After looking at the new beta, I have a few comments. It is time for serious discussion AND the DEVS to listen to us.

[Abomination]

Cant have deep lore... Because to have that requires consequences and consequences create restrictions, which prevent players from doing what they want when they want.

I hope the devs realize that adding 'restrictions' can actually be an addition to gameplay instead of a limitation.

It would be thrilling to be 'restricted' by the empire if you'd choose a career with the feds. If that restriction means more freedom within fed space and less in empire because the emps will be chasing you more and more depending on how much you work against them as a fed, that's an addition to gameplay, not a restriction.

And to have the freedom to switch sides in a somewhat believable manner, the player could choose to fly to a backwater system to have some cooldown period (for the fed/emp friend/hostility rankings), do some simple trading or exploration or whatever for a while and come back reborn as a scu... I mean empire dude

 

[VR Golgot]

I know Sandro is still pushing for a Karma Based C&P system since the live stream at PAX east. At least he is still addressing it as something that is coming. I am not sure of your info source, but unless its one of the 3 main Devs, I would take it with a grain of salt.

Yep there was the 'very interested in looking at a karma system' bit, with reference to CLogging, but if it's anything like the karma system they outlined in that prior link it'd have a broad remit re ganky seal clubbing, station restrictions, insurance costs etc etc.

 

[sgurr]

Cool, fair play, although I'm still not sure that the 'lack of consequences' bit isn't also Skip's interpretation rather than a possible internal aim.

Incidentally they've floated ways to address Suicidewinders previously etc. In lieu of firmer evidence I'd say most of this is extrapolation too far. Certainly interpreting 'role freedom' to = 'no meaningful galaxy change' the way you guys are doing.

Ok, but FDev have floated a lot of ideas with 'no promises, no timeframe' caveats. They've had 2+ years to address C&P and done nothing.
For example, they've explicitly turned down the idea of a heftier fine for killing Cmdr's, or adding the Cmdr's rebuy to the killer's fine saying that it's too restrictive when it's fairly restrictive for the dead cmdr who has to pay it.
(This is implying that player killing is all I care about, it's not at all)

Saying " 'role freedom' = 'no meaningful galaxy change' " is overstating it for me, system faction can change and that can have a limited impact on the services/products and system states available.
But, consequences for changing a faction to one non-compliant with the Power? Nada. What about interaction with the BGS and community goals, (opposing a faction only to have them welcome you with open arms the next time you dock), or ranking with both the empire and federation at the same time, or shooting/not shooting a thargoid/barnacle/UA/UP and them not caring two hoots when you finally meet them, or having no way of interacting with NPC's other than using your guns, or flitting between powers and them not caring what your background is.

That is what FDev has given us so far with this approach. Without concrete, in game mechanics to the contrary I'm inclined to believe that this approach will lead to more of the same. Consequences are important, they DO impart meaning, what you want when you want doesn't. I'm not at all saying consequences should be permanent, but rank with the Empire and there should be an obstacle to then ranking with the Feds, eg. turning the Empire hostile.

- - - Updated - - -

I hope the devs realize that adding 'restrictions' can actually be an addition to gameplay instead of a limitation.

Yes, exactly.

 

[VR Golgot]

Ok, but FDev have floated a lot of ideas with 'no promises, no timeframe' caveats. They've had 2+ years to address C&P and done nothing.
For example, they've explicitly turned down the idea of a heftier fine for killing Cmdr's, or adding the Cmdr's rebuy to the killer's fine saying that it's too restrictive when it's fairly restrictive for the dead cmdr who has to pay it.
(This is implying that player killing is all I care about, it's not at all)

I'm kinda sanguine on how long things take to come in ED now (well I'm not, but I try to be ). It's trying to cater to a stupidly broad set of playstyles and aspirations. TLDR for me is that they're still vocally saying that they're 'very interested in looking at a karma system', and the previously floated ideas in this area are more subtle and effective than the blunt raised bounty cost. (IE shut outs from stations, funnelling the criminally minded towards anarchy zones as their 'safe zone' etc. Given they also floated bounty-tracker limpets in that Q&A, which speaks to a 'consensual PvP' solution in tandem to karma, we're looking at a much more interesting system that also adds gameplay. Even 'consequences' ).

But, consequences for changing a faction to one non-compliant with the Power? Nada. What about interaction with the BGS and community goals, (opposing a faction only to have them welcome you with open arms the next time you dock), or ranking with both the empire and federation at the same time, or shooting/not shooting a thargoid/barnacle/UA/UP and them not caring two hoots when you finally meet them, or having no way of interacting with NPC's other than using your guns, or flitting between powers and them not caring what your background is.

That is what FDev has given us so far with this approach. Without concrete, in game mechanics to the contrary I'm inclined to believe that this approach will lead to more of the same. Consequenses are important, they DO impart meaning, what you want when you want doesn't. I'm not at all saying consequences should be permanent, but rank with the Empire and there should be an obstacle to then ranking with the Feds, eg. turning the Empire hostile.

Cool, I get you on all of this, that stuff has always seemed daft to me. I think some of it comes down to capacity to model permanence, or not having to capacity to work on those aspects. (In the case of the Thargoids they're clearly slow-building towards any kind of meaningful interaction). The faction alliance side does seem to be just a flat 'no barriers' philosophy though, you're right - the mechanics are totally in place to measure and react to status etc.

EDIT: On a positive note, thought it was interesting they referenced permanent 'tier 2' NPCs still being an objective in the Q&A. That's one of the DDF areas I'm hoping they will eventually get to, and which could add some very interesting 'Nemesis system' style consequences to our actions. It's more fine-grained than faction firewalls, but it has potential to be a solid 'meaningful consequence' system.

 

[Sasquatch_Punter]

Just wanted to pipe in, what the game really lacks is interaction.

Not having any depth of interaction with NPCs is a HUGE barrier to us as a player.

 

[DefiledDragon]

I hope the devs realize that adding 'restrictions' can actually be an addition to gameplay instead of a limitation.

It would be thrilling to be 'restricted' by the empire if you'd choose a career with the feds. If that restriction means more freedom within fed space and less in empire because the emps will be chasing you more and more depending on how much you work against them as a fed, that's an addition to gameplay, not a restriction.

And to have the freedom to switch sides in a somewhat believable manner, the player could choose to fly to a backwater system to have some cooldown period (for the fed/emp friend/hostility rankings), do some simple trading or exploration or whatever for a while and come back reborn as a scu... I mean empire dude

I too would love to have to make more meaningful choices in the game with regard to allegiance and the like, but it's not doable with a single, persistent character. If we had multiple characters per account, as every other MMO in existence does, we could have a fed char, an imperial char etc... but by only having the one character you're going to be locked out of certain content forever, short of buying a second account. That's not good game design.

 

[sgurr]

I'm kinda sanguine on how long things take to come in ED now (well I'm not, but I try to be ).

Yeah, I know that feeling

It's trying to cater to a stupidly broad set of playstyles and aspirations. TLDR for me is that they're still vocally saying that they're 'very interested in looking at a karma system', and the previously floated ideas in this area are more subtle and effective than the blunt raised bounty cost. (IE shut outs from stations, funnelling the criminally minded towards anarchy zones as their 'safe zone' etc. Given they also floated bounty-tracker limpets in that Q&A, which speaks to a 'consensual PvP' solution in tandem to karma, we're looking at a much more interesting system that also adds gameplay. Even 'consequences' ).

If/When that arrives that'd be great, although I have a memory of them being explicitly against the idea of funneling players to anarchy systems when there was much talk of the C&P systems and how to provide consequences in safe systems but tempt traders to go the anarchies.

EDIT: On a positive note, thought it was interesting they referenced permanent 'tier 2' NPCs still being an objective in the Q&A. That's one of the DDF areas I'm hoping they will eventually get to, and which could add some very interesting 'Nemesis system' style consequences to our actions. It's more fine-grained than faction firewalls, but it has potential to be a solid 'meaningful consequence' system.

Now that would be cool [up]

- - - Updated - - -

I too would love to have to make more meaningful choices in the game with regard to allegiance and the like, but it's not doable with a single, persistent character. If we had multiple characters per account, as every other MMO in existence does, we could have a fed char, an imperial char etc... but by only having the one character you're going to be locked out of certain content forever, short of buying a second account. That's not good game design.

That's a good point.

- - - Updated - - -

TLDR for me is that they're still vocally saying that they're 'very interested in looking at a karma system', and the previously floated ideas in this area are more subtle and effective than the blunt raised bounty cost. (IE shut outs from stations, funnelling the criminally minded towards anarchy zones as their 'safe zone' etc. Given they also floated bounty-tracker limpets in that Q&A, which speaks to a 'consensual PvP' solution in tandem to karma, we're looking at a much more interesting system that also adds gameplay. Even 'consequences' ).

Oh, and I'd missed this, thanks

 

[Zambrick]

Yep there was the 'very interested in looking at a karma system' bit, with reference to CLogging, but if it's anything like the karma system they outlined in that prior link it'd have a broad remit re ganky seal clubbing, station restrictions, insurance costs etc etc.

But they will have to do that eventually. Or they can just close the doors now and be done with it.

Even if they do something very very successful with future updates and it sparks the masses to return or buy the game, the underlying problem will still remain. Despite all their attempts at making a believable semi realistic gaming experience the glaring fact that murder is not only encouraged in the game universe, it has no consequences.

We had a chance when NMS lost all of their players to ED. Who promptly left the game never to return.

I dont want to play this Grand Theft Space Ship cartoony Mad Max Tom and Jerry version of a video game. Nowhere in the proposed kick starter does it state that they were planing on making GTA in space. However that is what we have.

It is truly immersion breaking knowing that if you fly in public you are 100% submitting to the fact that you will be killed by another player and nothing will happen to them.

 

[VR Golgot]

If/When that arrives that'd be great, although I have a memory of them being explicitly against the idea of funneling players to anarchy systems when there was much talk of the C&P systems and how to provide consequences in safe systems but tempt traders to go the anarchies.

Last time they addressed it in detail it was in, IE:

As for "seal clubbing billionaires": as rightly pointed out, the main consequences here would not be financial (to be clear, they'd still end up with unavoidable, mammoth bills upon re-spawning, but like any fiscal sanction against a wealthy target it would take time for any effects to actually be felt), locking off starport access would be far more effective: not being able to dock at any starport except in anarchy space would significantly alter things.

As much as things may have changed, I think there are enough voiced intentions out there to still be positive about some of this stuff. Just gotta keep prodding them, trying to shape output, and apparently, wait the requisite time

 

[VR Golgot]

I dont want to play this Grand Theft Space Ship cartoony Mad Max Tom and Jerry version of a video game. Nowhere in the proposed kick starter does it state that they were planing on making GTA in space. However that is what we have.

Umm, ohhh. Don't tell Davey...

“I think games set in space became quite niche,” Elite designer Braben told TechRadar. “They lost sight of what was the key element of Elite and Frontier - freedom. The true successors to Elite and Frontier were the Grand Theft Auto games. For me, the setting is secondary to the feeling of freedom.”

It is truly immersion breaking knowing that if you fly in public you are 100% submitting to the fact that you will be killed by another player and nothing will happen to them.

I don't know if that's even true, or indeed immersion breaking. But... I definitely do agree with you . They need to get a C&P / Karma system in (and ideally a more robust galactic-wide bounty hunting system). As far as I can tell they still intend to enact something like these outlined ideas on those fronts. They've just reiterated not just that karma is still planned, but added that a bounty-tracking limpet should be coming too. As far as I can tell the intent and the ideas are there. We just wait on the execution, as is so often the case

 

[Malakie]

Non-atmo planets dont have biomes by definition. You are looking for some other word. Planets also aren't basically 'the same rock'. For example, tidally-locked planets have their exposed sides roughened-up by impact craters and such, and the protected side is much smoother with transition areas where applicable.

How about less ALL CAPS and more substance in your posts? I found it all quite boring, to be honest.

You missed the point. BIOMES are what make planets unique. The point was that while it is admirable Elite is apparently trying to stay in the realism realm for the universe, that makes for a boring game with a lot of boring planets. On one hand, they make the planets conform to what mankind thinks it knows is out there for real.. then on the other hand throws an entire wrench into the realism mechanic with the 'Thargoids'.

- - - Updated - - -

Ok lets examine your stagnation argument shall we?

Anarchy online. How long did that game run for? June 2001 was the release date and If I'm not mistaken it is still going 16 years later. Hmmm I would hazard a guess that the majority of people who are playing are having some measure of fun and entertainment. Sure I can understand that if you played from the initial release you'd be a bit bored at times when you have completed all the available content but when game doesn't this apply to?

Eve Online. Right 2003 so now into it's 14th year. Of which I played about 10 of those with a break in the middle. Do I still play? yes with a free character as I don't have much online time nowadays and ED takes up most that tbh . EVE the game that literally broke every known record around simultaneous online player numbers and still today punched numbers in tens of thousands of players at any one time.

So YOU think they stagnated. NOT the entire player base as you are implying. Simply put you are arguing without logic or facts to back up your arguments. And your opinions are exactly that YOUR opinions. I still haven't seen a logical suggestion for improvement from you so I guess I'll not be posting again in this thread.

You should look up the definition of stagnate.

None of those titles are growing. In fact they are slowly losing players if you look at the statistics over time.

At some point, they will not be viable.

- - - Updated - - -

Or you could you know...just answer the damn question and not berate someone on your perceived slight. Perhaps if you had read the rest of the posts some of the previous people were saying the same incorrect or opinion based things as you had. Maybe he was tired of hearing for the 3rd time in the same thread.

But then again what do I know. I only read the thread and know for a fact that text and speech are 2 different things and do not translate together in a perfect fashion. So take offense where you will.

I hope you don't yell at the pizza delivery guy because you didn't like the textual tone of the receipt email was generated when you ordered it Online.

- - - Updated - - -



I know Sandro is still pushing for a Karma Based C&P system since the live stream at PAX east. At least he is still addressing it as something that is coming. I am not sure of your info source, but unless its one of the 3 main Devs, I would take it with a grain of salt.

Thanks.. You are correct in your assessment.. It is people like him that I finally just became sick and tired of ..

 

[Roraima]

If there's one thing I want to see in the game it's the ability to create small planetary landing / trading outposts by players. They could cost a lot of credits to set up, I don't mind. I wouldn't even mind paying lots of credits + a small amount of real world money. The Elite galaxy is a vast untapped real estate resource. Players could drive the expansion of the bubble.

I've discovered a system not far from the bubble and I have scanned every celestial body in the system. It also has a pristine metallic ring for mining. It would be great to be able to build my own little planetary port there. Ideally the ability to do this would be limited to the 'discoverer' of the system and / or planet in question. Another great thing would be a system of mining rights. So anyone visiting 'my' little system and mining the pristine rings would automatically pay me, say 1% on the sale. Perhaps nothing if sold in one of my bases. Such a system would be a huge boon for explorers and would create real player driven content. I really hope that FD have something approaching this in mind for the future.

 

[Malakie]

Wow, logged in today to find a whole lot of replies.

Well, don't have the time to reply to everyone nor will I based on the some of the posts because they are pretty much what I said I did not want in the discussion.. Those that cannot, for whatever reason, accept someone else's opinion.

I also should state that I got a 'warning' for one of my replies to one of those people and their post. Apparently they can dish it out but they cannot take it in return.

Anyhow moving onward, The one thing I wanted out of this was a good discussion and for the most part that is exactly what we have now. A lot of people voicing their OPINIONS as they see it. And a lot of good ideas that the DEVS could read and consider if so inclined.

And I will say this again..

Some of you are missing a very BIG part of this here. We are here not to bring down or insult or dis the game at all. We are here because we are all trying to make the game better. We WANT things to succeed.. The only way Elite will grow and become that much better is if people, the backers and players, open their mouths.

If we just sit here and let things be as they may.. nothing will change. More people will stop playing and eventually things with Elite will also stagnate.

For you that cannot seem to grasp this concept, ask yourself this. How many games do you own now that you have not touched in months, years or uninstalled? Then ask yourself why.

 

[VR Golgot]

If there's one thing I want to see in the game it's the ability to create small planetary landing / trading outposts by players. They could cost a lot of credits to set up, I don't mind. I wouldn't even mind paying lots of credits + a small amount of real world money. The Elite galaxy is a vast untapped real estate resource. Players could drive the expansion of the bubble.

I've discovered a system not far from the bubble and I have scanned every celestial body in the system. It also has a pristine metallic ring for mining. It would be great to be able to build my own little planetary port there. Ideally the ability to do this would be limited to the 'discoverer' of the system and / or planet in question. Another great thing would be a system of mining rights. So anyone visiting 'my' little system and mining the pristine rings would automatically pay me, say 1% on the sale. Perhaps nothing if sold in one of my bases. Such a system would be a huge boon for explorers and would create real player driven content. I really hope that FD have something approaching this in mind for the future.

There are various quotes knocking about which suggest they might go down this line, or something like it. Make of them what you will

 

[tafkabb]

For you that cannot seem to grasp this concept, ask yourself this. How many games do you own now that you have not touched in months, years or uninstalled? Then ask yourself why.

Pretty much all of them. Because I bought Elite.

 

[DefiledDragon]

Wow, logged in today to find a whole lot of replies.

Well, don't have the time to reply to everyone nor will I based on the some of the posts because they are pretty much what I said I did not want in the discussion.. Those that cannot, for whatever reason, accept someone else's opinion.

I also should state that I got a 'warning' for one of my replies to one of those people and their post. Apparently they can dish it out but they cannot take it in return.

Anyhow moving onward, The one thing I wanted out of this was a good discussion and for the most part that is exactly what we have now. A lot of people voicing their OPINIONS as they see it. And a lot of good ideas that the DEVS could read and consider if so inclined.

And I will say this again..

Some of you are missing a very BIG part of this here. We are here not to bring down or insult or dis the game at all. We are here because we are all trying to make the game better. We WANT things to succeed.. The only way Elite will grow and become that much better is if people, the backers and players, open their mouths.

If we just sit here and let things be as they may.. nothing will change. More people will stop playing and eventually things with Elite will also stagnate.

For you that cannot seem to grasp this concept, ask yourself this. How many games do you own now that you have not touched in months, years or uninstalled? Then ask yourself why.

There are some very vocal members of this community who do not want the game to change. They are happy with the game just as it is and will attempt to shut down any debate centred around how the game might be improved. You cannot debate them as they are not interested in debate. Ignoring them is the only option.

 

[Cosmo]

Two points: First, I think you did that just fine... and second, actually did say what I want a few times :

"Elite needs MORE than that.. MUCH more. What I am talking about are things like an actual real functional economy driven universe. One that can and does generate DYNAMIC procedural based missions. There are no BIOMES. None. All planets are basically the same rock. And yes, I know, some of that is because the DEVS want to try and keep as close to mathematical reality as the real universe.. One problem.. IT IS BORING. Not to mention, we humans actually HAVE NO IDEA what planets look like or are made of. Math does not answer all especially since mankind is truly an infant when it comes to full on math and the cosmos. Regardless, sometimes you have to fudge things just a bit to make things FUN. It is a GAME after all. "

In elite the player is a small gear in a giant machine. Player actions should influence system economies more. The major issue here is that when a system state changes, it's not noticeable. A system in war, I don't see a war going on, it's business as usual. The systems should really feel and look different based on system state.

and another, "You can go to any planet and land and find... the same thing. Nothing. A few poi's that might have some minerals and drones that attack. You can drive and drive and drive you buggy in circles for hours... and nothing happens. There is nothing to see or find being generated."

That's just like real-life, real planets would have absolutely nothing but dirt, mountains and valleys.

The solution is add tools for players to quickly find points of interest on planets. The scanner should show where to stuff is while orbiting the planet so players don't waste hours driving around.

2.3 Multicrew <- Same mechanics, new way to use them. Arguably gunner is new but not radically changing for everyone

Multicrew is vastly different and a huge improvement. We couldn't sit inside other people's ships, look at detailed customized player models and interact on a more personal level. This level of deeper multiplayer an socialization is very new in ED. The best we have in 2.2 is wings, and each player is a separate, ship and you cannot join a wing in a few seconds when you're far away from each other.

In short in 2 years trading is exactly as it was, combat is almost identical, exploration is almost identical. There's landing on planets, a few tweaks here and there but there's nothing that comes in and says boom, revolutionised that.

A lot of stuff has been added to exploration, combat. Compare 1.0 to 2.2 or 2.3 it's a big difference. The Megaships are promising and have a lot of potential that will come later. Yes it needs more content and activities and better multiplayer with guilds. It takes a while for Frontier to add stuff.

 

[Malakie]

There are some very vocal members of this community who do not want the game to change. They are happy with the game just as it is and will attempt to shut down any debate centred around how the game might be improved. You cannot debate them as they are not interested in debate. Ignoring them is the only option.

I have learned this big time.. and as I said in my post, apparently they really do not like it when someone like me goes back at them in a reply so they complain about it.

No matter, we have a good discussion going now. Hopefully the ideas will be considered and looked at for the true value and reason.

 

[tafkabb]

I have learned this big time.. and as I said in my post, apparently they really do not like it when someone like me goes back at them in a reply so they complain about it.

No matter, we have a good discussion going now. Hopefully the ideas will be considered and looked at for the true value and reason.

Well, not quite. If you don't break the forum rules you don't get a warning.

 

[Malakie]

In elite the player is a small gear in a giant machine. Player actions should influence system economies more. The major issue here is that when a system state changes, it's not noticeable. A system in war, I don't see a war going on, it's business as usual. The systems should really feel and look different based on system state.



That's just like real-life, real planets would have absolutely nothing but dirt, mountains and valleys.

The solution is add tools for players to quickly find points of interest on planets. The scanner should show where to stuff is while orbiting the planet so players don't waste hours driving around.



Multicrew is vastly different and a huge improvement. We couldn't sit inside other people's ships, look at detailed customized player models and interact on a more personal level. This level of deeper multiplayer an socialization is very new in ED. The best we have in 2.2 is wings, and each player is a separate, ship and you cannot join a wing in a few seconds when you're far away from each other.



A lot of stuff has been added to exploration, combat. Compare 1.0 to 2.2 or 2.3 it's a big difference. The Megaships are promising and have a lot of potential that will come later. Yes it needs more content and activities and better multiplayer with guilds. It takes a while for Frontier to add stuff.

When it comes to planets, the problem is that while 'realistic' to a sense, it does not make for fun, immersive game play. I only go to planets now to finish a mission. Most are so similar in appearance that it is just boring.

As for the radar/scanner/POI system.. it bites. Why they object never shows on your scanner as you get closer to it, is beyond me. And many times I have tried to follow the blue circle down (why that disappears too makes no sense to me) only to never find whatever the things were that should have been there.

Multi-crew is nice, I am in Star Citizen all the time. However, trust me.. without content, it is NOT engaging once the newness wears off. This is why SC is going the route of decay, wear and tear, battle damage etc at the component level... as well as engineering, combat, turret and weapon control stations. So that in multi-crew, there is something going on and a reason to be. Elite will have to go this route because just flying around while others just sit there in your ship with nothing to do, is not fun at all.

Again, megaships to me is still not content for the masses. It is just another ship albeit with some new features specific to its part in the game.

We need player content.. from a true economic engine tied into a dynamic mission system that generates missions not just on traded goods, but actual events throughout the universe. The universe does not 'feel' alive right now. Everything is scripted. There is no AI for NPC ships, just look at stations and their patrols. Combat is also scripted AI routines. They don't make decisions at all. And it is very easy to find their flight patterns to defeat them in a battle.

There are a lot of ideas and things the Elite DEVS could do that would make the game more immersive yet fun. The question is, are they going to or are we just going to keep seeing all the new fluff on top of the underlying basic game?

- - - Updated - - -

Well, not quite. If you don't break the forum rules you don't get a warning.

Perhaps.. but if someone attacks me first, I defend myself. I am going to assume that the other party also was warned... but it does not change the fact I replied to a directed post to me.

I don't attack on a personal level outright. But I do respond in kind when it is done to me.

Perhaps I could have worded my OP differently. But as others have pointed out, I am fed up with those that troll threads and start hi-jacking discussions because they don't like the opinions of other people. That was the point I was making... something most people would not do in their original post to start a thread.. That is my way though, right or wrong.