EVE has that ability with Player-Owned Stations, you know... just sayin'
Annnnd ED is set to follow suit in the next couple years. So....
Frontier cant deliver.
- Thread starter Gypsy12
- Start date
Annnnd ED is set to follow suit in the next couple years. So....
I recalled FD saying player owned anything was never going to happen.
Players say a lot of things. I don't explicitly trust anything related to this game until it comes from FD itself- and even then with caution.
I'm sure it may happen eventually, just as Space Legs and a lot of other things may happen.
Hardly... if you want "minecraft in space" though I would suggest StarForge but it appears to be not available on Steam any more (it is however now available for free from here).
EvE is not really what I would call an example to be followed either.
Last edited:
I see you have that crystal ball out again.
Only if it is so smudged with muck they can not actually see the future, assuming it is not a fake that is.
Rank such predictions along the same lines as "ED is doomed".
Last edited:
Only if it is so smudged with muck they can not actually see the future, assuming it is not a fake that is.
Rank such predictions along the same lines as "ED is doomed".
As I see crystal balls as fake anyway...
Yes, I notice you tend to do that a lot with anyone who has any suggestions for improvements for the game that's not handed down directly from Fdev.
Sycophant is a word (quantumthought).
Surely that all depends on whether the suggestions would actually improve the game.
In all fairness, this statement also implies that anyone who disagrees with another player's viewpoint/suggestion is a sycophant.
I'm going to make a claim.
I don't believe the game's implementation of the Cobra Engine is able to cope with much more than what it can do now.
I believe very early on in development, they needed to make a choice. Vast, open galaxy vs more intense gameplay. I don't believe ED can do both. As a vast galaxy sounded better, they went with that.
Result: Limited instances, limited interactions, and limited scope for additional gameplay features.
I don't think legs are coming, because I don't think it's possible. I don't believe proper atmospheric, varying planet types are coming for the same reason.
Large scale battles don't work due to the instancing model and network code - this has been proven countless times.
No, what we have now is pretty much what we're going to have for the life of the game.
I wonder if Frontier have considered an Eve: Valkyrie -style addon to allow proper space battles, which would affect the main game, but be in a different game engine altogether...
I don't believe the game's implementation of the Cobra Engine is able to cope with much more than what it can do now.
I believe very early on in development, they needed to make a choice. Vast, open galaxy vs more intense gameplay. I don't believe ED can do both. As a vast galaxy sounded better, they went with that.
Result: Limited instances, limited interactions, and limited scope for additional gameplay features.
I don't think legs are coming, because I don't think it's possible. I don't believe proper atmospheric, varying planet types are coming for the same reason.
Large scale battles don't work due to the instancing model and network code - this has been proven countless times.
No, what we have now is pretty much what we're going to have for the life of the game.
I wonder if Frontier have considered an Eve: Valkyrie -style addon to allow proper space battles, which would affect the main game, but be in a different game engine altogether...
Make as many claims as you like. Doesn't make them a fact. What we do know is that the Cobra engine is capable of all those things without issue. It's whether they want to add it to ED which is the question.
Actually the networking code is probably very separate from the Cobra game engine. The instancing implementation was a terrible choice, and may be one that cannot be overcome...
You may still be right about the engine though, since I have yet to see awesome interactive AI that could support something like a thargoid attack on a station, live while you are in instance. That is what I've been hoping for. Something better than if-then-else.
I believe Planet Coaster also uses the Cobra engine, and we already have customizable characters, so the basics should be at least doable. As for atmospherics, the only thing holding those and liquid surfaces back (ie molten lava) is the procedural generation.
Atmospheric flight model is certainly doable, because the current flight model is already so oversimplified, you can't do anything really fancy. Tweak some numbers, maybe based on pressure and temperature and BAM! your golden
Procedural generation is what this game is all about. It is the only area that actually tries to adhere to realism and accuracy. As such, FD focus lots of energy on getting PG right, and I'm not surprised that they might be having issues with generating atmospheres and liquid surfaces. We know very little in reality of the general rules about what generates and/or maintains an atmosphere. So I hope they find a way to make it happen, and if they can't make it right by the time the 7 or 8 year mark is passed, I hope they publish their best stab at it, so to speak.
I would advocate for a ground up networking rewrite. But that will be basically a separate game with many different incompatible mechanics. So maybe Elite 5?
Edit: Funny...I came in here to complain how Frontier mostly progress plot and mysteries with offline changes and prerendered cinematics. Then I end up defending them from some terrible misconceptions.
Last edited:
FD have made it pretty clear space legs are feasible but until they have legitimate game play reasons for introducing it they seem to be abstaining from releasing such content. X-Rebirth is an example where space legs was released without content of any substance and it got panned by critics (for the wrong reasons IMO). FD appear to be wanting to avoid that specific situation.
As for atmospheric planets with a variety of landscapes, I believe you are wrong there too. I am led to believe that Planet Coaster uses the same engine as ED and that is pretty good where variety is concerned. The main issue may be balancing detail with viewing distance. Details can be phased in and out on the fly. The other aspect with this area is differences in flight model and how to handle population centres. Planet coaster shows that FD do have the ability to code for handling mass crowds and have them follow behaviour patterns (commonly referred to as Urban Populous Simulation). Anyone expecting too much from open plan populated areas will probably be sorely disappointed though as even the top end graphics cards like the 1080 Ti will almost certainly struggle a bit - from my own experience with Planet Coaster.
WRT large space battles, if you mean involving lots of players then I think it is a reasonably fair assessment but that is more for reasons of general internet bandwidth variability at the client end in this kind of context. Microsoft Freelancer player servers probably serve as a bench mark for instance size limits in this context. However, involving NPCs is another matter all together. I think anyone thinking of it ever mirroring EvE in terms of PvP battle scale are going to be sorely disappointed. Anything more than 16-32 players and we will probably be pushing the limits of what is recommended with common internet bandwidth restrictions with a game like ED.
As for PvP battle modules, they have tried that with CQC and it is not exactly that popular for various reasons. I know at least some like it but if you are not into proper balanced PvP (or PvP at all) then it is pretty much a dead duck.
The main limits as I see it are more to do with the limits of current hardware and time to implement relevant gameplay properly than anything else. Even with the airless planets as it currently stands, some berate ED for lack of gameplay in this area. Is the ED engine capable of what people want on the current hardware - may be, but probably only if the player's rig is pushing the top end of current hardware specifications.
Last edited:
Good then people who actually work with engine say it can do everything we want and more. I will take their expertise, because, well, know that engine better than you.
Don't see any relations between these two. Combat zones, nav beacons when pirates arrive are pretty intense.
If you call peer to peer instance with up to 50 players limited, then I will want to see what kind of MMOs outside EvE you play.
Can you explain your basis for such this claim?
Instancing model is what allows FD to do large scale skirmishes with more than 50 players, because way it merges and separates instances and gives impression of seamless. It certainly has potential - and bugs.
You base this on what facts?
You know, saying 'I want EvE with cockpits' would have been enough for your declaration. You don't understand this game and you know zero about this development.
Some time back the Distant Worlds expedition managed to get a few more than 50 Players in an instance. I KNOW that there were over 100 Players in an instance that did cause the FDev servers a few problems (it was around 108 Players, and made Sky News). It is believed (but this is not certain) that some of the more powerful computers used by the Players helped shoulder some of the load.
Creating a 400 billion star galaxy was an intense and impressive feat. It wasn't the cheap or easy way out to make that happen.
My understanding is that Planet Coaster is using Cobra Engine, which has first and third person legs.
Also, I believe the new Jurassic World game is using the Cobra Engine as well, which means vegetation, animals, atmosphere, etc is working already.
The challenge for legs and atmo is not the engine, but other reasons. For legs, it's the actual game play and content. For atmo is the procedural generation of a few hundred million planets of varied form that has to get it. Also, before atmo is made, gas planets must go first.
Nothing to do with servers and nothing to do with computers...well, not directly. Everything to do with peer to peer connections between hosts of instance.
FD maintains they can guarantee good performance up to 50 players with current version of protocol.
I know at least one player who had to stay out of Mobius and Open because their internet connection was not up to the job. It would be interesting to know what level of internet connection FD are basing that claim on.
A connection Mb/player bandwidth assessment would be even better.
Last edited: