Would you people stop trying to impose your selective interpretation of immersion/RP/simulation onto others?

[Marcns007]

In the early days I used a Sidewinder to get to another ship and parked it, I have about 30 SW's all over the place. what I expected to have in time was an unarmed shuttle that could do long jumps to fit that role, ship delivery is fine but we were only given 2 options, a bit like Brexit

 

[Kled7]

If they started actually digging into the root of the problem and fixing a lot of what's not working at the core of ED, the game might actually realise a lot of the potential available to it, rather than relying on the player-base to constantly invent stuff in the hope that the Devs might actually pull their fingers out.

But that requires effort, whereas you're going "NUUUUUU"

What do you believe is the root of the problem? Your post talks about this "root" but does not going into much detail on it.

 

[Deareim]

3D printing mate. That is immersion.

 

[Deadspin]

What do you believe is the root of the problem? Your post talks about this "root" but does not going into much detail on it.

The list of issues the game has is actually pretty substantial. We just have a flight model that works relatively well and a few other things stapled on top of that to use for now that seems to keep most people content.

Some of the problems I've noticed:

1: Missing any type of storage beyond ship storage.
2: Networking is pretty borked within the bubble.
3: Missions are half broken and other "nerf/buff" items make some of them impossible to complete. (Like trying to scoop 16 tons of jettisoned material before the containers magically explode on timeout after the NPC spread them across 12km of space)
4: Rank grind is just that, a grind. Each mission grants a predetermined rank/status gain with the prime faction, no matter the type or difficulty of said mission. Donate 50 grand? Here's a .5% rank increase. Kill 50 Elite pirates? Here's that same .5% rank increase.
5: Supercruise feels like a place holder and is probably the worst part of this game.
6: Interdictions in general are 50/50 due to broken mechanics.
7: No other game out there is further from having a properly implemented C&P system to handle illegal player activities.

I'm sure there are more but those are the only ones I can remember off of the top of my head. The balance of the game itself is non-existent and can be evidenced simply by browsing this forum and reading the complaints.

 

[Mavisreed]

You can make everything more immersive by adding timers and cooldowns.

 

[ROSS-128]

While there are a lot of other things in the game that need work, the problem with trying to use that as an argument for instant ship transfer is this: what do they have to do with each other?

For example, "Instancing is a mess, therefore ship transfer should be instant." Huh? How are those two things related at all?

 

[Kled7]

The list of issues the game has is actually pretty substantial. We just have a flight model that works relatively well and a few other things stapled on top of that to use for now that seems to keep most people content.

Some of the problems I've noticed:

1: Missing any type of storage beyond ship storage.
2: Networking is pretty borked within the bubble.
3: Missions are half broken and other "nerf/buff" items make some of them impossible to complete. (Like trying to scoop 16 tons of jettisoned material before the containers magically explode on timeout after the NPC spread them across 12km of space)
4: Rank grind is just that, a grind. Each mission grants a predetermined rank/status gain with the prime faction, no matter the type or difficulty of said mission. Donate 50 grand? Here's a .5% rank increase. Kill 50 Elite pirates? Here's that same .5% rank increase.
5: Supercruise feels like a place holder and is probably the worst part of this game.
6: Interdictions in general are 50/50 due to broken mechanics.
7: No other game out there is further from having a properly implemented C&P system to handle illegal player activities.

I'm sure there are more but those are the only ones I can remember off of the top of my head. The balance of the game itself is non-existent and can be evidenced simply by browsing this forum and reading the complaints.

Those are all symptoms according to his post, I was wondering what his definition of root was.

 

[Mavisreed]

While there are a lot of other things in the game that need work, the problem with trying to use that as an argument for instant ship transfer is this: what do they have to do with each other?

For example, "Instancing is a mess, therefore ship transfer should be instant." Huh? How are those two things related at all?

Travelling around the bubble is incredibly boring and repetitive. Ship transfer is supposed to alleviate that, I think.

 

[znôrt]

If feature X is not compatible with your immersion and vision of Elite? More power to you! Open a Group, named "Anti-X", invite everybody who doesn't like X in their Elite and ask them to not use X.

my question is ... what prevents you from doing the same?

i've personally never used the immersion card. immersion is something you do, it's not in the power of anyone else to provide. you can do it with a book, or even staring at the fire or the horizon.

however some features i like, some i don't and if the reason is they change core aspects of the game for worse i voice my opinion, like any other. too bad if that disappoints you, but that's how it is.

the best thing of this last transfer affair is that frontier finally acknowledged some decision had disappointed a majority of players and might be revisited, specifically of those players who care enough about the game to log into yet another website and cast a vote. that's good. that's really very good.

 

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

What do you believe is the root of the problem? Your post talks about this "root" but does not going into much detail on it.

Lengthy post inbound, if you intend to respond, read the lot:

Elite suffers from problems symptomatic of a game that has a set of tasks but no real goal to orient itself around and a poorly thought out approach to resolving the question of orientation. In an MMO space, the goal is your own personal power and the projection of that power into the gamespace, in a singleplayer game, the goal is the completion of the objectives the developer sets out for you in order to consume the content on offer, in "open ended" games, the intent rests somewhere between the two. The rough idea of an open ended game is it has content sufficient for players to get involved and engaged in, and a systemic toolbox that allows it to be engaging on a continual and repetitive level, but at the same time, without the defined conclusion of say, a "fixed" singleplayer game. World of Warcraft's "non raid" content is a good example of Open Ended/MMO type mechanics (I won't say they've always made a good job of it, Warlords of Draenor for example was pretty bloody awful, but it seems they took that lesson to heart).

This is broadly the same space that Elite Dangerous positions itself in as it lacks a fixed set of goals for the player, and requires the player to figure out what they want to achieve, and leaves them to get on with it. The problem is that Frontier would rather have the player fill this question in themselves because it's cheaper (they looked at EVE and went "That works, we can basically do that!") and less taxing on development, however they've not orientated the game around the concept of player driven content, or MMO design orientation either (this is evident by the design of the netcode and the absolute lack of social tools of any meaningful kind, not even getting into the discussion of guilds, which is something I won't touch on here). Players are willing to pick up the slack when there's a good core "something", or at least enough of a good core for the Playerbase to just not walk away on the spot, even if there are numerous issues that could and should be resolved. It's why we have things like SEPP, the Fuel Rats, Jaques, and so on.

Here's the issue, and it's a big one, the initial game of Elite (1984) tasked you with getting to Elite Status, but it left you to get on with it however you wished. In Elite Dangerous, you're projected into an ever-present, ever-living space, with a lot of the MMO constraints, but none of the MMO benefits. You're still tasked with that really simplistic goal by today's standards (Get to Elite), except now you've got the hazards of dealing with patches altering the gameplay experience dramatically, features rendering season passes all but required, and when you boil things down, you're still dealing with some pretty rudimentary systems that hold the whole thing together. When you are grinding out for your bigger ship, you get the bigger ship and then you start over to do what? Get a bigger ship, ad infinitum.

The BGS which was supposed to be the big draw of this massively persistent online world is... I'll be kind and say "Something a college student could create in Access" albeit on a slightly bigger scale, the 1:1 galaxy spinup (which remember, is mostly proc gen) is a lot more impressive but then you're faced with the No Man's Sky problem - you have this mind bogglingly huge galaxy and less than 1% is inhabited. Consider that. Less than 1%. The rest is empty space and exploration data. As impressive an achievement as it might be, it's as meaningless as the claim of NMS saying it has 18 quintillion stars - it doesn't matter if most of it is meaningless noise. You'd be better off with a far smaller chunk of space (say 500,000 star systems) which were actually centered around an inhabited area of some kind and had stuff going on in and around them.

Now it's far from all bad, the Flight Model is unsurpassed, and I doubt anyone will ever get close to what ED has achieved either on a visual or audial level. There's a sense of atmosphere that you just can't replicate in any other game, and I have a sense that this will remain the case for quite some time to come, but this was something they honed to a razor sharp point right the way back before 1.0, and it's not exactly changed much since release, it's still a joy to fly and you can really sense the difference in handling characteristics with the various craft, particularly with a flight stick. This is the big selling point of Elite Dangerous, it's the magic that keeps everyone coming back, BUT, it's not going to keep everyone coming back indefinitely, or infinitely.

So Frontier have to evolve and develop, they have the flight model, they have -something-, but that's the issue, it's not orientated around a specific design ethos. It's just "stuff to do" that's bolted on randomly in the hope something will suddenly stick to make the whole lot suddenly make sense. Powerplay was supposed to add factional play and a second layer to the BGS but it's largely ignored unless a player wants to grind out a specific ship, it's not -fun- or -interesting-, it's just something tacked on. Then comes CQC, which thankfully the technology has been recycled back in as ship launched fighters but otherwise it's safe to say it's a total loss, it was supposed to advertise the game to the console audience but it really wasn't representative at all. This is the pattern that Frontier have set since 1.0, with every major content update, they don't have coherency, or even solid ideas, they have things they throw against the wall in the hope it's going to stick, and more often than not it fails.

It fails because Frontier pick the path of least resistance. This was most evident with Engineers, which was Frontier's answer to the crafting question. Rather than introduce a stable, reliable crafting pipeline where : Raw Material A > Widget B > Complex Item C > Finished Good D could be followed and traders could utilise those production chains to make a profit by following them through and filling out orders on various worlds, and indeed, creating a much needed role for miners who could supply those raw materials and prime the pump for those trade routes, instead we got... well... "Craft casino tickets by hunting down really irritating items that may or may not pop up in missions and unlock engineers by completing KERAZEE tasks like flying 1/4 of the way to Jaques!" (Yes Palin, I'm looking at you). Rather than bring some sanity into the economy and create some genuine realism (deities forbid!) we get insane scavenger hunts for upgrades that unbalance the game in such a way that now everyone needs to fit the damn things.

This is the root cause of why things keep going wrong, Frontier picks easy solutions to complicated problems (people can't get to the action easily, solution? INSTAWARP! *JAZZHANDS*), the easy solutions inevitably create the kind of fallout easy solutions provide, and rather than taking the time to do things right, Frontier would rather do things quick and dirty, because it's cheap, and it means they don't have to invest a lot of money. All the while they keep hawking ship skins and trim kits. Because clearly your cobra needs spoilers. If that isn't a clear enough statement about the state of the game, then I'm not sure what is.

 

[Kled7]

Lengthy post inbound, if you intend to respond, read the lot:

Elite suffers from problems symptomatic of a game that has a set of tasks but no real goal to orient itself around and a poorly thought out approach to resolving the question of orientation. In an MMO space, the goal is your own personal power and the projection of that power into the gamespace, in a singleplayer game, the goal is the completion of the objectives the developer sets out for you in order to consume the content on offer, in "open ended" games, the intent rests somewhere between the two. The rough idea of an open ended game is it has content sufficient for players to get involved and engaged in, and a systemic toolbox that allows it to be engaging on a continual and repetitive level, but at the same time, without the defined conclusion of say, a "fixed" singleplayer game. World of Warcraft's "non raid" content is a good example of Open Ended/MMO type mechanics (I won't say they've always made a good job of it, Warlords of Draenor for example was pretty bloody awful, but it seems they took that lesson to heart).

This is broadly the same space that Elite Dangerous positions itself in as it lacks a fixed set of goals for the player, and requires the player to figure out what they want to achieve, and leaves them to get on with it. The problem is that Frontier would rather have the player fill this question in themselves because it's cheaper (they looked at EVE and went "That works, we can basically do that!") and less taxing on development, however they've not orientated the game around the concept of player driven content, or MMO design orientation either (this is evident by the design of the netcode and the absolute lack of social tools of any meaningful kind, not even getting into the discussion of guilds, which is something I won't touch on here). Players are willing to pick up the slack when there's a good core "something", or at least enough of a good core for the Playerbase to just not walk away on the spot, even if there are numerous issues that could and should be resolved. It's why we have things like SEPP, the Fuel Rats, Jaques, and so on.

Here's the issue, and it's a big one, the initial game of Elite (1984) tasked you with getting to Elite Status, but it left you to get on with it however you wished. In Elite Dangerous, you're projected into an ever-present, ever-living space, with a lot of the MMO constraints, but none of the MMO benefits. You're still tasked with that really simplistic goal by today's standards (Get to Elite), except now you've got the hazards of dealing with patches altering the gameplay experience dramatically, features rendering season passes all but required, and when you boil things down, you're still dealing with some pretty rudimentary systems that hold the whole thing together. When you are grinding out for your bigger ship, you get the bigger ship and then you start over to do what? Get a bigger ship, ad infinitum.

The BGS which was supposed to be the big draw of this massively persistent online world is... I'll be kind and say "Something a college student could create in Access" albeit on a slightly bigger scale, the 1:1 galaxy spinup (which remember, is mostly proc gen) is a lot more impressive but then you're faced with the No Man's Sky problem - you have this mind bogglingly huge galaxy and less than 1% is inhabited. Consider that. Less than 1%. The rest is empty space and exploration data. As impressive an achievement as it might be, it's as meaningless as the claim of NMS saying it has 18 quintillion stars - it doesn't matter if most of it is meaningless noise. You'd be better off with a far smaller chunk of space (say 500,000 star systems) which were actually centered around an inhabited area of some kind and had stuff going on in and around them.

Now it's far from all bad, the Flight Model is unsurpassed, and I doubt anyone will ever get close to what ED has achieved either on a visual or audial level. There's a sense of atmosphere that you just can't replicate in any other game, and I have a sense that this will remain the case for quite some time to come, but this was something they honed to a razor sharp point right the way back before 1.0, and it's not exactly changed much since release, it's still a joy to fly and you can really sense the difference in handling characteristics with the various craft, particularly with a flight stick. This is the big selling point of Elite Dangerous, it's the magic that keeps everyone coming back, BUT, it's not going to keep everyone coming back indefinitely, or infinitely.

So Frontier have to evolve and develop, they have the flight model, they have -something-, but that's the issue, it's not orientated around a specific design ethos. It's just "stuff to do" that's bolted on randomly in the hope something will suddenly stick to make the whole lot suddenly make sense. Powerplay was supposed to add factional play and a second layer to the BGS but it's largely ignored unless a player wants to grind out a specific ship, it's not -fun- or -interesting-, it's just something tacked on. Then comes CQC, which thankfully the technology has been recycled back in as ship launched fighters but otherwise it's safe to say it's a total loss, it was supposed to advertise the game to the console audience but it really wasn't representative at all. This is the pattern that Frontier have set since 1.0, with every major content update, they don't have coherency, or even solid ideas, they have things they throw against the wall in the hope it's going to stick, and more often than not it fails.

It fails because Frontier pick the path of least resistance. This was most evident with Engineers, which was Frontier's answer to the crafting question. Rather than introduce a stable, reliable crafting pipeline where : Raw Material A > Widget B > Complex Item C > Finished Good D could be followed and traders could utilise those production chains to make a profit by following them through and filling out orders on various worlds, and indeed, creating a much needed role for miners who could supply those raw materials and prime the pump for those trade routes, instead we got... well... "Craft casino tickets by hunting down really irritating items that may or may not pop up in missions and unlock engineers by completing KERAZEE tasks like flying 1/4 of the way to Jaques!" (Yes Palin, I'm looking at you). Rather than bring some sanity into the economy and create some genuine realism (deities forbid!) we get insane scavenger hunts for upgrades that unbalance the game in such a way that now everyone needs to fit the damn things.

This is the root cause of why things keep going wrong, Frontier picks easy solutions to complicated problems (people can't get to the action easily, solution? INSTAWARP! *JAZZHANDS*), the easy solutions inevitably create the kind of fallout easy solutions provide, and rather than taking the time to do things right, Frontier would rather do things quick and dirty, because it's cheap, and it means they don't have to invest a lot of money. All the while they keep hawking ship skins and trim kits. Because clearly your cobra needs spoilers. If that isn't a clear enough statement about the state of the game, then I'm not sure what is.

you bring forth a number of good points.
a couple of flaws though.

CQC was not for the "console group" it was for individuals who wanted quick combat, and a gateway into the real game as CQC showed of the light mechanic that is done so well.

also, i don't think that they take the easy way out. I honestly think that they feel this is the best implementation of the game.

 “meaningful game play has consequences”.


I have seen this sentiment echoed in live streams with Sandro, I surmised as he is a lead designer, this philosophy must hold true in the game.


I then took this phrase, and started looking at other aspects of ED through the lenses of “meaningful game play should have consequences”, and design choices started to make sense. Look at power play, Engineers, community goals, the BGS, all of these things have consequences. These are the game play elements of ED.


Then you have the other elements of ED, the flight model, weapons, stations, planetary landings, even the AI. These are all the Simulation aspects of ED. These aspects do not necessarily have elements of choice, rather pilot skill or intelligence. There is overlap between the simulation elements and the game, one is not necessarily exclusive of the other.


So here we have it, the two elements of ED, the Simulator and the Game. I have split them up this way in what I feel is logical manner. One revolves around player choice, the other revolves around player skill and intelligence.


After breaking the game up this way I took a step back and thought about it. Would I still play ED if the Game elements were removed? Yes. Would I still play this game if the Simulator elements were removed? No.


ED is a game struggling with itself, it is a space simulator that holds people’s attention and keeps dragging them back. ED is also a game, and the game is lacking in “meaningful game play”.


So going back to the design philosophy that “meaningful game play has consequences”, to this I say NO. Meaningful game play is fun, it is not the consequence that makes the gameplay meaningful, but the journey to get there. The consequences add a sense of accomplishment or feeling of despair to the journey. If the journey is not meaningful the consequences are meaningless, and add very little to the experience. Knowledge is also key, giving players some sense of what the consequences of their actions will be beforehand can go a long way to helping out the journey.


Here is where I see the issue with the Game elements in ED, they are simple tasks that require a choice, and result in a consequence. Without the Simulator part of ED to prop up the Game part of ED, the whole thing would fall apart.


I have done all these Game elements, and I will do them again, not because I enjoy them, but because I enjoy flying a space ship around the galaxy. Every time I land on a planet, or pull into a station I am amazed. These game elements give me an excuse to fly a space ship, but I would find a reason to fly it even without them.


So Frontier, I implore you, listen to the community change your design philosophy concerning the Game elements of ED. Meaningful game play does not JUST have consequences, meaningful game play is a journey that adds to the user’s experience. Stop using the excellent simulator you have created as a prop for these Game elements, try and design Game elements that could “almost” stand on their own.

 

[BurnyBurns]

Meaningful game play does not JUST have consequences, meaningful game play is a journey that adds to the user’s experience. Stop using the excellent simulator you have created as a prop for these Game elements, try and design Game elements that could “almost” stand on their own.

Huh? Why should they stop developing Planet Coaster? They're doing a bang of a job at it. And it's incidentally so much closer to a simulation than Elite, which is a nice spaceship game that some mistake for a simulation. ;p

my question is ... what prevents you from doing the same?

Is that supposed to be a serious question? I'll be right back then, just opening a private group for all pro guild, pro 21st century in game comunications, pro don'-make-me-wait-for-counters people, where we can all happily pretend Elite had all those features.

 

[Artemis Zodiac]

I may check out planet coaster...as I used to have a blast on rollercoaster tycoon back in the day....

not like ED though is it?.....I have just seen it available to DL....

no online protection on that one then eh?

 

[DancingShade]

My immersion requires all NPCs to be wearing clown shoes and for spaceship lasers to make a honking noise when fired.

Colliding with a planet should make a bouncing spring noise and blowing up on impact should be clashing cymbals.

This should replace all existing game assets and not be optional for any other player because my immersion is paramount. Everyone needs to experience the game "correctly" according to me.
Frontier plz fix (or whatever the kids are saying now).

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

My immersion requires all NPCs to be wearing clown shoes and for spaceship lasers to make a honking noise when fired.

Colliding with a planet should make a bouncing spring noise and blowing up on impact should be clashing cymbals.

This should replace all existing game assets and not be optional for any other player because my immersion is paramount. Everyone needs to experience the game "correctly" according to me.
Frontier plz fix (or whatever the kids are saying now).

if you truly believe that is a realistic interpretation of what the future would hold if we had hyperspace and FTL travel then by all means submit a support ticket as a suggestion.

Regardless of the pros and cons of immersion in a game like elite (and i know some see that as a dirty word with no place in Elite Dangerous), but regardless.... immersion does not mean, "I should be allowed what ever i want in the game".....

loose definition according to dictionary

the state of consciousness where an immersant's awareness of physical self is diminished or lost by being surrounded in an engrossing total environment

and if you think all of your suggestion help bring about the above then as i said, suggest it to FD

if ED was a single player game with modding support none of this would be an issue, but for better or for worse, we all share the same BGS and the same rules set, which is why we get these issues due to oil and water play styles all expected to play together in the same pot.

 

[znôrt]

Is that supposed to be a serious question? I'll be right back then, just opening a private group for all pro guild, pro 21st century in game comunications, pro don'-make-me-wait-for-counters people, where we can all happily pretend Elite had all those features.

you nagged at the low hanging fruit and conveniently ignored the rest of my post. oh well.

as for 'why can't you do the same' ... to some extent you actually can, and many do right now: using ts, maintaining databases and spreadsheets, using third party tools. essentially working around features they miss in the game. so yes, this was a serious question.

the implication is ... you are accusing a group for imposing something on you, while you are suggesting to do exactly the same thing. that's faulty logic or double standard.

now to why i told you in my post i think you should be happy for this recent development, and why it matters: because you care about this game.

look at this:

first, from the frequently touted 1500000+ copies sold only 40000 players bothered to vote. you and me may disagree on this issue, but we both consider it important enough to care, discuss and vote. the simple fact that frontier even listens to us, not even a 3% of the player base, and cares enough to ask and incur in extra development ... this is huge ... for us 40.000. you included. you didn't get your way this time, but you may do the next time around.

also consider this:

ship transfer as described in gamescon:

- ui: add new 'transfer ship' option in 'stored ships' sub-pane
- ui: add new confirmation dialog for ship transfer function
- ui: call new transfer_ship service and refresh 'stored ships' panels if successful
- service: add new transfer_ship service: update ships set ship_location=this_station where ship=slected_ship

tadaaa. test cases for this? barely any since one player can only be in one station and can only have one ship selected. this is an atomic operation so positive and negative, fiesta. coded in one hour. may take a week because of bureaucracy, but is really a piece of cake, not worth mentioning. cheap candy for the masses!

ship transfer with delay:

the above plus (high level description of):
- define and tune formula for delay
- track delayed ship status in time
- ensure ships are not selectable while in transit
- provide feedback for eta
- handle notifications to the player and ui refresh on ship arrival

which isn't rocket science but expands to considerable more work than the above, plus adding several dozens of test cases for boundary and out of bounds values, considering asynchronicity and maybe even disconnects. this could be a couple of days, and expand to several weeks.

if you are a development team that is already behind schedule, pressed with a major release coming in about a month and a half, you will need a strong reason to go through with this. and if the reason is to please those players that actually show they care about the game, even if they are proportionally so few, this adds even more value to frontiers' decision.

 

[znôrt]

barely any since one player can only be in one station and can only have one ship selected. this is an atomic operation so positive and negative, fiesta.

correction: also, pad size verification. anyway ...

 

[ThatFuzzyTiger]

After breaking the game up this way I took a step back and thought about it. Would I still play ED if the Game elements were removed? Yes. Would I still play this game if the Simulator elements were removed? No.

That's the entire problem in a nutshell. The "Simulator" elements, that's to say, the galaxy and the flight model (and associated garnish like the whole landing sequence, which really does convey a sense of flying that ship into a dock), the bits that have been done to high detail and a good quality of finish are the things that keep people coming back. They're the things that got the attention lavished upon them and as a result they don't feel rushed, they feel like something that's been "Done right" as opposed to been "Done quick"

The problem is that when you move away from the Simulation elements, and onto things like the BGS, which isn't a simulation by any means (it's nowhere near the depth of a simulation and isn't deserving of the title of BGS), then we get into the area of "Things done quick".

What the BGS should have been, is a set of systemic rules that governed the human bubble, and a slow but constant expansion of that bubble, governed by player activity, so if a set of players grow a faction into expansion, it doesn't just make them expand into existing space, it also makes them consider nearby empty space, and if that space has been appropriately scanned and mapped, then it makes them set up appropriate missions to get a new outpost built there, followed by a new station, and so on. It should have allowed for minor factions to -die- as time progressed, and for new ones to be born. It should have allowed for famines to significantly alter the population of a planet, as well as allowing for planetary governances and economies to alter depending on the circumstances of which the planet found itself in. If the players did "Nothing" then the ruleset should have allowed for some change, but on the whole it should be growing "gently" and with the odd hotspot here and there which the AI throws in to keep life interesting, but let player actions determine where the hotspots pop up, and then let player actions generate the magic from the ruleset. This what the BGS could have, and really should have been, a ruleset and a toolset for telling stories with. Instead what we got was a pig of a system that requires months of effort just to move the needle around to get it to do what you want and even THEN you're forced into contrivances because the system is maddeningly opaque and idiotic.

It shouldn't have washed away player interactions with the economy to the extent it does either, at this point trade is basically rinsed away within a day or so, so player actions really make little difference, when the AI dictates all the rules unless the players constantly 24/7 hammer a specific route. Whilst it should set baselines for specific commodities and it should gradually tailor those baselines to ensure that there's no crazy exploits going on, it shouldn't dictate to the players "Oh this is now X price because I say", the economy should make a modicum of sense (which of course raises the obvious bugbear that the game requires out of game tools to keep track of prices, because FTL travel exists and you can plan routes over thousands of light years but you can't see the prices in the system you're flying through).

Powerplay was to be the second layer of the BGS, introducing greater factions that would vie and fight for each other and provide a sort of meat for higher tier players to work towards, but ultimately it doesn't work because, no surprises, it has no design goal to orient itself around, it's just there for the sake of being there. See how well that worked out for EVE's faction warfare (badly), were it to more tightly integrate itself into the minor factions and that systemic ruleset I discussed, THEN it might make more sense, but it doesn't, so it doesn't. We wind up with player powers being put into space because Frontier runs competitions (in effect the first and *only* player guild to exist in Elite Dangerous of any kind) and that just adds to the disjointedness of it all.

As for Engineers, well, my spiel on that has been lengthy, but that was a chance for Frontier to sanitise the economy, and they managed to miss the point spectacularly, so I won't bother re-explaining that one again.

Horizons brought planetary landings on Barren Planets, for all the scientific accuracy of this, it does leave a big question - Barren planets is great and all, but couldn't you at least give us something a bit more interesting to look at? So the answer? FUMAROLES. In other words, terrain doodads. Forgive me whilst I go and get my party hat and party blower out. *pweeeeee* Season Three, wtb Lava (and not discussions of lava tectonics that happen so far below ground that it doesn't matter because I'm still rolling around on barren rocks) or there will be much disappoint.

Now? Passenger missions. Reskinned cargo missions with a new UI. *pweeeee* I get it. I get that you're recycling the content you have because it's easy and cheap. You've recycled Arena into the drone fighter mechanics (more drone models would be awesome, as would more drone capable ships), you've recycled cargo missions into passenger missions (with units being replaced by little icons of people), but these are not advancements. Missions in general need a major rework, not just in how they work, but how they're managed and how they're sourced and delivered and rewarded. Things need to matter a little more, both in terms of how they feel and what they deliver to the player.

When I went into ED I had starry eyed dreams of ED taking the EVE mission idea and then going so many steps further, building outwards with minor powers having their own mission agents, and you'd work for their minions at first, then you'd be referred up the chain until you worked for their CEO's or directors or communist dictators or whatever, and as you got further up the missions would become more interesting and varied, with complex, rich and engaging stuff being just around the corner.

Yeeenope. Haul stuff, get paid a bit more. *pweeeeeee*

"Done quick" and that's why when you get away from the stuff that's "Done right", you're scratching at the walls of the game and grinding your teeth.

 

[BurnyBurns]

as for 'why can't you do the same' ... to some extent you actually can, and many do right now: using ts, maintaining databases and spreadsheets, using third party tools. essentially working around features they miss in the game. so yes, this was a serious question.

These are external tools and while I'm thankful for 'em, they're not Frontier's or the game's achievements. And they're limited due to the lack of game integration (hopefully improved with the log, but that's 2.2 or beyond). Want to find a specific ware? Better hope the trade tools have recent data.

But no amount of pretending or external tools will provide a formal player group or guild integration. No amount of pretending or external tools will now make ship transfer instant, while a simple self imposed waiting time would just give everyone for who's against instant transfer what they desire. If it's the general balancing implication they desire, then a private group voluntarily bound to the same restrictions would do that for them, while leaving others the QoL feature they desire. Taking your chat tool of choice and opening an Elite channel does not constitute an integrated global chat available to every player during play. It also falls flat on its face regarding inter-instance communication with a system filter, unless some third party implements such a filter.

 

[Tony Spaniels]

you bring forth a number of good points.
a couple of flaws though.

CQC was not for the "console group" it was for individuals who wanted quick combat, and a gateway into the real game as CQC showed of the light mechanic that is done so well.

also, i don't think that they take the easy way out. I honestly think that they feel this is the best implementation of the game.

 “meaningful game play has consequences”.


I have seen this sentiment echoed in live streams with Sandro, I surmised as he is a lead designer, this philosophy must hold true in the game.


I then took this phrase, and started looking at other aspects of ED through the lenses of “meaningful game play should have consequences”, and design choices started to make sense. Look at power play, Engineers, community goals, the BGS, all of these things have consequences. These are the game play elements of ED.


Then you have the other elements of ED, the flight model, weapons, stations, planetary landings, even the AI. These are all the Simulation aspects of ED. These aspects do not necessarily have elements of choice, rather pilot skill or intelligence. There is overlap between the simulation elements and the game, one is not necessarily exclusive of the other.


So here we have it, the two elements of ED, the Simulator and the Game. I have split them up this way in what I feel is logical manner. One revolves around player choice, the other revolves around player skill and intelligence.


After breaking the game up this way I took a step back and thought about it. Would I still play ED if the Game elements were removed? Yes. Would I still play this game if the Simulator elements were removed? No.


ED is a game struggling with itself, it is a space simulator that holds people’s attention and keeps dragging them back. ED is also a game, and the game is lacking in “meaningful game play”.


So going back to the design philosophy that “meaningful game play has consequences”, to this I say NO. Meaningful game play is fun, it is not the consequence that makes the gameplay meaningful, but the journey to get there. The consequences add a sense of accomplishment or feeling of despair to the journey. If the journey is not meaningful the consequences are meaningless, and add very little to the experience. Knowledge is also key, giving players some sense of what the consequences of their actions will be beforehand can go a long way to helping out the journey.


Here is where I see the issue with the Game elements in ED, they are simple tasks that require a choice, and result in a consequence. Without the Simulator part of ED to prop up the Game part of ED, the whole thing would fall apart.


I have done all these Game elements, and I will do them again, not because I enjoy them, but because I enjoy flying a space ship around the galaxy. Every time I land on a planet, or pull into a station I am amazed. These game elements give me an excuse to fly a space ship, but I would find a reason to fly it even without them.


So Frontier, I implore you, listen to the community change your design philosophy concerning the Game elements of ED. Meaningful game play does not JUST have consequences, meaningful game play is a journey that adds to the user’s experience. Stop using the excellent simulator you have created as a prop for these Game elements, try and design Game elements that could “almost” stand on their own.

A well thought through and presented post Kled7. Certainly firmly in the constructive criticism camp also which is welcome to the devs I'm sure.

Would you have a moment to fire out a quick paragraph on any similarly constructive ideas or suggestions in how to improve the Game elements? Million dollar question I know but curious to hear.