Elite has Grown Beyond its Capacity. Is it time for a new Elite game?

[Chaparral]

I feel as though the Elite setting, artwork, sound design, flight model etc. are tremendously interesting and appealed to an audience that was larger in scope than the BGS chess game that was initially envisioned. Players used to themepark mmos (like myself) came to elite scratching our heads saying "no story line" "no in-game spontaneous events" "no structured pvp / wvw", "limited variety in mechanics", "p2p for group instancing" etc. etc. and wondered, wth are these guys thinking? Then you look back at the evolution of Elite and its reliance on procedural generation, lack or character development, focus on your own internal narrative and you sort of get it.

A fair number of people try to break the game to get what they want out of it - in my opinion because of the mismatch between player expectations and ED design intentions. Now we've got signs of the missions being unraveled and evidence of bots screwing with the bgs/pp. The poor devs are trying to stamp out fires right and left. It really is a losing battle.

I'm an old guy. Been playing video games since pong. I don't think we'll see another Elite, but it is a great proof of concept for any developer considering using an environment like this as a setting for something that includes a bit richer character development, a bit more functional multiplayer, and a greater variety of gameplay mechanics. These guys did a great job with the resources and timeline they faced. I'll keep popping in, but at this point, I have no expectations that Elite will ever be "fixed", or that it will ever be more than scan, scoop, pew pew, and watch a system jump loading screen.

I guess I really am desperate for a sci fi game.

 

[kofeyh]

The only fail FD has had is making open in this game.

Semantics aside, this doesn't really affect the quality of the code, stability or functionality; that this is now in a pretty challenged state, I don't think really anyone is now questioning this. Even Frontier aren't. They know the score. Beyond is entirely their recognition the game isn't where it should be. They are addressing code, and it's breaking. Badly.

And it's clear they will continue to have no compunction about breaking core mechanics in live, in order to attempt to sort out problems (which in some ways just adds to the confusion and mess). Whether one is in open, solo or PG, doesn't really matter at this point.

Frontier have a hell of a hill to climb. They know things have to be addressed. And if you think this being an offline game, would have magically avoided all the issues? Sir, I have a wonderful bridge in Sydney to sell you.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

Semantics aside, this doesn't really affect the quality of the code, stability or functionality; that this is now in a pretty challenged state, I don't think really anyone is now questioning this. Even Frontier aren't. They know the score. Beyond is entirely their recognition the game isn't where it should be. They are addressing code, and it's breaking. Badly.

And it's clear they will continue to have no compunction about breaking core mechanics in order to attempt to sort out problems (which in some ways just adds to the confusion and mess). Whether one is in open, solo or PG, doesn't really matter at this point.

Frontier have a hell of a hill to climb.

Thanks, kofey. You've actually calmed me down a little bit.

 

[krylite]

I'd highly doubt it was done with "sphagetti" code. I would guess ED was done with the usual C++ object oriented standards and it's a highly complex game managing to juggle so many systems and mini-games in a mmo shared verse. Though I'm not sure how much it's dependent on .NET if any. Perhaps less so, which could mean more bugs to fix, but at the same time possible better performance. As an evolving MMO, FD could just keep improving and updating the game and/or cobra engine and fleshing out more the framework placeholders etc. , effectively making it a new game every few years without having to redo it. The player assets and information are probably separately database stored, so even if there was a new redone core game, the playerbase could be migrated intact and it would just look like a major change or upgrade on the surface and charged as a new DLC if need be.

 

[znôrt]

Semantics aside, this doesn't really affect the quality of the code, stability or functionality; that this is now in a pretty challenged state, I don't think really anyone is now questioning this. Even Frontier aren't. They know the score. Beyond is entirely their recognition the game isn't where it should be. They are addressing code, and it's breaking. Badly.

are they? i have had to deal with messy coden very often: you don't break it, you quarantine it, you rewrite or fix it. of course 'addressing code' does not mean adding new features on top of rushed code. that's pretty much guaranteed to break. and that's exactly what it looks like. i really doubt they are sanitizing the codebase. it's looks exactly like the same forward rush as ever. actually, the number and type of functional changes (missions/c&p/new weapons/new ships/new mission types/engineers/materials) all released lumped together and with very little testing completely rules out that there is any real refactor ongoing. it turns out we might have completely misunderstood their 'recognition'.

 

[Captain Willard]

Semantics aside, this doesn't really affect the quality of the code, stability or functionality; that this is now in a pretty challenged state, I don't think really anyone is now questioning this. Even Frontier aren't. They know the score. Beyond is entirely their recognition the game isn't where it should be. They are addressing code, and it's breaking. Badly.

And it's clear they will continue to have no compunction about breaking core mechanics in live, in order to attempt to sort out problems (which in some ways just adds to the confusion and mess). Whether one is in open, solo or PG, doesn't really matter at this point.

Frontier have a hell of a hill to climb. They know things have to be addressed. And if you think this being an offline game, would have magically avoided all the issues? Sir, I have a wonderful bridge in Sydney to sell you.

Succintly put. I knew it could never be an offline game when I backed it. You don't have a bridge. hehe

 

[DeathStroke]

I'm not a programmer

Then you have no business saying the game has grown beyond it's 'capacity'.
FWI, on a project as large as elite, fixing messy code is usually much easier than re-writing the whole thing from scratch.
For me personally, it's always easier to fix messy code than to restart from scratch, but that's me. Different programmers will have different preferences.
If you want a different game, then go play a different game, there are several space games out right now. StarCitizen, No man's sky, EVE online, kerbal space program, everspace, space engineers, etc...
I'm not saying elite is perfect, far from it, but we're a LONG way from a complete re-write.

 

[Valorin]

They are addressing code, and it's breaking. Badly.

So please elaborate: what are the signs of breaking code in this case?

 

[varonica]

I already suggested that and was flamed.

Elite: Universe

Yes, because Stargate: Universe was such a success

 

[znôrt]

I would guess ED was done with the usual C++ object oriented standards

you know, standards don't preclude bad code at all. btw ... c++ object oriented standards? :O

and it's a highly complex game managing to juggle so many systems and mini-games in a mmo shared verse.

complexity doesn't produce bugs or flaky software. bad practices do. rushing enforces bad practices.

Though I'm not sure how much it's dependent on .NET if any. Perhaps less so, which could mean more bugs to fix, but at the same time possible better performance.

likely only the launcher since .net doesn't run on ps4, though they might be using some .net apis and have alternate implementations for ps4. but i fail to see how this is relevant, quality problems and bad practices were evident long before the ps4 release.

 

[Franc Kaos]

If, on release, it had all planetary landings, gas giants, comets, a functioning economy, a proper offline mode (with modding capability), an orrery, a pirate faction (with their own bases and hierarchy) and a naval progression with proper missions and rewards, I'd buy it.

I wouldn't buy it if these things were promises for future content.

 

[Arindor]

I think FD do have another Elite game in mind which contains the content they threw into the bin, along with the some of the more cool ideas from the DDF. Until then, I think I'll wait until this game has been finished and feels completed before making my mind up if I would buy another (a mitigating factor being offline mode, because I hate having to play a game that needs an online connection all the time). Unfortunately there's still a long way to go before ED feels complete, so I will enjoy what I have for the moment.

 

[kofeyh]

So please elaborate: what are the signs of breaking code in this case?

Look at the message in the actual game when you login; the one that says rank up missions are broken. Because stuff broke. Stuff breaks. Don't play "what bugs? what breaking code?" when even the game itself is telling people things are broken.

There is no way Frontier was ever going to build something this big, with the scope they had and have planned, without the game seeing core functions broken, at some point. Doubly so, when addressing mechanics that have been dormant, or have seen minimal change previously. A lot of mechanics are inter-connected, which means adjusting a few lines of code, can have dramatic consequences. As we are now quite familiar with.

It'd be nicer if this was beta rather than live. But this is the situation we are in. Frontier are working very, very hard to resolve this. And good on them at that. There's a ton of people who want them to succeed. I sure as hell want them to succeed.

But pretending it's not happening is a bit preposterous, frankly. The good thing, from my perspective, is they are at least tackling the issues head on, rather than fall back to "this will be addressed in the future", which had a habit of simply not happening.

 

[kofeyh]

Succintly put. I knew it could never be an offline game when I backed it. You don't have a bridge. hehe

It was never going to be an offline game, not with the scale and scope planned. I assumed it would be an online game, when I backed it. Nostalgia has a habit of clouding reality with dreams, though. That's not a bad thing. But it is a thing.

I think Frontier are brave as hell to actually be prepared to break live to resolve issues, rather than wait months for the next major update. It's a hard call, you know? Make changes now, knowing you will break it. Or wait, and have the fallout. I think the enormity of the situation is probably very acutely understood at Frontier.

Sandy strikes me as someone who doesn't give up easily. That's good. I just think it's going to be bumpy for a while yet. I'm hopeful.

 

[znôrt]

So please elaborate: what are the signs of breaking code in this case?

transactions failing.
crashes to desktop.
frequent regression bugs.
basic functionality randomly not working without known cause.
"we think it's fixed, please report if it isn't".

are classic symptoms. though many just might mean dismal qa (too).

here's a good 70+ pages read for you: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php/105-PC-amp-Mac-Bug-Reports

 

[Valorin]

transactions failing.
crashes to desktop.
frequent regression bugs.
basic functionality randomly not working without known cause.
"we think it's fixed, please report if it isn't".

are classic symptoms. though many just might mean dismal qa (too).

here's a good 70+ pages read for you: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php/105-PC-amp-Mac-Bug-Reports

I have no transactions failing or crashes to desktop and I also don't know anybody who does. Regression bugs? Basic functionality randomly not working without known cause? That's not really what's happening.
And yeah, the bug reports forum is of course full in any game that is regularly updated. I don't see any signs of code "failing". I see a very complex game, yeah.
You are, of course, free to ride the wave of doom all you like.

 

[kofeyh]

I have no transactions failing or crashes to desktop and I also don't know anybody who does.

I won't comment on your circle of 'anybody'. I had several transaction errors when exploring two days ago. A number of commanders advised they had the same thing. It's happening intermittently in other situations as well. Your experience isn't global. Any more than mine is, and I am sure as heck not going to claim things aren't happening simply because I haven't experienced them.

That's not even a logical argument.

Regression bugs? Basic functionality randomly not working without known cause? That's not really what's happening.

Actually yes it is; to wit, there's an actual statement to this fact in the game main menu. Until the developer investigates an issue, and locates both the symptom and the trigger, how can they possibly automatically know? It wouldn't happen if they did. Because it'd have already been fixed. The developer isn't clairvoyant.

And yeah, the bug reports forum is of course full in any game that is regularly updated. I don't see any signs of code "failing". I see a very complex game, yeah.
You are, of course, free to ride the wave of doom all you like.

The game has functionality breaking issues at present. This isn't a "wave of doom". It's established fact. It's also fact that Frontier are working bloody hard to fix actual issues actual people are actually experiencing. And you do no one, at all, a service by pretending this is all preposterous. This ignores the impact of the issues, and the level of effort from the developer in addressing same.

 

[Sethioz]

As a programmer, I've never heard such thing. If base of the game is done correctly, you can update the game at any given time and add as much stuff as you want without seriously breaking it.
There are not many developers out there who manage this tho, usually it's a disaster as developers always think small when starting to work on a project.

To any non-programmers, it's like building a house. you have to have a vision on what you want the house to be at end. If you build a foundation that is only good for 3 levels, then building a 4th level would require you to replace foundation, which is almost impossible without seriously damaging the entire house.
Or if area where you building is not big enough, you can't expand the house anymore.

Hope this makes sense.


That said, I'd like to see graphics overhaul in ED, compared to other new games, I think ED looks bit old already, it needs graphics overhaul. New models and textures. Ships look pixelated and not enough detail.
It would require time, but I think it's worth it.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I'm not a programmer, so I was amused and curious when I saw the term "spaghetti code" used on here a few months ago. Apparently it refers to a phenomenon in which a program is so complicated and its code so intertwined, that making a change in one part does crazy and unexpected stuff in totally different areas, causing things to break whenever something is changed.

From the eyes of an outside observer, it certainly seems that Elite is fully "spaghettified" now (if that is a thing?). In the 2.x updates for example, we must have seen exquisite focus crystals, cracked industrial firmware and biotech conductors disappear from the game 3-4 times - every time something was changed, that (and a million other things) broke, with crazy new bugs popping up with increasing frequency at each new update. And...this seems to be accelerating. Frontier obviously cares about their community and product, and they are quite amazing - but the bugs have exponentially increased as they have tried to fix things and add new features.

I'm glad that they have undertaken the effort to deepen the experience and develop previously underused functions - it was a needed effort, but now I see why they hadn't done it earlier. Personally I'm very much hoping there is no version 4.0 - that instead they will start with a new game....and that the next Elite contains everything we've all been hoping for in so many hundreds of suggestion threads. I've played for 1500 hours and I truly enjoyed that time - AND CONTINUE TO ENJOY PLAYING THE GAME - but I think it's clear that this framework has reached its limits. I will joyously part with my ~200 earth worlds discovered, fleet of 20 G5 engineered ships, billions of credits, triple elite and admiral/king rank, and look forward to the next game. This has been a FANTASTIC game and I place it up there with the greatest games I have ever played - right up there with my favorites of all time (Legend of Zelda 1 for Nintendo, Phastasy Star 2 for genesis, Sid Meier's Pirates for Amiga, Privateer 1 and 2 for PC, Master of Orion 1 and 2 for PC - and Elite Dangerous now right up there with the best of them.)

I plan to continue to play this great game obviously - I'm still enjoying it, for all the growing problems. I'm riding this train until the wheels come off....and they ARE coming off...I just personally hope a new train pulls up!

Given the stuff missing from the game and the LTP which is a long way from added value yet I will say this. I would LOVE a new ed starting from scratch with all lessons and tricks learned from making ED.... So long as the LTP from ED is bought into the game and honoured fully . FD have said this is the last elite game tho and will just be built on so imo this is just an interesting thought exercise and nothing more

 

[AsukaZ]

Can we fix it ? Yes we can !

[video=youtube;BHV4FBAxfMY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHV4FBAxfMY[/video]