Gamerevolution.com - 5 Important Things I Learned about Elite: Dangerous at E3 2017 Including Atmospheric Planet Landings

Falcon_D

Falcon_D
EidLeWeise said:
Tell that to the 100 odd folk who I saw working hard on new content...
Click to expand...

That's just it. You guys saw "100 odd folk working hard on new content", what exactly are all these 100 hundred doing? And if there are that many developers why are there so many bugs with nearly all the new patches. I've come to think that with these many developers, people are starting to get in each other's way.
As for creating new content. I don't know if even with this many developers the Cobra can handle the content, unless of course there are developers in the team that are actually working on the underlying Cobra engine.
 

RhymeRhyme

RhymeRhyme
A shame that atmo platents are far away. This is a major thing for me somehow as the universe aka the game itself is simply too "black" and dark. Let there be light, FDev.

But on the other hand, if they focus on finally making the game great, that is of course more important. End the repetition, bring in the storyline that can be followed, involve us players with good gameplay elements and make our gameplay meaningful.
 

LKx

L
I'm totally ok with them focusing on core gameplay in the next not-a-season.

However, since they obviously can't build a paywall on core features, i think they will have at some point to sell some new features, unless they plan to live on cash shop for a while.
 
  • Like (+1)
Reactions: NW3

ZeroAi

ZeroAi
Max Factor said:
No its not. I expect 3.0 to be a paid for expansion, fully featured. The core gameplay updates I suspect we won't have to pay for. They will be updating core gameplay, this includes things like combat zones, bounty hunting, exploration, USS's, Res sites, expanding on what you do in atmosphereless planets etc. These can't be paid for unless we play in completely different instances for people that do, but I very much doubt that will happen.

3.0 will be paid for. 2.5, 2.6, 2.7/ 1.10, 1.11, 1.12 will not need to be paid for. These are big differences and not the same.

There is no reason why they can't release the next expansion and do the core gameplay updates at the same time.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with Max.

Not sure why they would call spending time on core gameplay improvements a "season"

Falcon_D said:
That's just it. You guys saw "100 odd folk working hard on new content", what exactly are all these 100 hundred doing? And if there are that many developers why are there so many bugs with nearly all the new patches. I've come to think that with these many developers, people are starting to get in each other's way.
As for creating new content. I don't know if even with this many developers the Cobra can handle the content, unless of course there are developers in the team that are actually working on the underlying Cobra engine.
Click to expand...

Yeah, if 100 engineers at FDev are working on tweaking gameplay for the next six months I'd be very concerned.

I'd also be very concerned if no work is being done on the next paid DLC now that the PS4 version is nearly shipping.

But this is how it always is when you're on the outside looking in, and I do think it helps to have other games like SC, NMS, etc to play.
 

NeilF

NeilF
Is it not a possibility that they've been working on Season 3 enhancements, and recently have taken notice of the communities increasing cries for "core improvement" so have have changed direction to also include those?

As such V3 will include the enhancements already planned, and also the yet to be ratified list of core improvements?

If we assume this is correct, that could mean:-
1) V3 will be very delayed if core developments/enhancements aren't even finalised/designed yet?
2) V3 might get the newly announced core improvements added later in updates to it, meaning it can be released sooner than if FD waited for "everything to be done".
 

Marc_Hicks

Marc_Hicks
Shanaeri said:
The thing is, the more stuff you add, the more there is to fix and balance later on. To me it makes a lot of sense to take a 'time out' of adding headline features to ensure the foundation and first floor is as strong as it can be before adding any more.

E.g People want atmospheric landings. Sure but with the mechanics we have atm, what are you going to do there that's any different? People want elite feet, but without better social mechanics, and stuff to do what's the point?

The alternative is to go the NMS route and just add stuff for the sake of it, without an underlying game to back it up.
Click to expand...

For some people, it is the visual experience of landing on a planet with even the thinnest of atmospheres....that firsr hint of something other than a starfield in the sky. Don't underestimate that.
 

MatYNWA

MatYNWA
Kaltern said:
I've always maintained that 'atmospheric' just means an extra pretty layer of gases onto of what we already see. That should be trivial for FDev to implement. Actual city landings as the journo described... yeah that would be much more of a technical challenge. So let's hope it WAS only that he was referring to.
Click to expand...

I dont think it is that simple. With atmosphere comes weather, like wind and rain probably, and that could mean heavy impact on terrain, and here i dont just mean immediate, but historically, based on age of a planet.

And if i remember correctly, few weeks ago there was post from FD support guy, that with atmosperic landing, we will see richer terrain structures.

So i dont think it's that simple really.
 
Last edited:

Marc_Hicks

Marc_Hicks
dognosh said:
I think that is how they will do it. We have the standard game, then non-atmos landings with DLC1(atmos bodies out of reach), then atmos landings with DLC2 or 3 or 4.
And as is customary with most DLC games, the latest DLC will include previous DLCs.

Ok, don't flame me, the above is purely an opinion, not fact :D
Click to expand...

No flame, I agree with your theory. Remember that Zac clearly stated that they aren't abandoning new content altogether, it just won't be the focus of development.....which is a good philosophy.
 

mojonaut

mojonaut
At its most basic it should be fairly trivial to add a fog like effect to even an airless planet, which then becomes a planet with pseudo atmosphere?

If the fog height is high enough it becomes a planet with an atmosphere, adjust the fog height and thickness to hug only the lower valleys and gully's and you have a setting for a creepy SRV search and rescue mission scenario, scanner and lights essential, limited visibility, high risk of driving into a chasm etc..

Land ship on high ground and take the SRV down into the murk, who knows what could be waiting down there.

This is the sort of thing I'd like to see, keep it simple to start with, without needing a complete rewrite of atmospheric ship handling.
 

LKx

L
mojonaut said:
At its most basic it should be fairly trivial to add a fog like effect to even an airless planet, which then becomes a planet with pseudo atmosphere?

If the fog height is high enough it becomes a planet with an atmosphere, adjust the fog height and thickness to hug only the lower valleys and gully's and you have a setting for a creepy SRV search and rescue mission scenario, scanner and lights essential, limited visibility, high risk of driving into a chasm etc..

Land ship on high ground and take the SRV down into the murk, who knows what could be waiting down there.

This is the sort of thing I'd like to see, keep it simple to start with, without needing a complete rewrite of atmospheric ship handling.
Click to expand...

I've quite the impression that that's something totally different than a planet with athmosphere
 
Last edited:

Wishblend

Wishblend
Fog on a planet is already in game, atmospheric landings are not yet.

[video=youtube;Rw9aLJKQFVs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw9aLJKQFVs[/video]
 

Duckfather

Duckfather
The phraseology in the article about Season 3.0 being about improvements not being 100% set in stone differs in the link at the bottom of the page to his E3 2017 Preview article, which essentially contains the same info, just phrased differently.

In that article it states that its isn't set in stone exactly what improvements it will deliver.

It's a subtle difference, but the first implies that 3.0 may not be just improvements, while the latter implies that while it is all improvements, the exact improvements haven't been decided yet. It even goes on to say that 3.0 will be more likely an iterative set of updates, implying that latter updates may change depending on how previous updates have been accepted.
 
Last edited:

Spiridon

Spiridon
Quite frankly, I'm only interested in Moon. It will be hand built (I guess Apolo landing sites, Moon Rover, Lunohod - the original SRV's).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom