Define 'depth'?

[Stewart_]

What is depth? Many possible answers.
Unqiue ways to achieve different tasks.
missions that are varied that involves many unqiue tasks to complete.

ED suffers from RNG and repetitive game play - a player should not have to log out / in in order to farm, nor have to visit multiple locations and doing the same puzzle.

Commodity markets do not seem to react ( price changes ) to massive dumps of single
item commodities. I wish the markets were more player driven, even more persistence for NPC and more reactions to NPC behaviour. Frontier seem to be paranoid about player exploits which hampers the sandbox.

NPCs need to be more living and breathing to liven the sandbox.

Every version of elite has been a mile wide. Mine, trade, pirate, missions ( involving 1 or maybe 2 ) tasks. ED: there is exploration of course and would consider ED to have more depth than prior versions.

elite: first encounters had a storyline - unfortunately that was so bugged ( thanks Gametek for forcing it to be rushing it out ) it was difficult to complete. ED has a storyline - thargoids who are completely harmless if you choose to ignore them. Stories in Galnet we don’t see in game.

I have over 5 weeks game time and I love the game but yet see it’s weaknesses , and strengths. Beyond was a good year, attempting to add some richness.

Elite is a diverse game, and to add adequate richness to all areas game would take years of development - Frontier is too small to allow that kind of one Big Bang development approach and so the development is iterative. Slow.

 

[Saxon Kili]

There's yet another 'mile wide, inch deep' threadnaught starting. Ten pages as of 21.00z tonight. I predict much bickering, increasing animosity and ad hominem attacks, followed by a lock. (That's what usually happens. )

I don't want to buzzkill on that one, but I am curious. What is 'depth', or what does 'depth' actually mean to you?

For example:

A couple of years back I stated my belief that more busy work is not depth. This was prior to engineering, but engineering is a great example, so I'll use that.

The engineering process involves many different requirements being met- unlocking engineers, gathering materials, trading same, rolling on a RNG generator to apply improvements.

I do not consider any of these activities to add depth to the game.

Engineering and the associated special effects can completely change the character of a ship. Different engineering effects can be combined in a staggering number of different ways. These can compliment or detract from the build's intended use. There's no 'best' build, the min/max of simpler systems doesn't apply.

This I consider to have added considerable depth to the game.

But that's just my opinion, I'm interested to hear yours?


Btw, I'm curious about 'depth', not engineering. I had a great response to an earlier OP on engineering, which I found very educational. I'm grateful to everyone who posted on it, even (heck, especially!) those who disagreed with me.

Depth is the level of engagement I find in a game. Some people really enjoy using their imaginations to compliment the basic game mechanics or sandbox in ED. Others feel that the game developer could come up with some story content to play through which would give them some sense of engagement in the sandbox.

Some games have quest lines that send you from place to place to do something for some greater purpose or reason. One game I play has a shipboard AI person on a screen that talks to you and gives you quest information. Other games I play have recurring characters that you quest with in full avatars. Some games have unexpected things happen that you have to deal with. Some games have new scenery. Some games regularly add new story content.

You may not understand what people mean when they say depth, yet people keep asking for depth. shrugs.

 

[RamirezKurita]

It does depend on what sort of depth you are talking about, there's a clear distinction to be made between narrative depth and mechanical depth for instance. There's also the issue regarding complexity and how it is often conflated with depth, when in fact they are quite different things.

In a nutshell, complexity his how far you must go to begin with something, while depth is how far you can potentially go. Put another way, complexity requires knowledge, while depth allows for understanding.

For example, a complex story has large numbers of characters, numerous plot twists, large amounts of special setting-specific shenanigans or generally has a lot going on. Someone reading/listening/experiencing/watching a complex story would likely be left feeling confused and not be able to follow what's going on without going through it multiple times or reading up further. It's unapproachable, yet not necessarily actually interesting. A complex but shallow story is difficult to understand and piece together, yet once it has been pieced together there is nothing beyond that; it's just a flat sequence of convoluted events.

Contrast this with a deep story, which allows for multiple layers of understanding. Someone could quite easily get to grips with the basic narrative, characters and plot devices, yet there's always alternative theories and explanations; the story could be simple at first glance, yet it stands up to endless and intense scrutiny no matter how closely you pick it apart.

Mechanical complexity is the same concept translated across, it's a measure of how difficult the core rules of a game and how many of them there are. Complex mechanics are very difficult to learn, require extensive memorisation and poring over details and how the mechanics work just in order to function at a basic level.

Mechanical depth, meanwhile, is more about the high-level thinking and decision making that results from the mechanics. How much actual thought, planning and analysis is possible (but not required) from the ruleset in order to be fairly effective? In order to have depth, there must also be balance and a reasonable amount of information has to be made accessible to the player (too little information doesn't allow an informed decision to be made, so it's effectively human directed RNG; perfect information runs the risk of making the problem fully solvable, which I'll come to shortly) so they can make an informed decision without a clear and objectively superior answer (a difficult to obtain yet objectively superior solution isn't a choice, but an optimisation puzzle which creates complexity rather than depth). In a similar vein, the situation should not be solvable in computational terms, as being computationally solvable leads the mechanics down the result of complexity rather than depth as there isn't any real thought but instead basic number crunching.

In terms of design philosophy, elegant design is getting the maximum amount of depth for the minimum amount of complexity. That's where streamlining games comes from, when done properly it is about cutting the complexity while retaining the same amount of depth via an improved design; unfortunately many developers forget the depth part and just simplify a product to widen the audience without caring about the depth. As a famous quote goes: "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away". A good design with low complexity is easy to learn, but allow for significant depth that makes it hard to master.

 

[smiths121]

Logging and relogging at Dav's Hope or a crashed ship POI for an infinite stream of engineering materials: not depth

Three different layers of government - superpower, power and faction - on top of a broken "background simulator" which might as well be pure RNG for all the difference it makes: not depth

Unlocking an engineer by ferrying back and forth an astonishing quantity of cigars which only magically appear a small amount at a time for absolutely no earthly reason: not depth

Getting 16x the payouts for mass murder, for 1/4 the time investment, just because you winged up with 3 other similarly spec'ed out murderers: not depth

Being able to control a fighter in real time 100,000 light years away but not being able to pull up the trading prices at another station in the same system because that would be too easy: not depth

How can you say the BGS has no depth?
The state freezing in 3.0 was rather broken. This was resolved a couple of weeks ago. Combat Zone spawns improved last patch.
Seems to be predictable minus other player activity to me. The truckers have indicated they have a handle on the new system, so if its RNG for you, you should consider contacting them. That aspect to me seems like your limitations, not the games.

Hey if they turned it into a pick your knuckles up defend the "space" mechanic I would agree with you - no depth.

Simon

 

[Rubbernuke]

I'd say ED's depth can be defined in spans or perhaps acorns, laid end to end. If I had one word to sum it up I'd use superficial.

ED is never going to have depth until FD join up systems and make them work. Powerplay could add a ton of depth with emergent gameplay, Tier 1 NPCS with actual personalities and views who can live and die. The BGS needs population changes to make it 'live'- it would then be a proper sim as you can convince or scare people into moving, so you get refugees, social pressure as well as rewards such as creating your own empire / federation.

The new BGS is a step in the right direction, but it needs much more.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

For me depth is all about the emotional commitment it gives you. Like a deep move instead of a superficial movie.

Game mechanics do not need.to be complex or difficult, it's the emotions they convey that make them feel or not.

I think a lot of people confuse depth with complexity. They are not the same in my view.

 

[Devari]

I don't want to buzzkill on that one, but I am curious. What is 'depth', or what does 'depth' actually mean to you?

I'll answer this indirectly by using two other sci-fi series as examples. The first is BSG. That series was remarkable for its complex, nuanced characters, realism and the scope of its underlying themes. The second is The Expanse. It's in much the same category for similar reasons, notably the extremely detailed and immersive setting that has subtle but profound parallels to modern issues and topics.

Each of these series have tremendous depth to what they offer. Fundamentally, they are both sci-fi series, but that's just the "backdrop" to what they are. Many people who have no interest in sci-fi have gotten immersed in each of these series for reasons that go beyond the genre itself.

Elite should strive to provide that type of gaming experience. In other words, they should make the player feel that they are part of a large, complex and believable in-game universe. Elite had the beginnings of this when it launched, and maintained a strong sense of immersion for much of the first year of game development, but failed to build on those foundations and has only reached a pale shadow of its potential over the last 4 years of game development.

 

[Brrokk]

My beginner's guide to ED has just hit 34,000 words and has dozens and dozens of illustrative images in it. The Elite: Dangerous Wiki now has over 2400 articles on ED. And there are numerous other community resources, webtools, and databases dedicated to supporting the game.

ED also has a steep learning curve and takes many, many hours to master all its different aspects. And these forums are full of people who've literally spent thousands of hours playing this game. We're also taking about a game that now has over 250 different key bindings.

Despites its many problems, saying that ED has no depth is simply absurd.

Ah, actual facts and figures.

Great guide too, thanks!

 

[Devari]

My beginner's guide to ED has just hit 34,000 words and has dozens and dozens of illustrative images in it. The Elite: Dangerous Wiki now has over 2400 articles on ED. And there are numerous other community resources, webtools, and databases dedicated to supporting the game.

ED also has a steep learning curve and takes many, many hours to master all its different aspects. And these forums are full of people who've literally spent thousands of hours playing this game. We're also taking about a game that now has over 250 different key bindings.

Despites its many problems, saying that ED has no depth is simply absurd.

Complexity is not the same as depth. They are really completely different concepts.

 

[MarkAusten]

There's yet another 'mile wide, inch deep' threadnaught starting. Ten pages as of 21.00z tonight. I predict much bickering, increasing animosity and ad hominem attacks, followed by a lock. (That's what usually happens. )

I don't want to buzzkill on that one, but I am curious. What is 'depth', or what does 'depth' actually mean to you?

For example:

A couple of years back I stated my belief that more busy work is not depth. This was prior to engineering, but engineering is a great example, so I'll use that.

The engineering process involves many different requirements being met- unlocking engineers, gathering materials, trading same, rolling on a RNG generator to apply improvements.

I do not consider any of these activities to add depth to the game.

Engineering and the associated special effects can completely change the character of a ship. Different engineering effects can be combined in a staggering number of different ways. These can compliment or detract from the build's intended use. There's no 'best' build, the min/max of simpler systems doesn't apply.

This I consider to have added considerable depth to the game.

But that's just my opinion, I'm interested to hear yours?


Btw, I'm curious about 'depth', not engineering. I had a great response to an earlier OP on engineering, which I found very educational. I'm grateful to everyone who posted on it, even (heck, especially!) those who disagreed with me.

You still have not defined depth. Just stated that engineering for you does not increase it.

 

[2plex]

Vertically exhaustive.

 

[Crimson Kaim]

There was a megathread started by FDev itself that aimed to reveal the community's definition of depth.

You can search it. My definition was somethign as follows:

The complexity and amount of different ways to reach the same goal. It is worth noting that complexity != complicated. Meaning that a single way can be complicated but being the only way to reach a certain goal will make it only complicated without making it complex and thus, deep.
For instance, the old way of gathering G5 mats through HGEs was not deep at all. It is neither complicated nor complex. It was RNG and you had next to zero influence. The only thing you could do is flying into a certain system that influenced the RNG to your desire but you had no actual control (like we do now with the FSS) to get these.
Another example is SRV combat vs ship combat. SRV combat might be a little complicated since you can control the vehicle and the turret at the same time but it's not complex as it comes down to "shoot your opponent" as much as you can. Ship combat, however, is much more complex, especially PvP, as engineers and different weapon and defense loadouts offer a variety of ways to achieve the same goal: Defeating your opponent(s). There simply isn't just a single way like boarding as many SRVs as possible to "heist" a settlement. SRV combat would get more complex with customizeable SRVs or different vehicle types in the first place. That wouldn't expand the amount of activities you can do with them (width) but it certainly would expend the possible choices you have to do these activities (depth).

 

[xxThe_Dice_manxx]

Every game can be broken down to you are just pushing a button and watch an animated response.

Fo4 is a junk search sim with added shooting mini game ,every fire fight is the same no matter who you are fighting.

ED is already extremely complicated but thankfully not on the level of say DCS flight sims.

If they really want to make ED better they need to make the AI the thing that is groundbreaking.

For now the NPC ships are let's say not very bright with their levels being supplemented with better guns and armour the higher they go.

They need to be unpredictable and also react on a more realistic manner I mean what maniac is going to attack an elite engineered conda in a mostly harmless sidewinder or eagle? Or go anywhere near it!

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Every game can be broken down to you are just pushing a button and watch an animated response.

Fo4 is a junk search sim with added shooting mini game ,every fire fight is the same no matter who you are fighting.

ED is already extremely complicated but thankfully not on the level of say DCS flight sims.

If they really want to make ED better they need to make the AI the thing that is groundbreaking.

For now the NPC ships are let's say not very bright with their levels being supplemented with better guns and armour the higher they go.

They need to be unpredictable and also react on a more realistic manner I mean what maniac is going to attack an elite engineered conda in a mostly harmless sidewinder or eagle? Or go anywhere near it!

Where's that fellow with the red dog head avatar, who's name eludes me at this hour. He'd do it. And win, I'm sure.

 

[Knot2clever]

I know what depth means to me, but that is irrelevant. Depth for FD is grind, regardless what I think.

 

[VR StarLightPL]

The complexity of choice and consequence create depth (imo) and the game worlds texture (how the different elements mesh into one reality), but there is little to no player agency in Elite, which is why people say it has little depth. Everything is hidden behind instances, be it the Thargoid invasion or engineering or Guardian grind, your only choice, do it or don't bother.

If the Pleides was a proper battlefront with players in the area being interdicted and the various human navies supplying weapons that previous players had unlocked, and the stations on fire had a finite number of survivors to be rescued, whilst other players were teaming up to crack the Guardian mysteries whilst the Distant Worlds 2 players were out there trying to find clues about our alien neighbours and all of this info were being reported in the codex... I'm pretty sure no one would complain that Elite Dangerous was shallow.

The game is shallow because little we do makes any difference to the galaxy, e.g. we can't affect system population.

Also it's obvious that NPCs are created fresh on the spot in each instance. They have no memory of the last 3 times they interdicted you, or even think they just did so when you have in fact dropped in on a station.

It makes no difference that you have single-handedly won several wars for a faction, one small traffic ticket and they don't want to talk to you.

Plenty more examples of the game's shallow gameplay and use of RNG and placeholders instead of actual depth.

QFT. Basically anything you can do is opt in and has no real influence over the surrounding world. Basically all the actions you can do do not matter and are shallow busywork or a time sink to keep you invested. But they will fail one simple question: what's the point?

Credits? Ships? Those should be tools, means to an end, not the goal itself. For example need credits to build a small base, my part of the galaxy where I will settle for now, be it for mining operations or exploring... And we can't even have a home base in current version of the game, we have to head cannon it, role play it.

Someone mentioned stale markets not really reacting to supply and demand. It is due to the underlying nature of the bgs which was explained by Dav Stott on AWS conference a few years ago. It won't change until the underlying software changes. It's not x4 economy, sadly.

Powerplay was an attempt in the right direction, but ultimately it failed the same way Ingress did. In the end, there was no real consequence to pp/Ingress actions besides forum/Reddit bragging. Yeah the teritorry changed but did it influence anybody? At best you would need a longer trek to LYR space for a discount on a new ship... That, there, is lacking depth to your actions.

Persistence and player agency, that is needed for the depth in my opinion. I don't care if there will be big corps / guilds formed. Space is big, we all can find a place for ourselves. Frontier just needs to open this sterile and optional galaxy to player influence (and keep an eye on exploits etc.) to make it worthwhile.

 

[zombieapocalypse]

Obscurity, and a grind process which is positively fractal, aren't the same things as depth.

It's always going to be a subjective judgement. Me, I think this game has all the depth of gossamer. You can write as many essays about your experience as you want, it won't change mine.

I'm not saying that the game doesn't have problems with repetition, grind, balance, bugs, etc, but the ever-present forum hyperbole and indigination about the game "literally" having no depth is asinine.

 

[Parmo]

Depth?
Did the Thargoids add depth? Were the Thargoids a means to create 'depth'? If so, was it successful?
How many players are actively engaged in opposing the Thargoid threat to humanity?

I don't know.

Some players are satisfied with the 'depth' of griefing other players.

Some players are imagining their 'depth' by creating a great adventure exploring the galaxy together in curiosty, hope, excitement and friendship.
Who has the more depth of gameplay?

 

[Stealthie]

There was a megathread started by FDev itself that aimed to reveal the community's definition of depth.

You can search it. My definition was somethign as follows:

The complexity and amount of different ways to reach the same goal....

Heh,

Was just about to post almost exactly this.

In terms of a video game, to me "depth" means that there'll be a whole bunch of different ways to accomplish something and, once you've accomplished that thing, it'll have an effect on a whole bunch of other things.

As you point out, that DOESN'T mean that a specific task will be needlessly complex or convoluted (FSS, I'm looking at you).
It means that there might be half a dozen ways - ranging from the simple and obvious to the complex and obscure - to achieve an objective and then, depending on which method you use, it'll also have an effect on the way other things happen.

Hate to say it but this is the one area where FDev seem to lack... imagination.

FDev's attempts at adding "depth" usually involve things like doing an Assassination mission and, instead, of finding your target, you have to find a contact in a different system, who tells you to go back to the system where you already were and look in a different place.

This, however, is not "depth".
This is contrivance.

Real depth would be, perhaps, the ability to have a variety of different ways to complete the mission, either by having an "accident" which leads to his ship destruction or employing some 3rd party to assist or taking advantage some circumstance to complete the job - as well as just ganking the target and melting their ship.
Furthermore, depending on the method you employed, there'd be different consequences in regard to stuff like your legal status and your rep' with various factions as well as different factions' relationship with each other.

 

[Aashenfox]

Bill, oh Bill, what on earth have you done? lol.