General / Off-Topic What No Mans Sky Does RIGHT that FD could learn from.

[Electric Kite]

1) Warp Gates. Come on FD. Just one even between colonia and the bubble. Not everyone has 21 hours to spare. Make it a CG to build it. It would feel like an actually important CG for once.
2) Exotic Rare Ships. We all want to be unique. Not differnt shades of the same colour.
3) Base construction. (they did in 2 years what you guys have been avoiding for 3.)
4) Athmosphere. Even barren atmospheric worlds. Just throw in a few clouds and change the sky box. easy. Ill do it. Hire me.
5)Caves. Propper, massive caves. We have the barren landscapes with no athmophere..why not add caves next? How hard exactly would it be to add?

When i look at everything no mans sky added in 2 years, and compare it to what we hav got in the last two years in Elite i cant help but feel bad.
And everyone HATED no mans sky. And they are a FRACTION of the size you guys are.


So....

What are you guys doing? Exactly?

Thanks.

 

[shreddog]

So....

What are you guys doing? Exactly?

Hopefully working on something spectacular.

I agree on almost all your points. Not sure about warp gates though. Perhaps if they constrained them to the bubble only, so people with very short range ship could get around quicker and do their missions.

Also 2, creating ships in Elite takes ALLOT more work compared to NMS. The models are much more detailed, and you have to model the interior to. They could go the route of making separate ship parts and have them put together by procedural seeding, making for an "endless" variation in ships. But it's not going to look anywhere near as pretty as the ships we have now.

edit: ok so I agreed on 3 out of 5. Not 'almost all' [haha]

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

1) Warp Gates. Come on FD. Just one even between colonia and the bubble. Not everyone has 21 hours to spare. Make it a CG to build it. It would feel like an actually important CG for once.

I have no wish for warp gates, sorry.

2) Exotic Rare Ships. We all want to be unique. Not differnt shades of the same colour.

Possibly, but I am not sure how it would work within the ED lore.

3) Base construction. (they did in 2 years what you guys have been avoiding for 3.)

I wouldn't mind it, but also not that fussed about it. As to them avoiding it, I am unsure they are, probably no on the list at the moment. They had to get past horizons first before updating the core gameplay, and then I can see them maybe expanding into personal base building.

4) Athmosphere. Even barren atmospheric worlds. Just throw in a few clouds and change the sky box. easy. Ill do it. Hire me.

No it's not that easy if they want to do them right. I certainly would not want NMS type planets in ED. I would prefer if they looked the part like the planets in ED look now.

5)Caves. Propper, massive caves. We have the barren landscapes with no athmophere..why not add caves next? How hard exactly would it be to add?

Not as easy as you think with the way planets are created in ED. It's certainly possible, but would require some serious work to get them to look right.

When i look at everything no mans sky added in 2 years, and compare it to what we hav got in the last two years in Elite i cant help but feel bad.

You are comparing two very different games, one based on scientific principle and the other a complete fantasy. Nothing wrong with NMS, just not the direction I would like ED to go down myself.

And everyone HATED no mans sky. And they are a FRACTION of the size you guys are.

As stated, very different games. You can't compare the two and how much time it takes to create stuff within the game. The complexities in ED such as the BGS, the commodities markets, the PG galaxy, the system makeup, the 1-1 scale of everything, the station/megaship/ship/SRV models, the way missions tie into the BGS are all much more complex then what is in NMS.

So....

What are you guys doing? Exactly?

Thanks.

Designing and programming a somewhat complex computer game, which on the surface looks far more complex then NMS. Whether it is or not, I am unsure as I am no expert in the field.

 

[Electric Kite]

I have no wish for warp gates, sorry.


Possibly, but I am not sure how it would work within the ED lore.


I wouldn't mind it, but also not that fussed about it.


No it's not that easy if they want to do them right. I certainly would not want NMS type planets in ED. I would prefer if they looked the part like the planets in ED look now.


Not as easy as you think with the way planets are created in ED. It's certainly possible, but would require some serious work to get them to look right.


You are comparing two very different games, one based on scientific principle and the other a complete fantasy. Nothing wrong with NMS, just not the direction I would like ED to go down myself.


As stated, very different games. You can't compare the two and how much time it takes to create stuff within the game. The complexities in ED such as the BGS, the commodities markets, the PG galaxy, the system makeup, the 1-1 scale of everything, the station/megaship/ship/SRV models, the way missions tie into the BGS. These are all much more complex then what is in NMS.



Designing and programming a somewhat complex computer game, which on the surface looks far more complex then NMS. Whether it is or not, I am unsure as I am no expert in the field.

"on the surface looks far more complex then NMS. Whether it is or not, I am unsure as I am no expert in the field."

Your post heavily suggests Elite is a more complex game then you finish by saying you dont know if it is.

I see no evidence that suggests it is.

Im no expert either but i cant ignore the fact that in 2 years we got a LOT of things added to NMS thats technically very impressive. Can you say the same for Elite?

 

[Bartizan]

I like the points other than the gates. That comes up often and can be hotly debated. My opinion is not needed and could have very large consequences ocross the larger game. Many of the mission award values and fluctuating trade prices have a lot to do with time/distance to complete. In the real world, how quickly you want your amazon orders means you pay a higher premium to the deliverer.....ED is backwards to that where shorter/quicker means less payout. The grind always gets its pound of flesh here.

 

[shreddog]

"on the surface looks far more complex then NMS. Whether it is or not, I am unsure as I am no expert in the field."

Your post heavily suggests Elite is a more complex game then you finish by saying you dont know if it is.

I see no evidence that suggests it is.

Well it does have very realistic star systems with proper orbital mechanics and such.

It also has true scale planets. But if we get down to the actual surface of a planet I would say that NMS is a much more complex game.

 

[Electric Kite]

Hopefully working on something spectacular.

I agree on almost all your points. Not sure about warp gates though. Perhaps if they constrained them to the bubble only, so people with very short range ship could get around quicker and do their missions.

Also 2, creating ships in Elite takes ALLOT more work compared to NMS. The models are much more detailed, and you have to model the interior to. They could go the route of making separate ship parts and have them put together by procedural seeding, making for an "endless" variation in ships. But it's not going to look anywhere near as pretty as the ships we have now.

edit: ok so I agreed on 3 out of 5. Not 'almost all' [haha]

3/5 aint bad

Well it does have very realistic star systems with proper orbital mechanics and such.

It also has true scale planets. But if we get down to the actual surface of a planet I would say that NMS is a much more complex game.

It also has fleet carriers and fleet command missions..so its also got some pretty complex stuff going on in space also...NMS is no slouch guys..seriously. I think the turtle has over taken the hare here.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

"on the surface looks far more complex then NMS. Whether it is or not, I am unsure as I am no expert in the field."

Your post heavily suggests Elite is a more complex game then you finish by saying you dont know if it is.

I see no evidence that suggests it is.

You don't, I do. The PG galaxy in ED is far more complex then NMS which has far less parameters to look at. Anyone that plays both game should be able to see this (I play both). The BGS and commodities markets and missions which all tie into one another is a pretty complex beast and NMS has nothing compareable to it.

You can't see it, maybe because you don't want to see it. How easy they are to code and create is something else entirely though. That I do not know for sure but can come up with an educated guess.

It also has fleet carriers and fleet command missions..so its also got some pretty complex stuff going on in space also...NMS is no slouch guys..seriously. I think the turtle has over taken the hare here.

I have no wish to have a personal fleet or fleet carrier or fleet command missions in ED.

 

[Electric Kite]

You don't, I do. The PG galaxy in ED is far more complex then NMS which has far less parameters to look at. Anyone that plays both game should be able to see this (I play both). The BGS and commodities markets and missions which all tie into one another is a pretty complex beast and NMS has nothing compareable to it.

You can't see it, maybe because you don't want to see it. How easy they are to code and create is something else entirely though. That I do not know for sure but can come up with an educated guess.

I see a lot of broken missions that still dont work 3 years later.
Just like you say you see what you see in ED I say I see in NMS.
So whos right?
No one.

But what you cant argue is one game has made more of a drastic improvement than the other and in a much shorter time.
Thats my point.
Now your justification for that is an opinion..not a fact.
Thats the difference between what youre saying and what i am.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Well it does have very realistic star systems with proper orbital mechanics and such.

It also has true scale planets. But if we get down to the actual surface of a planet I would say that NMS is a much more complex game.

Depend. You have to take like for like. I would say that ED's non-atmospheric planets look very good and pretty damn realistic. Obviously ED doesn't atmospheric planets or planets with complex life on them. When/if they do turn up, I will make a comparison then and the same goes for space legs.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I see a lot of broken missions that still dont work 3 years later. Did you know NMS has missions? And they work?

There are very few missions that don't work in ED. In fact I haven't come accross any broken missions myself, but the main reason why they do break is because of the complexities of the BGS.
Yes I do know that NMS has missions, I play the game and beginning to enjoy it, but I am not blind to what the game is.

Just like you say you see what you see in ED I say I see in NMS.
So whos right?
No one.

I will leave that for you to work out.

But what you cant argue is one game has made more of a drastic improvement than the other and in a much shorter time.
Thats my point.

The game couldn't get much worse could it. Yes they have taken a year to turn it onto a game worth playing. ED in my view was already a game worth playing when it first came out. I will wait until this beyond season is finished (after the season they had to do in horizons which was a mistake in my view) before passing judgement on what FDev can do in a year.

Now your justification for that is an opinion..not a fact.

I am not trying to justify anything. I am just trying to point out the big differences between the games and how it's difficult to compare the effort it takes to make changes within the game. That is not an opinion as I have no opinion on it as I do not know for sure and neither do you.

Thats the difference between what youre saying and what i am.

So you're opinions are facts and mine are not. Good one.

 

[Ca$hback]

In Elite, the smallest landable bodies are orders of magnitude larger than the largest planets in NMS. No Man's sky uses a lot of tricks to hide scale that kills verisimilitude. It succeeds in quantity over quality with it's procedural generation. Instead of a list of parts to choose from and cobble together, Elite's systems (like the stellar forge) work on rules, like high-G flora and fauna are more squat and robust, cold worlds have furry animals and dragons might spit acid but they don't breathe fire and they're too big to fly.
NMS is fine if you pretend you're Bucky O'Hare or Duck Dodgers. It's even fun but it's silly and not my thing.
Elite was set up pretty good to be a space simulator, then they gave up on realism, conceding to those that say "you're already flying faster than light, so what's the point in trying to make it (somewhat) realistic?" as if there aren't necessary exceptions and differing degrees.
When you look at the scale of Elite and consider that you have to procedurally generate millions of square km instead of thousands, according to stricter rules, it's not unreasonable to speculate that Elite is harder to develop pound for pound. The last thing we want are (more) rushed and broken mechanics and further discouragement of the team leading them to give up more and cartoonify Elite like Zombie Simpsons trying to cash in on Family Guy style bathroom humour.
I see evidence in the in-game assets.

 

[Electric Kite]

i

There are very few missions that don't work in ED. In fact I haven't come accross any broken missions myself, but the main reason why they do break is because of the complexities of the BGS.
Yes I do know that NMS has missions, I play the game and beginning to enjoy it, but I am not blind to what the game is.

My Activity
I will leave that for you to work out.


The game couldn't get much worse could it. Yes they have taken a year to turn it onto a game worth playing. ED in my view was already a game worth playing when it first came out. I will wait until this beyond season is finished (after the season they had to do in horizons which was a mistake in my view) before passing judgement on what FDev can do in a year.


I am not trying to justify anything.


So you're opinions are facts and mine are not. Good one.

NMS has gotten a lot of content, meaningfull gameplay content and generally has gotten a lot better in the last 2 years. (Has Elite?) Thats not an opinion. Its a fact - supported by plenty of review sights, steam reviews and general common sense. If you play the game. Its is, a better game now, than it was before. That is a fact. Ask anyone who played it at launch. Or just google it. Shouldnt take you long.

Why Elite Dangerous has not made as many improvements is because ( according to JUST YOU) its a more complex game.

Thats not a fact. Thats an opinion. I say this because there is no proof of this and because there are literally hundredds of reasons trhat are equally plausable for this not happening. Maybe they were working on other things, maybe its in maintence mode, maybe they are waiting to see how the reception for other things are going WHO KNOWS?

Not you, thats for sure.

Hope that helps.

In Elite, the smallest landable bodies are orders of magnitude larger than the largest planets in NMS. No Man's sky uses a lot of tricks to hide scale that kills verisimilitude. It succeeds in quantity over quality with it's procedural generation. Instead of a list of parts to choose from and cobble together, Elite's systems (like the stellar forge) work on rules, like high-G flora and fauna are more squat and robust, cold worlds have furry animals and dragons might spit acid but they don't breathe fire and they're too big to fly.
NMS is fine if you pretend you're Bucky O'Hare or Duck Dodgers. It's even fun but it's silly and not my thing.
Elite was set up pretty good to be a space simulator, then they gave up on realism, conceding to those that say "you're already flying faster than light, so what's the point in trying to make it (somewhat) realistic?" as if there aren't necessary exceptions and differing degrees.
When you look at the scale of Elite and consider that you have to procedurally generate millions of square km instead of thousands, according to stricter rules, it's not unreasonable to speculate that Elite is harder to develop pound for pound. The last thing we want are (more) rushed and broken mechanics and further discouragement of the team leading them to give up more and cartoonify Elite like Zombie Simpsons trying to cash in on Family Guy style bathroom humour.
I see evidence in the in-game assets.

Whats that got to do with say..space legs. Or owning a freighter. Or being able to use warp gates? Or being able to own exotic ships. Or anything in my origonal point. Yes elite is a bigger game. I get it. But that excuse for not progressing hardly any in the last year or more is wearing pretty thin.

Dont you think?

 

[shreddog]

Depend. You have to take like for like. I would say that ED's non-atmospheric planets look very good and pretty damn realistic. Obviously ED doesn't atmospheric planets or planets with complex life on them. When/if they do turn up, I will make a comparison then and the same goes for space legs.

They look great from a few km above the surface.
When you land and drive on them though, it seem to be lacking detail. It's all very rounded and not allot of close area terrain features going on.

For once I'd like to encounter a sharp vertical obstacle, say a meter tall ridge in the terrain. Or deep cracks in the surface or something. Anything interesting.
Right now it is all just driving over mounds upon mounds of rounded heightmap with the same few rocks scattered around.

Hopefully they improve this massively in Q4

 

[Ca$hback]

We have no means to quantify, and therefore compare, progress between the two games. We can speculate. I gave you my speculation. It's harder to develop, ergo more time is spent on things. What's so hard to understand? You're disappointed. I get it.

 

[mossfoot]

1) Warp Gates. Come on FD. Just one even between colonia and the bubble. Not everyone has 21 hours to spare. Make it a CG to build it. It would feel like an actually important CG for once.
2) Exotic Rare Ships. We all want to be unique. Not differnt shades of the same colour.
3) Base construction. (they did in 2 years what you guys have been avoiding for 3.)
4) Athmosphere. Even barren atmospheric worlds. Just throw in a few clouds and change the sky box. easy. Ill do it. Hire me.
5)Caves. Propper, massive caves. We have the barren landscapes with no athmophere..why not add caves next? How hard exactly would it be to add?

My thoughts for each:

1) No. Just no. Warp gates work just fine for NMS because of the kind of game it is and the kind of science fantasy it's playing with. While ED isn't 100% consistent with tech application, they do strive for an internal consistency. While there's nothing preventing warp gates from existing at some point, I do think it would hurt the ED universe far more than it would help it.

2) Sure, why not? But I can't see how it would be applied. We already restrict access to ships based on rank, and if you were to limit it to one system or something everyone would simply go there (including the griefers). But of course "rare" tends to be equated with "better than the others" - so it would also just become a new meta for people to work with. Technically the Cobra IV is rare because it's actually restricted to those who bought ED early on. But while its supporters maintain it's a good ship, nobody is going to say it's the best. So the question becomes why have rare ships at all unless it's just a Pokemon "gotta catch em all" thing?

3) I'm still convinced personal bases will happen in the future, most likely in the form of "inflatable asteroid bases" as it was termed way back when the idea was discussed (with concept art). I doubt it will have any kind of complex construction, but probably some form of personalization.

4) It's coming. They don't just want clouds and a skybox, they want cause and effect, just like how they developed the surfaces of planets in the first place. If there is atmosphere, even a thin one, there is going to be erosion, and therefore that has to be accounted for in the planet over the span of its life.

5) Up till now that's been a limitation of the engine - we were told that it wasn't technically possible when Horizons first came out, but I suspect that if they develop a next stage that accounts for erosion and liquids and whatnot, that'll end up back as a possibility. Who knows?

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

NMS has gotten a lot better. Thats not an opinion. Its a fact - supported by plenty of review sights, steam reviews and general common sense. If you play the game. Its is, a better game now, than it was before. That is a fact. Ask anyone who played it at launch. Or just google it. Shouldnt take you long.

I never said NMS hadn't improved. In fact I said the exact opposite and that it is far better game then what it was when it first came out. Sorry but you are not making sense.

Why Elite Dangerous has not made as many improvements is because ( according to JUST YOU) its a more complex game.

ED has made many improvements to the game. Maybe not the improvements you or I were looking for though. All i am saying is that the improvement FDev do for ED maybe more complex due to the overall more complex systems in the game, hence the reason why they need more devs to work on it. I don't think NMS has been faster at developing the game then FDev have been with ED. They have just developed different stuff and maybe it isn't what we were hoping for (looking at you multicrew).

Thats not a fact. Thats an opinion. I say this because there is no proof of this and because there are literally hundredds of reasons trhat are equally plausable for this not happening. Maybe they were working on other things, maybe its in maintence mode, maybe they are waiting to see how the reception for other things are going WHO KNOWS?

Not you, thats for sure.

Hope that helps.

Now I am completely lost and have no idea what you are on about.

 

[Electric Kite]

Heres what i think.

NMS was a game that made a lot of money. But it feels like they didnt take the money and run. They stuck around and poured their heart and sole into it to make it better. And it is better.

ED was a brilliant game that made a lot of money. But it feels like they did take the money and run. They didnt realy stick around and they didntpour their heart andsole into making it better and its the same game it was 3 years ago.

Am i completely wrong?

Honestly?

 

[Electric Kite]

"

I never said NMS hadn't improved. In fact I said the exact opposite and that it is far better game then what it was when it first came out. Sorry but you are not making sense.


ED has made many improvements to the game. Maybe not the improvements you or I were looking for though.



Later.


Now I am completely lost and have no idea what you are on about.

Classic response when loosing an arguement in the face of solid facts: "I dont understand. your not making sense."

You said "So your opinions are facts and mine ars are just opinions?". My response makes perfect sense if you actually read it.

That said: The brilliant thing is it doesnt matter if you "get it" or not.
It doesnt change the truth.

So..later . I guess.

 

[Electric Kite]

My thoughts for each:

1) No. Just no. Warp gates work just fine for NMS because of the kind of game it is and the kind of science fantasy it's playing with. While ED isn't 100% consistent with tech application, they do strive for an internal consistency. While there's nothing preventing warp gates from existing at some point, I do think it would hurt the ED universe far more than it would help it.

2) Sure, why not? But I can't see how it would be applied. We already restrict access to ships based on rank, and if you were to limit it to one system or something everyone would simply go there (including the griefers). But of course "rare" tends to be equated with "better than the others" - so it would also just become a new meta for people to work with. Technically the Cobra IV is rare because it's actually restricted to those who bought ED early on. But while its supporters maintain it's a good ship, nobody is going to say it's the best. So the question becomes why have rare ships at all unless it's just a Pokemon "gotta catch em all" thing?

3) I'm still convinced personal bases will happen in the future, most likely in the form of "inflatable asteroid bases" as it was termed way back when the idea was discussed (with concept art). I doubt it will have any kind of complex construction, but probably some form of personalization.

4) It's coming. They don't just want clouds and a skybox, they want cause and effect, just like how they developed the surfaces of planets in the first place. If there is atmosphere, even a thin one, there is going to be erosion, and therefore that has to be accounted for in the planet over the span of its life.

5) Up till now that's been a limitation of the engine - we were told that it wasn't technically possible when Horizons first came out, but I suspect that if they develop a next stage that accounts for erosion and liquids and whatnot, that'll end up back as a possibility. Who knows?

A civilised, non biased response? What the hell is this?!