We were promised atmospheric planetary landings

[-VR- Max Factor]

Why would you want legs before the things to walk around in?! Seems backwards to me. Personally, legs can wait - E: D is about flying spaceships. Once that part is complete, then they can look at adding legs. Why would I walk when I can fly?

Because whats the point of all these planets with life if we can't walk aournd them and only see them from afar. Whats the point of creating vast cities on planets if you can't intereact with them.

There is a lot you can do with legs even if you couldn't land on planets at all. There are loads of space stations and outposts, there are generation ships. There is a lot you could explore with legs even if atmospheric planet with advanced life and cities never gets implemented.

 

[lysan]

+1, for that very reason I hope they'll never attempt to create procedural & believable alien fauna. It is impossible at the quality level of the rest of the game.

They don't have to, just some variations here and there, look at avatar, mostly "known" plants, with some special glowing plants here and there.
99% of the players don't even know what we got here on earth, so why bother inventing something new, just open a book and pick some of the most strangest ones.

 

[TheSynopticVision]

10% LoL! Atmo landings is wish for at least 80% of players.
You really are persistant derailing thread in things that you don't want ingame while they are optional for you to use them. FD already said they will improve core gameplay so there is no need for you to be selfish around here with nonsense like supscription model and such.
As i said relax, core gamplay improvements are comfirmed no need for fear.
Lifeless atmo planets and water worlds are not impossible to make and later even earthlike ones with flora and fauna (but without complex civilizations ), for example look at "infinity battlescape" game which have earthlike planets made by procedural generation. And they are very small team with limited funds.
Horizons made sales mostly cos of 2.0, those things sell space games; flying in space and landing on planets.
Btw size of ED galaxy is useless without variety of landable planets.

I can confirm that, in the survey I created (but was not allowed to post on the official forum -- you can find it on Reddit), the overwhelming majority of people have chosen "Atmospheric Planets" as their most anticipated future feature. Of course, with only about 3400 contributors so far it does not perfectly mirror the whole of the playerbase, but I'd say it's pretty damn close.

 

[lysan]

No, he really doesn't. If the point was valid, someone by now would have provided corroborating evidence. Where is it?



Well, I simply disagree. Once the flying part is complete, fair enough - but as you say, that part isn't done yet (and in my mind, for that to be complete, we'll be able to fly down to all the planets).

that's ok, we just don't agree regarding this

 

[Crank Larson]

Because whats the point of all these planets with life if we can't walk aournd them and only see them from afar. Whats the point of creating vast cities on planets if you can't intereact with them.

You fly around them? Land and get your SRV out? What's the point in the planets that we currently have? There is loads of stuff that can (and hopefully will) be done to flesh the mechanics out and add more interaction. But most of them wouldn't need legs.

 

[Dsign]

To me the worst thing is that we have very little information on what is already in progress and what is not...
Braben said recently that they had teams working on such advanced features : Space legs, atmospherics, new crafts/srvs, ...
A simple "Here is a list of what we are certain we can do, here is another one for the impossible tasks" would be great news for me.

On the other hand... I've seen what too much hope can do. The hype is 50/50 you know. If you do it right, your game will be surfing on the participation from the community.
But if you do it wrong... well we all know a few games that went too high with their promises (especially in the space genre).

 

[dannysquid]

Generating rivers that is a non-trivial task, especially in real time. .

I think that's top of the list of things that sound a lot easier than they actually will be. Rivers flow downhill and what counts as downhill at ground level will be in a completely different place to what counts as downhill when you're incrementally adding more detail from orbit. I think rivers would probably have to "fade in" when you're quite close-up, assuming they'd bother with rivers at all. Although I suppose you could generate the rivers first and then extrapolate the heights from that. Or maybe force the ground to move downhill in areas where rivers are. Dunno!

Pondering how things like this will be done technically is probably the main reason I'm on the forums!

 

[TopCat160]

I just find people's priorities utterly mind-boggling.

There is so much that could be improved in the game as it already exists, without adding layer upon layer of complexity that will, after the initial flurry of "oo doesn't it look pretty", add precisely zero to the game in any sensible time frame. Of course it would be nice to have planetary landings on ELWs. But not if the tools to make best use of it aren't there with them. And it makes far more sense to have the tools on the planets we can already land on, first. Waypoints... and enhanced scanning so that you don't have to literally scour every acre, just to name two.

People seem to get carried away with the idea of all the stuff that could - in theory - be done, if sufficient game play depth was added, without noticing that game play depth is already the very thing that's missing from the existing features.

I'd interested to know exactly how many developer days of effort it took to implement Holo-Me. Are you seriously telling me that there aren't dozens of things that time would have been better spent on?

Less fluff, more depth, I say.

 

[IamMe]

It certainly is curious how they're going to handle gas giants, with atmospheric pressure that would crush the strongest ships and surface gravity of potentially HUNDREDS of G. It's hard enough landing on that high G world in achenar.

Dare I say, some things should remain 'impossible', landing (as opposed to splatting) on the surface of a gas giant is possibly one of them. Even star trek ships rarely attempted to enter the atmosphere of gas giants.

Do some research about gas giants, how high gravity affects gases therefor pressure, it's agregatic states under different pressures and "landing" on them (but you're were right one thing saying it should remain impossible to land on gas giants).
DB talked about entering gas giants outer atmosphere and scooping.

 

[dognosh]

I think my estimate is a lot closer to reality than yours, while both are probably some way off, I do tend to exaggerate a little to prove my points, it has been effective over the years. But we can argue that til the cows come home. I don't need to relax, and I'm not derailing anything, plus I respect your opinion, despite not sharing it. Cheers!

As I've said repeatedly, I just want the focus on what's important. If you really think that what's important in elite right now is atmospheric landings and/or space legs, more power to ya. My experience of opinions on this forum lead me to believe that MOST players would prefer more fleshed out core gameplay than atmo landings, but it's cool. I will of course continue to push for what I want in the game (and the amount of rep I get for my PvE related posts would seem to be encouraging), as is my right and the purpose of a discussion forum.

Your estimate is way way off, why ? Because I have more forum pips than you....
(see how stupid my argument is?)

 

[IamMe]

Your estimate is way way off, why ? Because I have more forum pips than you....
(see how stupid my argument is?)

Shallow isn't it!
But if guy likes it i will rep him every time wink wink

 

[MrHatMan]

Flying through the clouds on gas giants and landing on ammonia worlds etc would be nice.

What about cleaning solar panels in the atmosphere of a gas giant?

 

[Insane4un]

And now FD is saying it's too hard, that it's "extremely difficult." Well, I don't care how difficult you believe it is, hire the right people and get it done. We want atmospheric planetary landings. We want flora and fauna. We want to be able to scan them and obviously kill them (what's the point of leaving them alive?) We want to find primitive cultures and corrupt their society. We want to find advancing civilizations on the verge of deep space travel and cripple their research so they can't progress. Who wants competition? Right?

So, FD; the only thing I want to hear from you is "we are releasing atmospheric planetary landings. We have hired quite a few people to specifically address the difficulty of creating this advanced content, and we hope to have a release in the near future."

Make it happen.

And by "WE" - you mean yourself i gues? I don't want atmospheric planetary landings. I want a more better solid multiplayer gameplay, rework of existing features, rework of Multicrew, to move CQC inside the game, more gameplay mechanics, new modules, new fighter ships, a proper balance so we can actually be happy with 2-3 boosters and there whould not be any need for 6-7 of them, an actual role for ships (why T9 haulage ability is suck compare to multipurpose ships?) and a lot more of this. I also want a common sense from FD.

I must say it. At this moment Elite Dangerous don't need any of new content after 2.4 It need a proper rework of already existing features. No more.

We already have Dead On Arival multicrew. You want more? You also have DOA cqc. Powerplay as well.

 

[Noctover]

Atmospheric landings will come because they have to. A rather hefty portion of the community would quit outright upon the official news that atmospheric landings were not coming, especially explorers who are only really playing in anticipation for this. What i genuinely believe will never come is Water Worlds and Earth Likes, not in a million years.

Problem is, FD have made a great game but when it comes to depth it seems to just get to hard for them. MC being a shining example; great idea, great premise, then the best part of that feature not included because it would be too difficult: SRVs.

The same will likely happen with Atmo landings, we'll get a cut down version of it like Gas Giants etc, but not actual breathing worlds.

 

[IamMe]

Atmospheric landings will come because they have to. A rather hefty portion of the community would quit outright upon the official news that atmospheric landings were not coming, especially explorers who are only really playing in anticipation for this. What i genuinely believe will never come is Water Worlds and Earth Likes, not in a million years.

Problem is, FD have made a great game but when it comes to depth it seems to just get to hard for them. MC being a shining example; great idea, great premise, then the best part of that feature not included because it would be too difficult: SRVs.

The same will likely happen with Atmo landings, we'll get a cut down version of it like Gas Giants etc, but not actual breathing worlds.

I'm in that group!
I also think earthlikes is not very realistic to come but water worlds could if they make water tech since they will be also empty as lifeless atmo planets.

 

[phong]

And now FD is saying it's too hard, that it's "extremely difficult." Well, I don't care how difficult you believe it is, hire the right people and get it done. We want atmospheric planetary landings. We want flora and fauna. We want to be able to scan them and obviously kill them (what's the point of leaving them alive?) We want to find primitive cultures and corrupt their society. We want to find advancing civilizations on the verge of deep space travel and cripple their research so they can't progress. Who wants competition? Right?

So, FD; the only thing I want to hear from you is "we are releasing atmospheric planetary landings. We have hired quite a few people to specifically address the difficulty of creating this advanced content, and we hope to have a release in the near future."

Make it happen.

Atmospheric planetary landings are already in game.This is not NMS.Perhaps you might readdress your concerns to content that actually needs it.

 

[Crank Larson]

Atmospheric planetary landings are already in game. This is not NMS.

Your first statement is wrong. The second one I have no argument with.

 

[Jack Schitt]

Didn't data mine this whole thread, but where did FD say they will not do it because it's too hard/difficulty? Link please.

They didn't. This whole thread is pointless.

http://www.gamerevolution.com/featu...e3-2017-including-atmospheric-planet-landings

While not exactly a nail in the coffin it does rather suggest that unlike Horizons, which was sprung upon us expecpectedly because it had been developed behind the scenes in parallel with a lot of 1.x, there is no such parallel development for atmospheric worlds.

 

[Aashenfox]

Obviously you won't be landing on gas giants due to the nature of them, but diving into them to a certain depth/pressure could be a game mechanic. Add in a pressure gauge, make hull reinforcement work in this situation to increase your depth, and you have a good scenario for scientific sample collection missions.

I like this, and indeed this is how I imagined it would be. Of course the atmosphere would get thicker and thicker until something that a human might perceive as 'solid' would be reached. But yeh, you'd be at 1000g and pressures that would crush even Chuck Norris.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

http://www.gamerevolution.com/featu...e3-2017-including-atmospheric-planet-landings

While not exactly a nail in the coffin it does rather suggest that unlike Horizons, which was sprung upon us expecpectedly because it had been developed behind the scenes in parallel with a lot of 1.x, there is no such parallel development for atmospheric worlds.

They only mention in that article planets like earth. I fully expect them some time down the road.