News Elite Dangerous - 2.4 and beyond

This whole financial model seems like it could be at odds with the purpose of fleshing out the current game. Fleshing out means that the existing/revitalized skeletal bones should be able to move together in a direction since they would be connected by new sinew and muscle. However, if they are going to add stuff a la carte, then by definition it seems they would have to be modular and thus hermetically sealed from each other (eg irrelevant to the other parts of the game). It doesn't help that Frontier has a history of creating bolt-on (sealed off) addons that exacerbate the disjointed feel of the galaxy.

Actually, if they implement DLC as paid unlocks like they're doing with paintjobs, then it could be fairly simple - everyone has the exact same 64 bit game client and resources, but you pay for the ability to do "gateway actions" like installing an atmospheric entry module or standing up from your chair. That way you can have people who own different expansions playing in the same instance; only difference is that the ones who paid for the DLCs get to do more stuff than the ones that didn't (eg a commander that didn't pay for the spacelegs DLC would not be able to do EVA missions, but he would be able to taxi his friend, who did pay, to the derelict station where the mission happens and patrol nearby space for him). And watching your friends do things that you can't is a pretty powerful marketing motivation. The only fly in the ointment here would be Macs that can't run Horizons - FDEv would have to decide whether keeping the MacOS client in 1.x and angering those users is an acceptable price to pay for having a single unified game client.
 
Last edited:
Actually, if they implement DLC as paid unlocks like they're doing with paintjobs, then it could be fairly simple - everyone has the exact same 64 bit game client and resources, but you pay for the ability to do "gateway actions" like installing an atmospheric entry module or standing up from your chair. That way you can have people who own different expansions playing in the same instance; only difference is that the ones who paid for the DLCs get to do more stuff than the ones that didn't

Yeah that's the problem though. One of the major design flaws of Elite is that nothing is related to anything else. Everything is compartmentalized in sealed off little chunks. Hence new gameplay elements feel tacked on and pointless. CQC, Power Play, and Multicrew are prime examples, but really the whole game is made up of dysfunctional little islands that don't touch each other.

In short there is NO ECOSYSTEM. Having DLC made of up elements that are tacked on or sliced off from (or added piecemeal to) the rest of game will only make this galaxy even more fractured and disjointed.
 
Last edited:
Yeah that's the problem though. One of the major design flaws of Elite is that nothing is related to anything else. Everything is compartmentalized in sealed off little chunks. Hence new gameplay elements feel tacked on and pointless. CQC, Power Play, and Multicrew are prime examples, but really the whole game is made up of dysfunctional little islands that don't touch each other.

In short there is NO ECOSYSTEM. Having DLC made of up elements that are tacted on or sliced off from (or added piecemeal to) the rest of game will only make this galaxy even more fractured and disjointed.

So you mean, that when a multicrew session whose helm is pledged to power does something, it doesn't affect the powers or what? Explain what do you mean by dysfunctional islands.
 
I like the sound of this roadmap for the future! It suggests that Frontier is prepared to do the smart and gutsy thing of slowing down and revisiting existing features in lieu of just hastily pumping out shiny new content for the buzz it generates. Not many game devs would do that. ED's development has been somewhat tortured at times, but I think 2.3 has the game in a good spot, especially when compared to early 2016. If Frontier takes the time to go back and polish the solid foundation that is already there, the future of ED could be very bright indeed. I know I have been enjoying the game more than ever this year. Frontier even got me to make my first DLC purchase for this game with those cool nameplates! :)

Good annoucement! Looking forward to hearing more. [up]
 
Last edited:
Assuming similar amounts of effort, it would make more sense for FDev to port Cobra to Vulkan (supported by every modern OS) than to Metal (supported by one company that's a tiny minority of the ED user base).

Except that FD already have a port to that OS. Remember it was FD's decision to announce a stretch goal for OS X, they could have said Windows only, but were desperate for the cash at the time.

The truth is that Metal is now being used by game developers for 3D intensive games, F1 2016, Mafia III, Total War: Warhammer, but FD try to pretend that the situation is still the same as in Dec 2015.
 
Last edited:
Except that FD already have a port to that OS. Remember it was FD's decision to announce a stretch goal for OS X, they could have said Windows only, but were desperate for the cash at the time.

The truth is that Metal is being used by game developers for 3D intensive games, F1 2016, Mafia III, Total War: Warhammer, but FD try to pretend that the situation is still the same as in Dec 2015.

If you feel strongly enough about it, it may be worthwhile to speak to a lawyer about it. It will all depend on exactly what the wording was for the stretch goal, and whether Kickstarter stretch goals are considered legally binding contracts.
 
If you feel strongly enough about it, it may be worthwhile to speak to a lawyer about it. It will all depend on exactly what the wording was for the stretch goal, and whether Kickstarter stretch goals are considered legally binding contracts.

In my case, I can't speak for others, I'd be happy for an update from FD stating that Metal is still not up to scratch (assuming that is the case). What riles me is that FD is just plain ignoring a section of its player base, not in that they are not fully supporting the present Mac port (no complaints there), but will not take an hour or so to comment on the future of the macOS port.

What do I think will happen?


  • This macOS users will continue to nurse his sense of grievance
  • Some platform users will continue to comment with varying amounts of knowledge/derision (though it affects them not a jot)
  • FD will still ignore (quite pointedly) a group of the community whose crime was to support ED

However, as we know, there are more serious problems in the world :)
 
Last edited:
Yeah that's the problem though. One of the major design flaws of Elite is that nothing is related to anything else. Everything is compartmentalized in sealed off little chunks. Hence new gameplay elements feel tacked on and pointless. CQC, Power Play, and Multicrew are prime examples, but really the whole game is made up of dysfunctional little islands that don't touch each other.

In short there is NO ECOSYSTEM. Having DLC made of up elements that are tacted on or sliced off from (or added piecemeal to) the rest of game will only make this galaxy even more fractured and disjointed.

....but that is exactly what I hope Season 3 will help to rectify-namely linking together different parts of the game into a more cohesive whole.
 
So you mean, that when a multicrew session whose helm is pledged to power does something, it doesn't affect the powers or what? Explain what do you mean by dysfunctional islands.

For starters, no link between our work with Factions & our work with Powers. No proper links between Engineers & other groups in the game.
 
So you mean, that when a multicrew session whose helm is pledged to power does something, it doesn't affect the powers or what? Explain what do you mean by dysfunctional islands.

1. Power Play mechanics barely interact with the BGS. These are almost hermetically sealed off from each other and only impact each other indirectly. So that the government controlling the system and the missions taken within it have almost no impact on the larger picture. Likewise the top down effects are almost non-existent as well.

2. CQC is literally divorced from the rest of the game. The only links are a text badge by your name if you reach a prestige level, a system permit and an a VERY MINOR amount of in game CR earned.

3. MultiCrew is the least efficient way to combine forces with other players in the game whether it's BGS, CGs, Events, etc. Only the pilot gets credit, and the additional power from player crew is only marginal. So yeah, it is just for laughs. And as an added bonus, people who are winged up near your multicrew can get dropped and get temporarily "ghost banned" from the Open galaxy. You can't even use an SRV for concerted ground and air assaults on bases, that should have been an obvious addition!

4. Exploration and the BGS both have no impact on colonization. The forums are more directly related to colonization mechanics (eg requesting CGs) than any other force in the game.

5. Bounty Hunting doesn't impact the security rating of a system. This is static. So the number of pirates to kill is infinite. There is also no tracking or global reporting mechanic at all, just wake detection. So we have to rely on social media to counter griefers, which hampers community policing. Also instancing... ugh

6. Mining doesn't impact the resource levels of a system. Pristine system stay pristine, so there is no need to discover new untapped systems via exploration. Mining, exploration, and colonization should all be linked.

7. Prospecting only gets you mats for engineers and synthesis. It's completely unrelated to mining. Driving over a surface nets you very minor exploration rank, but no additional info about a planet or addition exploration data for sale, for mining exploitation, or for science (unless you count alien artifacts - which are too rare to be considered gameplay).

8. Environment is unrelated to danger or gameplay except under very specific circumstances. Hot planets have almost no effect on your ship unless you are VERY close to a star. All we have for hazards in the game are coronas, neutron stars, jets, hell planets within carbon star coronas, and crashing. To reflect reality and fun gameplay, the galaxy should be MUCH deadlier than this, yet SRVs can drive across surfaces that range between 23K and 1800K without any impacts or differences for the vehicle. Black holes are harmless, they have no accretion disks or jets. Neutron stars somehow have jets but no accretion disks, which the astrophysical equivalent of having torso and feet, but no legs.

9. The BGS is only temporarily impacted by missions. But you can't grow the economy, population, or upgrade station within a system. For this you need to contact Frontier and request a CG... ugh. The galaxy is essentially static with an etch-a-sketch veneer. So the future is divorced from the past. The only semi-permanent thing you can do is alter the text for who owns a system and at most this can have minor effects on PP fortification, and give you access to better missions at that station. But it's much easier to just get aligned with a local faction than to flip the owner-text on a system.

Elite: Disintegrated.
 
Last edited:
....but that is exactly what I hope Season 3 will help to rectify-namely linking together different parts of the game into a more cohesive whole.

This was my hope as well. But if they are rolling it out as piecemeal a la carte options, then they will likely be self-contained bolt-ons that "flesh out" the existing compartmentalized careers/activities. Which is probably why they kept things hermetically sealed in the first place. So that each little mini-game could be upgraded independently of the others.

I hope to be very wrong about this!
 
Last edited:
This was my hope as well. But if they are rolling it out as piecemeal a la carte options, then they will likely be self-contained bolt-ons that "flesh out" the existing compartmentalized careers/activities. Which is probably why they kept things hermetically sealed in the first place. So that each little mini-game could be upgraded independently of the others.

I hope to be very wrong about this!

Like I said, I doubt the Core Gameplay improvements will be "piecemeal" or "a-la-carte", or the connective tissue needed to really improve them. If there is paid content, it'll be stuff like the addition of extra surface vehicles, SLF's & Ships. Nice stuff to have, but not vital to core gameplay.
 
I mean feel free to continue to say "3 other armchair experts and I all agree"

BWAAAAAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!! You think "Blizzard", "Feral" and "Aspyr" are the names of players on this forum or something??? Oh man, you just made my day.

*wipes tear from eye*

That's just the best laugh I think anyone on here has ever given me. Thank you!
 
Yeah that's the problem though. One of the major design flaws of Elite is that nothing is related to anything else. Everything is compartmentalized in sealed off little chunks. Hence new gameplay elements feel tacked on and pointless. CQC, Power Play, and Multicrew are prime examples, but really the whole game is made up of dysfunctional little islands that don't touch each other.

In short there is NO ECOSYSTEM. Having DLC made of up elements that are tacted on or sliced off from (or added piecemeal to) the rest of game will only make this galaxy even more fractured and disjointed.

I agree. I actually think things like multicrew should be for everyone and not behind the Horizons paywall. It causes too many issues.

Different planets that you can land on though, they can be behind a paywall though. Expansions behind paywalls, anything that enhances the game in anyway such as better scanning mechanics, wing missions, multicrew, holo-me, I would be happy if it was for everyone.
 
Perhaps if you tried gaming on something fit for purpose, you would have a better experience. Frontier have said the lack of compute shaders in Mac OS is what prevents Mac getting Horizons, so blame Mac (I know, that's really hard for the Apple fanbois). And yes, there may be some new update from Apple called ar$ewipe or whatever stupid code name they give it, but to expect Frontier for code for you and one or two others who refuse to load bootcamp, is probably peak demanding for this forum.

Aarrrggghh!! "fanboi", the most potent and robust argument rebuttal in existence! You have me beaten, sir! I bow to your incisive analysis and rapier-like wit.

Doesn't really prove much I'm afraid; Blizzard is a subsidiary of Activision, Feral is a publisher, and Aspyr is a dedicated porting company. Blizzard have money to burn, and the other two aren't self-publishing games creators, so I'm not sure the comparison with Frontier holds.

Actually, my point was merely to show that there are graphically demanding games being produced with Apple's new API, as opposed to the absurd "OMGAPPLEGAMINGSUXXXX!!" position we see so frequently. So within the context I actually presented it, rather than whatever context you imagined, the comparison holds perfectly well.

ED Mac was feasible while we had a cross-platform graphics framework (OpenGL), but Apple's support was lack-lustre before, and now dropped entirely.

No, Apple's support is exactly the same now as it was when the game first launched, AND THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT.

Apple did not:
  • Drop support for OpenGL
  • Drop support for compute shaders
  • Announce the availability of compute shaders then renege
  • Do anything else you may have hallucinated from the OMGAPPLEGAMINGSUXX universe.

The OpenGL features supported on the Mac now are almost identical to those supported when the Mac stretch goal for Elite was met. Frontier CHOSE to add features they knew would destroy the cross-platform nature of the game which Mac users had paid for.

Frontier were not FORCED to port the game to the Mac by Apple or anyone else. They offered it to Mac users and Mac users paid money for it to happen.
Frontier were not FORCED to use compute shaders. They wanted to use them, even though they did not have cross-platform support, and CHOSE to go ahead anyway.

As Amigacooke says, if they weren't prepared to stay the course they shouldn't have raised funds on that basis.

All of this is academic, however. All Mac users want at this point is for Frontier to show a bit of courtesy and provide an update on the state of the game on the macOS platform.
If they have abandoned development, say so. Be Honest.
If the Metal API is still unsuitable, for whatever reason, say so. Be Honest.
If they are actually working on porting to Metal but it's proving troublesome (as it also proved for other, more communicative developers), then say so. BE HONEST.

The last (extremely vague) word on this from Frontier was 18 months ago. Metal has changed significantly since then. To pretend that circumstances haven't changed with it just makes you look and sound like a pillock.
 
Sounds great, but...I hope we'll either get back those nice FPS before 2.3 update or alternatively some visible graphics improvements to justify their decrease.
I'm (and my friends too) holding off Horizons purchase until the next patch - seen quite some games going down due to lack of optimization. It's not a joke guys, we're speaking here of sums of 600-1000 Euros/Dollars without visible justification. No good business case.
 
In my case, i can't speak for others, I'd be happy for an update from FD stating that Metal is still not up to scratch (assuming that is the case). What riles me is that FD is just plain ignoring a section of its player base, not in that they are not fully supporting the present Mac port (no complaints there), but will not take an hour or so to comment on the future of the macOS port.

What do I think will happen?


  • This macOS users will continue to nurse his sense of grievance
  • Some platform users will continue to comment with varying amounts of knowledge/derision (though it affects them not a jot)
  • FD will still ignore (quite pointedly) a group of the community whose crime was to support ED

However, as we know, there are more serious problems in the world :)
I don't have a Mac, but I agree with you on this, all the time.

Is amazing how some people ridicule Mac users and try to invalidate your requests, when FD were the ones to decide to sell on Mac in the first place. I guess it is a mix of shietposting, trolling and blind fanboyism.
 
Last edited:
This was my hope as well. But if they are rolling it out as piecemeal a la carte options, then they will likely be self-contained bolt-ons that "flesh out" the existing compartmentalized careers/activities. Which is probably why they kept things hermetically sealed in the first place. So that each little mini-game could be upgraded independently of the others.

I hope to be very wrong about this!

My hope (dream) still is - as unpopular as it is - that some of the changes are significant enough such that V3 will require a different instance to Season 1/2... ie: From a technical/financial point of view, the improvements in some core mechanics in V3 will mean it will have to require a difference/new instance to Season 1/2.

My fear is FD will compromise to retain compatability with Season 1 or 2, or worse still not do improvements they could because they envisage it not cost effective as they've have to backward update Season 1 or 2 as well...
 
Back
Top Bottom