Conceptually, how would you approach designing your dream space-themed game?

[rhiz]

For all of the divisiveness of the forums, I often read fair and insightful comments among the criticisms and praise of the game.

I was just wondering, given the successes, challenges and shortcomings of Fdev’s approach so far, how players would conceive of an alternative. It’s not an invitation to criticise Elite per-se, but rather to use it for the sake of comparison, so please try to keep it constructive.

I’m stating the obvious, but its clear to me that ED’s most impressive achievement is also its greatest flaw, and that’s the sheer scale of the thing. Clearly, the only conceivable way of generating an accurate model of a galaxy is to use generative techniques, with all of the challenges in terms of game play, “uniformity” and the absence of hand-crafted content that this implies. Would you be willing to sacrifice that scale and degree of freedom for a more limited but carefully crafted world?

When it comes to user generated content such as base building and so on (the sandbox with no sand argument), what are the technical challenges of supporting that in an open and persistent world? Would a single player approach be better suited to the kind of game that you want to play?

I’m sure than many of you have ideas when it comes to your dream game, so I’d be interested in hearing them (the above just aims to start the discussion - all thoughts welcome). I’d particularly welcome the input of any amateur/pro developers out there.

 

[CMDR Redcrest]

I'd get as much crowd funding as possible. Start a cult following and then milk my backers for every penny by selling them jpegs. Then cackle to myself while making space ship noises with a pencil.
Also I'd go all Scrooge Mcduck in my money pit.

 

[GroundxZERO]

It’s simple. Take ED and improve the grind by actually rewarding the player for short AND long term efforts. Double down on a variety of mission scenarios with voice acting for NPCs. Use your codex for guiding the player to unlocking “hidden” ships and weapons. Space legs and Atmos would be far in development by launch.

*simple as in “soon”

 

[Andovar]

Honestly, I'd make it a smaller "world".
For as cool as I think procedural generation is, it seems to be a bane to gameplay. (oddly enough, google searching "procedural game" years ago is how i found ED... silly me )
I'm sure some day the tech will be there, but right now I'd rather have a smaller hand-crafted game world.
Just look at Sol for example. With all the planets, moons, and DSO's, there more than enough space for a full game in there.

 

[CMDR Redcrest]

Honestly, I'd make it a smaller "world".
For as cool as I think procedural generation is, it seems to be a bane to gameplay. (oddly enough, google searching "procedural game" years ago is how i found ED... silly me )
I'm sure some day the tech will be there, but right now I'd rather have a smaller hand-crafted game world.
Just look at Sol for example. With all the planets, moons, and DSO's, there more than enough space for a full game in there.

I would pay good money for an Expanse game as that's set entirely in our solar system. The thing with the rings (avoiding spoilers) would make a good next game/expansion.

 

[rhiz]

I'd get as much crowd funding as possible. Start a cult following and then milk my backers for every penny by selling them jpegs. Then cackle to myself while making space ship noises with a pencil.
Also I'd go all Scrooge Mcduck in my money pit.

Just the kind of constructive and illuminating input that I anticipated. But what if it were a labour of love, born of quixotic passion and idealism?

 

[rhiz]

Honestly, I'd make it a smaller "world".
For as cool as I think procedural generation is, it seems to be a bane to gameplay. (oddly enough, google searching "procedural game" years ago is how i found ED... silly me )
I'm sure some day the tech will be there, but right now I'd rather have a smaller hand-crafted game world.
Just look at Sol for example. With all the planets, moons, and DSO's, there more than enough space for a full game in there.

I don’t know… I’m not convinced. Perhaps if AI ever reaches the point where it can make aesthetic and poetic judgements in the way that a human mind does, but we’re wading into deep philosophical waters there.

 

[BromeTeks]

I've got a fairly strong idea of what I like/dislike in space games, so I'll give the gist.

1: Use Elite Dangerous' flight and travel model with some minor tweaks. FDev really hit gold with the flight model in this game, the only things I'd change are some of the arbitrary plane-like restrictions such as crummy yaw, and limited top speed off-axis.

2: Use an economy Like EVE's. The Economy of EVE is something truely wonderful, it makes all the PvE stuff really matter. Mining, manufacturing, affecting the market, it's a ton of fun and if you're working with others, can be enormously beneficial. Imagine being able to fabricate and sell A-rated modules to people in your Squadron/PMF. Having to fabricate/use trade goods would make the markets actually mean something in a game like Elite.

3: Base building. Maybe not the super-citadels like EVE, but having small bases to contribute the economic situation would be pretty nice. It'd also help make territory matter more. Speaking of...

4: Territory. Null-sec space in EVE is quite fun, but there are changes I'd push for. Be able to finance an NPC police force. Make the bases better protected when in territory you own, and then group income from the territory to spend on things like megaships.

5: More ships. A LOT more. Having more varied combat leads to more emergent strategies and metas. Right now all the metas in Elite are about is how you can most quickly take down the enemy's shields. Things like dedicated interdictors, carrier ships (Launch wings of SLFs? yes please), static platform deployments, bombers, and so on.

 

[Mengy]

It’s not the scale of ED which is its problem, it’s the lack of core mechanics at its foundation.

That is what I would have done differently had I been at the wheel of EDs development. I would have fleshed out the mechanics which make up the backbone of the game, the activities which everyone takes part in. The core routines which make up trading, exploring, bounty hunting, pirating, salvaging, and mining. This does not mean add new content to them like ships or aliens or ruins and such, but add more activities and interactive mechanics to the very roles themselves.

After all of the core mechanics were developed and in a good place, only THEN would I have added bolt on features like Power Play, Community Goals, Wings, Multicrew, Engineers, Thargoids, Guardians, Passengers, and Squadrons. All of these would utilize the developed core to provide gameplay and they would be much better for it. This would prevent new features from being overly anemic like a lot of them actually have been. Multicrew is incredibly basic BECAUSE the core mechanics of the game are also incredibly basic.

This is what I had hoped Beyond would be, better late than never. Yet, a lot of Beyond so far (and upcoming) is still new bolt on features instead of focusing on the CORE foundations.

I would have chosen a different development direction.

 

[Mangal Oemie]

Pretty much like Elite, but without Thargoids and Guardians and a scripted story line, but with:

- news and lore based on player activity, rather than scripted content
- better economy, dynamic system population, station improvement/deterioration, colonization- and terraforming mechanic

That'll be all

 

[NY09]

Throw ED, Dan Simmons & Homeworld into a blender, create a nice thick sauce, pour liberally over Space Engine

 

[NeilF]

Actually add in mechanics and combat scenarios with some depth and layers?

As an example, a post from another thread:-

Why can't I jump (holo-me) into a fighter, stationed at a capital ship, either with a Wing of friends or a Wing of NPCs (giving simple attack this/defend that commands), and undertake a mission to escort a convoy of civilian ships through an asteroid field to an asteroid base far in the distance. During the jouney I'll come under attack from Thargoid scouts and we (my Wing) need to scout and defend to try and get as many of those ships in the convoy through.

Why in 2018 can't I even undertake that level of simplistic combat scenario in Elite Dangerous?

And imagine if that gameplay was there right now! Imagine if those assets were in the game... Because then, with Squadron Fleet carriers we might then be talking about re-using them for PvE gameplay, and shock horror maybe for Powerplay/Faction PvP gameplay...

But instead, for 3+ years now all we've generally had is shallow simplistic bolt on after shallow simplistic bolt on few of which actually add much gameplay depth, and an alarnming number of which generally just collect dust for most CMDRs.

We need more involved mechanics, which can be leveraged in layers...

 

[CMDR Redcrest]

Just the kind of constructive and illuminating input that I anticipated. But what if it were a labour of love, born of quixotic passion and idealism?

Nah I was joking obviously. I would make an Expanse game if I had the cash/know how.
The big question is RTS or flying a ship.
I'd probably go for something with a good single player campaign either way.

 

[rhiz]

Nah I was joking obviously. I would make an Expanse game if I had the cash/know how.
The big question is RTS or flying a ship.
I'd probably go for something with a good single player campaign either way.

It did make me smile... the seething cynicism.

 

[rhiz]

It’s not the scale of ED which is its problem, it’s the lack of core mechanics at its foundation.

That is what I would have done differently had I been at the wheel of EDs development. I would have fleshed out the mechanics which make up the backbone of the game, the activities which everyone takes part in. The core routines which make up trading, exploring, bounty hunting, pirating, salvaging, and mining. This does not mean add new content to them like ships or aliens or ruins and such, but add more activities and interactive mechanics to the very roles themselves.

After all of the core mechanics were developed and in a good place, only THEN would I have added bolt on features like Power Play, Community Goals, Wings, Multicrew, Engineers, Thargoids, Guardians, Passengers, and Squadrons. All of these would utilize the developed core to provide gameplay and they would be much better for it. This would prevent new features from being overly anemic like a lot of them actually have been. Multicrew is incredibly basic BECAUSE the core mechanics of the game are also incredibly basic.

This is what I had hoped Beyond would be, better late than never. Yet, a lot of Beyond so far (and upcoming) is still new bolt on features instead of focusing on the CORE foundations.

I would have chosen a different development direction.

Thanks for your input. I still think that the generative approach is problematic - it’s often meaningful and carefully weighed local differences that create drama and interest in an environment, but I take your point. If the core mechanics are robust and complex enough, the emergent gameplay will be interesting.

 

[rhiz]

I've got a fairly strong idea of what I like/dislike in space games, so I'll give the gist.

1: Use Elite Dangerous' flight and travel model with some minor tweaks. FDev really hit gold with the flight model in this game, the only things I'd change are some of the arbitrary plane-like restrictions such as crummy yaw, and limited top speed off-axis.

2: Use an economy Like EVE's. The Economy of EVE is something truely wonderful, it makes all the PvE stuff really matter. Mining, manufacturing, affecting the market, it's a ton of fun and if you're working with others, can be enormously beneficial. Imagine being able to fabricate and sell A-rated modules to people in your Squadron/PMF. Having to fabricate/use trade goods would make the markets actually mean something in a game like Elite.

3: Base building. Maybe not the super-citadels like EVE, but having small bases to contribute the economic situation would be pretty nice. It'd also help make territory matter more. Speaking of...

4: Territory. Null-sec space in EVE is quite fun, but there are changes I'd push for. Be able to finance an NPC police force. Make the bases better protected when in territory you own, and then group income from the territory to spend on things like megaships.

5: More ships. A LOT more. Having more varied combat leads to more emergent strategies and metas. Right now all the metas in Elite are about is how you can most quickly take down the enemy's shields. Things like dedicated interdictors, carrier ships (Launch wings of SLFs? yes please), static platform deployments, bombers, and so on.

Thanks BromeTeks, I agree regarding Elite's flight model and think that the general art direction/sound-design is second-to-none. I haven’t played EVE unfortunately, but that sounds great - I'll look into it. So you enjoy playing in a rich multi-player context?

 

[IndigoWyrd]

I'd start with a very clear and concise road map, well defined development goals and deadlines.

I'd follow this with a very in-depth review of the underlying game engine - can it do all the things the design roadmap calls for? Does it allow for modular adaptation for programmers to easily add the functionality required? Does it allow the designers to implement the necessary elements without causing a cascade of bugs in other areas of the game? Can these shortcomings be overcome?

Then I'd evaluate my talent - are the asset designers able to produce the assets the overall objective requires? Do things have the look and feel to set the scene and tell the story I'm trying to tell? Are the optimized for performance?

These, and many other fine details would all need to go though similar processes from the start, to ensure everyone is working from the same foundation before development really begins. Once in full swing, the foundations of the game built and tested - internally and externally, and refined to be as close to ideal as possible, then new and expanded content could be built upon that.

Let's pause a minute and compare this to Elite.

1.0 Release - we've got ships, stations, decorative planets. Things look.. the way they look, but not quite where we want them to be yet. So we take the time to get them where we want them to be before pressing on with 2.0.

2.0 Gave us Planetary landings, but only on dead, airless worlds. We know we want landings on other planets as well - atmospheric worlds, water worlds, fully inhabited worlds, so that's where we focus our attentions. Also, somewhere along the way, the decision was made to change the appearance of our planets, and they turned into cheese puffs, also known as The Beigeification, and this was not want we wanted. Rather than waiting until 3.0 to fix this, this should have been done during 2.x, as this is not what was desired. We also got Engineers, that, while planet-based, making use of the new planetary landing feature, were a bit off from what was desired, and required several tweaks and balancing passes, before finally being massively overhauled in 3.0. Multi-crew was stuffed in there, along with chained missions, alien ruins, thargoid hyperdictions, and a whole over-sized Swiss Army knife of things that were only somewhat developed. Yuck. No Feature-stuffing, please. Whole, complete, working, thought out, developed and tested features only.

Now here we are in 3.0, scrambling to fix things that shouldn't have needed fixing in the first place - expanding the criminal justice system, overhauling Engineering, making planets look great again, thargoids running amok while we scramble to catch up on weapons development and modifying ancient technologies that suddenly disappear (FSD Booster) due to, once more, too much Feature Stuffing in 2.x, and too little completion of features that began in 1.0.

Sooner or later, we'll be staring down the barrel of a loaded 4.0 release, and I suspect it will be a grab-bag of miscellaneous hodge-podges of partially completed features, fixes for 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 implementations that were perhaps a bit pre-mature, while the community continues to rage itself apart because That One Thing wasn't done yet.

Oh, and most importantly - I would never have a DDF before starting into a project like this - design by committee is a design for disaster. It just is. Sorry people, but while your ideas, suggestions and input are valuable, especially to you, we're making the game we want to to make first, because if we don't deliver a good, solid, stable, feature-rich product, we're not going to make the money we need to reach a point where we can go: "Ok, people out there, here's what we've got, now tell us what you think we should change/add/bend/spindle/mutilate."

I've a few game ideas in my head I've been kicking around for quite some time, but I'm no programmer, nor asset designer, and don't have time to play Kickstart a Design Studio. There may yet come a time where I do have time to actually put in the time required to cull together the talents required to coalesce one or more of these ideas into something worth putting into the hands of the general public, and I suspect there will be a lot of "holy ^*&$! where was this X-number of years ago? And a whole new category of game titles will have to be created - the AAAA title.

But that's just me - and I can't say there aren't forces like this at work behind the scenes - I can only say I'm not seeing it here. I'm seeing RNGesus spinning the Feature of the Month Wheel a lot.

 

[Drelthar]

Basically, elite dangerous, except if there is ever a timer based system, or repeating a very specific piece of content, fill that in with gameplay mechanics instead.

 

[gorhrut]

elite but offline. connect with friends over wan. give options for every control/mechanic or allow mods. idk, have a storyline (like skyrim) that you can be involved with or choose to ignore and do your own thing.

oh, and definitely alternative ways to achieve goals without the grind




alternatively, first person EVE....

 

[Chaparral]

1. Learn from other successful MMOs.
2. Central regional servers.
3. PVE core servers, with structured contextual PVP, WVW and instant flagged dueling.
4. Achievements, rewards, progression related to the connected task. (Get better stuff for exploration by exploring, get better stuff for fighting by fighting, etc.).
5. Varied mechanics within each career strand, (for example: multiple tasks that are available to explore -stellar explorer, asteroid explorer, surface explorer, life-form explorer etc. ) Both legal and criminal paths should be fleshed out with understandable outcomes.
6. Meaningful faction membership with access progression, discounts, skins, restrictions on leaving factions, pvp/wvw related to faction membership, rebuy discounts, etc.
7. Personal connection to game environment and npcs. Visible perk trees, personal colonization, base building, modeled and voiced npcs that can be interacted with. Capacity to meet and interact with player avatars on ships, stations, planetary surfaces.
8. ACTIVE devs that closely monitor player connected economies (player to market, and player to player trade - GW2 is a good model here) The BGS is a TERRIBLE market model, and makes little sense with FTL travel to communicate goods and services over a thousand light years in a matter of minutes.
9. ACTIVE devs that closely monitor gear and skill metas, and apply buffs and nerfs regularly to ensure build diversity.
10. Cosmetic customization (microtransactions are fine), skin unlocks for achievements are great motivators.
11. Allow for gold rushes within each career path (planned and rng spawning).
12. Progression. Is it about ships? NO. The gear in an MMO is a tool that should give you the capacity to participate in new and interesting tasks. If the gear access is the only mark of progress, there is a fundamental flaw in the design. Skill access, relationships, skins, titles, access to new modes of play are hallmarks of decent progression.
13. Multiple character slots.
14. Local and global story arcs. NPCs should recognize your role in local arcs.
15. Public rosters of allied players in a local system.
16. No redundant loading screens.
17. No redundant inane npc text messages (voice /avatar acted or nothing).
18. LIFE.