new players.
TLDR; Hard to master is fine. Hard to understand (beta aside), not so much.
I'm a beta player and have no issues docking. I'm not even that good at video games. I love involved processes that make me actually feel like I'm doing something. I wouldn't be anywhere near as interested in Elite if the docking was a cutscene. Now, if I'm doing tons of trading and just flying back and forth between systems, I might purchase an automated docking module at some point just so I can enjoy a cup of tea along the way.
I'd like to reiterate the point that a high difficulty curve should be celebrated. The most difficult things you're able to overcome will be the most satisfying. My current (and I suspect long-term hurdle) will be mastering flying with flight assist off like Isinona and you other space angels. But I'm glad it's as insanely hard as it is and I look like a loon every time I practice it.
Frontier, please do not cave on the difficulty front. If people want easy, there are thousands of games out there. And many of them are space games!
I'd like to reiterate the point that a high difficulty curve should be celebrated. The most difficult things you're able to overcome will be the most satisfying. My current (and I suspect long-term hurdle) will be mastering flying with flight assist off like Isinona and you other space angels. But I'm glad it's as insanely hard as it is and I look like a loon every time I practice it.
Frontier, please do not cave on the difficulty front. If people want easy, there are thousands of games out there. And many of them are space games!