"A mile wide but an inch deep."

[Guest193293]

It’s the journey that should matter and not the destination; in the end of the day what are you going to remember: the moment the bar filled to say ‘trader:elite’ or the ten thousand hours of ‘flying’ in a straight line and staring at loading screens which constituted the experience that got you the badge?

Strange, I guess I must be a little fuc*ed up since I actually don't care about badges.

 

[Roybe]

The BGS has just been fixed again and is for the time being, behaving largely as expected. We have some new tweaks to certain mechanics to figure out, and some of it has been badly borked by FD (states, HGEs, again, etc), but we'll figure it out, FD will fix it and soon it'll be stable again, and intriguing. Obviously it's difficult to post a conversation about tactics in an ongoing operation, but some of these conversations are really mind blowing, I wish I could share. We employ distraction, division, misdirection, all kinds of Machiavellian tactics. It's been designed with a depth that is sometimes confounded and convoluted by parts of it not working properly occasionally, but to say it's not deep, or moreover that it doesn't enable deep strategy of play when played by players, is to be denying something that is tangible. There are some poorly considered parts to it too, I particarly dislike when I need to work against my favored faction to achieve a goal, but that doesn't take away from its depth.

Engineering is as deep as minecraft...ok, whatever. My credentials won't interest you but I find Elite's engineering system imperfectly balanced, but interesting and extremely deep. Since that's how I play games (mathing stuff out, theorycrafting), I find Elite to have succeeded there, and arrogantly believe that any who think otherwise must have been disinterested in understanding it in the first place. There is some really poor gameplay surrounding it, but the interaction of stats and the sheer number of modifiable items on a ship makes for a deep and thoughtful minmaxing experience with great depth. I still have eureka moments occasionally after playing it since it was introduced.

If you don't see this, then I can only conclude that you are so disenchanted with the game in general that you are not capable of acknowledging anything positive about it any more. That's said cold as ice, I'm not defneding myself, or attacking you, no offense intended, it's just the impression I got from your posts.

This game, at the BGS level is one of galactic politics, with all the subterfuge, backstabbing, and palm greasing that it should entail. The depth of the game, and the intrigue, has had myriad online and RL outcomes, left player groups stronger or in shambles, and those that have been involved, in awe at the amount of depth the game truly has...when you know how to engage with it.

 

[Roybe]

I think you have unwillingly hit the nail on the head there; It’s almost a perfect definition of a grind that you’d given.

The ever-returning discussion of the ‘depth’ problem with ED is that all those ‘tools’ you describe should BE the fun, deep and permutable gameplay all on their own, rather than being mere tools serving a context of some abstracted greater goal (earn a badge, buy a new ship, get more faction influence), which in a game like ED would always be ephemeral.

This to me is exactly the problem with the game: all that should BE fun on its own feels like a set of simplistic and for most part make-belief kind of experiences hiding behind a pretence of ‘greater goals’.

It is grind.


It’s the journey that should matter and not the destination; in the end of the day what are you going to remember: the moment the bar filled to say ‘trader:elite’ or the ten thousand hours of ‘flying’ in a straight line and staring at loading screens which constituted the experience that got you the badge?

Mining is the first time I’ve seen one aspect of that experience deepening towards something slightly more substantial but even here it still doesn’t provide any emergent depth, just more variety of tools, and - thank god - some skill based gameplay to go with it.

Any sandbox game that fails on the emergence factor as much as ED does, hits trouble. The fact that those conversations keep coming back from new and joining players as well as the old ones is a case in point that there’s something there about it.

For the journey to have meaning, one must know their destination. Without the destination, you are just wandering aimlessly. For those that choose a destination, what you call shallow grind, becomes game play that matters.

 

[B1rdy]

I have never used them while playing, so how they are vital I don't know.

This is probably due to the optionality of most tasks. I, for instance, never played another game, which made me rely so much on third party information as ED. Edit: In games like Battlefield, I use external information to gain like the missing 10% of information. In ED, to me, it feels like 50% overall.

There's lots of different goals and lots of different ways of approaching them. The specific goal and particular approach that someone chooses will have a huge impact on how they perceive the activity.

Agreed, but by point still stands, as ED most times only provides one way to do complete goals. With regards to Guardians it makes you do the same task a number of times. Yes, you could change the site, but that will only change the background, the task will be the same. Diving deeper into the Guardian ruins mechanics, who can say with a straight face, that doing the "puzzle" is the most fun, they ever had? Combat it the SRV is just awkward, especially against "force shell" missiles. You know, designers of ego shooters went away from "screen flinching", which is basically the same effect.

Vital information? Go on, give an example of a genuinely vital piece of information that it's impossible to play the game without. Or is it actually information that provides ease and convenience?

You want to upgrade two shield boosters, one to G5 res augmented, the other one G5 HD. What mats to you need? I know the game provides that information, but doesn't it seem unnecessarily obscure?

You have a limitless supply of food and water. You can gather materials and synthesise things. You can scoop fuel. You can use jumponium. You can use Neutron Star boosts. The route plotter will plot routes up to 20,000 ly. The route plotter will plot routes using Neutron Star jumps. You can filter for or against things in terms of routes and destinations. You can take AFMUs. You can take a Repair Limpet controller.

What more do you want?

I was more onto the multiplayer part, due to the mentioning of DWE 2.

 

[VR jefranklin18]

Your mind seems to be already made up about the game, so me responding is probably not going to change your mind, however I will respond out of courtesy:

Imagine you set yourself a goal in ED. Which goal doesn't result in repeating more or less the same game loops over and over? Engineering a ship, flying to Sag A*, unlock guardian stuff.

It depends on what you mean by game loop. The target system, engage FSD, jump sequence is a game loop but is also the core of the game and therefore will be repetitive unless you want to be able to get Sag A* in a single hop? With all the others, I personally do them at my own pace - I have played since private beta, only have around 400mill credits, a fleet of about 10 ships and have not unlocked all the engineers. I do not "grind" anything because that is what leads to game burnout - whether ED or anything else. I do not need to get to Beagle Point in 3 days; if it takes me 6 months playing a couple of hours at a time, so be it. If I get bored, I will find the nearest inhabited settlement and set up shop there for a while.

How is it then, there are A LOT of spread sheets and third party websites, that provide vital information? How do you view them while playing in VR, by the way?

I play in VR and do not use any third party tools while playing in game anymore. I used to constantly have EDDB.IO open, but now I rely exclusively on the in-game tools and do you know what, they do work.

How do the game mechanics support long range exploration? Or does it just have the same features as watching paint dry with 10,000+ peoples?

As you know, they extended the exploration mechanics in 3.3 so that the honkers can do their honk and move on, and those that want to do in depth exploration can do. I too am on DW2 but I lagging far behind as I am constantly surface scanning all landable planets and then going down to investigate features found (geysers, etc.). Sitting in the SRV as sun rises over the horizon knowing that it is mathematically probable that the planet you're on actually exists out there can be quite an experience (and it is that part of the game that I love the most).

 

[B1rdy]

Your mind seems to be already made up about the game, so me responding is probably not going to change your mind, however I will respond out of courtesy:

It depends on what you mean by game loop. The target system, engage FSD, jump sequence is a game loop but is also the core of the game and therefore will be repetitive unless you want to be able to get Sag A* in a single hop?

Thanks for answering. This is not about what I want. Infinite jump range would remove certain established mechanics, it would also be against lore. The problem with travelling in ED is not the distance, but the activities while travelling. It is incredibly easy and not very challenging, which is against the lore, btw., thus not the best game mechanic in the world.

With all the others, I personally do them at my own pace - I have played since private beta, only have around 400mill credits, a fleet of about 10 ships and have not unlocked all the engineers. I do not "grind" anything because that is what leads to game burnout - whether ED or anything else. I do not need to get to Beagle Point in 3 days; if it takes me 6 months playing a couple of hours at a time, so be it. If I get bored, I will find the nearest inhabited settlement and set up shop there for a while.

Of course it is partly down to pace. If you play against an intended game design and want to rush things, a game can become not fun very quickly. But, if a game only lets you achieve certain goals by repeating a single task, what would you call that? You maybe find a workaround by moving to different activities, but that only proves that said, initial activity was not much fun from the start.

I play in VR and do not use any third party tools while playing in game anymore. I used to constantly have EDDB.IO open, but now I rely exclusively on the in-game tools and do you know what, they do work.

Trade data and data presented by the Codex is/ was a very good step. But engineering or blueprint management in general is so damn confusing due to the number of requirements and the (still) limited information in-game. Why can't we see tech broker requirements from within the ship? Why is ED Engineer still a thing?

As you know, they extended the exploration mechanics in 3.3 so that the honkers can do their honk and move on, and those that want to do in depth exploration can do. I too am on DW2 but I lagging far behind as I am constantly surface scanning all landable planets and then going down to investigate features found (geysers, etc.). Sitting in the SRV as sun rises over the horizon knowing that it is mathematically probable that the planet you're on actually exists out there can be quite an experience (and it is that part of the game that I love the most).

I also like the simulation aspect of the game. Let's get back to the multiplayer part of exploration. Are there any mechanics that work exclusively when done in MP?

 

[NMS]

A quote I read somewhere about Elite Dangerous which, for me at least, hits the nail on the head. I really want to love this game. But there's just not enough to keep my interest. I pick the game back up for a few days, and already I'm bored with the repetition and seemingly nothing to work towards. No mysteries to solve, no breadcrumbs to follow. Just meaningless grind.

There needs to be something tangible to aim towards, else what's the point? I have enough credits to kit out my Conda, and I could grind for materials to get Guardian tech. But with no breadcrumbs out in the void to follow, there's no need to.

I had heaps of fun chasing the Formidine Rift mystery, even though there was only a small breadcrumb trail to follow, but it gave purpose to my play. Right now, there's no depth, and from how I understand it, no undiscovered content until the devs decide to implement it.

No, I'm not saying E: D needs to change. It is what it is and I will play other games if I am not enjoying Elite. But is it something that E: D devs need to assess at some point? Or will the players be endlessly content with the game the way it is?

Welcome to ED. The game unfortunately is this and after more than four years it does not evolve, quite the opposite.

 

[VR jefranklin18]

Of course it is partly down to pace. If you play against an intended game design and want to rush things, a game can become not fun very quickly. But, if a game only lets you achieve certain goals by repeating a single task, what would you call that? You maybe find a workaround by moving to different activities, but that only proves that said, initial activity was not much fun from the start.

Not necessarily. I didn't mind doing the old mining mechanic but there is no way in hell I was going to mine 500 tons in one sitting just to make Selene Jean happy (I think I am about 30 short of the total required). As said, it is about not doing anything too much that it becomes a grind.

Trade data and data presented by the Codex is/ was a very good step. But engineering or blueprint management in general is so damn confusing due to the number of requirements and the (still) limited information in-game. Why can't we see tech broker requirements from within the ship? Why is ED Engineer still a thing?

Afraid I have not used ED Engineer so couldn't comment. I just fly to the engineer in question and unlock them as much as I can with my stored materials and pin the blueprints that I am interested. I do agree though it would be nicer if you could plan in advance and maybe this will come.

I also like the simulation aspect of the game. Let's get back to the multiplayer part of exploration. Are there any mechanics that work exclusively when done in MP?

By the very nature that exploration can be a solitary activity, then no there are no exclusive mechanics although I note the new exploration tools can be used in multicrew (making a Spock-esque science officer role potentially viable). From a multiplayer perspective, what I would like to see is a more complex market with the ability to sell materials and crafted items. I personally have no immediate desire to do the Guardians missions to get a jump range boost, but if someone made the driver booster available for 50million credits (for example) I would probably buy it.

 

[Rob At Work]

What's that in old money (ie kilometers and centimeters) I don't think I'm ever gonna get used to these new Brexit measurements

 

[govny]

How do you view them while playing in VR, by the way?

by removing the headset?

 

[c00ky1970]

Is it time for some music to help pass the time???? ;-)

https://soundcloud.com/tomcook/a-mile-wide-an-inch-deep-forum-rant-words-by-c00ky1970

 

[Junagu]

I play in VR and do not use any third party tools while playing in game anymore. I used to constantly have EDDB.IO open, but now I rely exclusively on the in-game tools and do you know what, they do work.

This confirms what has been slowly dawning on me. ED is really meant for VR play and that informs most of the design philosophy. I think that all the ingame stuff is fine and it's nice to hear that it DOES work.
Myself I really dislike Discord and things like Discord. And all the 3rd party tools. To me they feel very much like griefers, but coming from a slightly different angle. It's gaming the system and Getting A Head. And as we SHOULD all know you should quit before you get a head. All those spreadsheets and nifty 3rd party tools have devalued the game IMHO.

 

[znôrt]

How is it then, there are A LOT of spread sheets and third party websites, that provide vital information? How do you view them while playing in VR, by the way?

you specialize

you do the homework first, plot a rough plan for the day, then possibly write up the key items for it, this will commit them to (your brain's) memory and also serve as a quick backup. you can do all that at ease in the full luxury and glory of your hires 2d widescreen comfort.

only then you dive into vr and jump into your ship, and actually do the stuff. ymmv and improvisation might be required

 

[StuartGT]

The in-game Milky Way is ~90,000LY in diameter and ~5,000LY in height.

Therefore if 90k LY ≈ 1 mile (or 63,360 inches), then 5k LY ≈ 3,500 inches (~89 metres).

Elite Dangerous is a mile wide and 3½ thousand inches deep.

 

[Thatchinho]

Agreed, but by point still stands, as ED most times only provides one way to do complete goals.

I don't know, that seems to me to be highly linked to how specific a goal someone is choosing for themselves. I'd also suggest that some things are very much an artefact of asking how to do things in, say, the quickest way, and then treating that as the only way. Take this, for example:

With regards to Guardians it makes you do the same task a number of times. Yes, you could change the site, but that will only change the background, the task will be the same.

If you were actually doing the Guardian stuff, that's going to take you to a variety of sites. The first site you find the pylon puzzle, you work the puzzle out there. You might even try it a couple more times to see what happens. Then you'll move on to another site. When you reach another one with pylons, you might do it again - the layouts probably going to be different so it's probably going to happen pretty naturally as you explore the site. And so on as you go to more sites. And there you go, the sense of having to repeat the puzzle isn't there as it's happened naturally, and you've picked up a load of mats while you've been doing it.

If people choose to instead not do the stuff in the more natural manner, and instead find ways to focus purely on getting mats as quickly as possible, there's got to be an acceptance that there's some consequences to that approach, one of which is that it might all feel forced (because it is being forced). Another consequence of that approach is that it is voluntarily disregarding a load of content, and content which arguably adds quite a bit of depth to the game, which ties back to the subject of the thread. Now if people take the responsibility for that and acknowledge that they are cutting themselves out of stuff then fine. If they cut themselves out of a load of stuff and then go on about the game lacking content or the game lacking depth, then that's a different matter. (Just to be clear, I'm talking in general terms here and not aiming that at anyone in particular.)

Diving deeper into the Guardian ruins mechanics, who can say with a straight face, that doing the "puzzle" is the most fun, they ever had? Combat it the SRV is just awkward, especially against "force shell" missiles. You know, designers of ego shooters went away from "screen flinching", which is basically the same effect.

I can say that doing the site(s) was fun. Going somewhere at that point completely new, very atmospheric, exploring the site, finding a load of new structures not seen at the Ancient Ruins, encountering some actual activity and resistance to intrusion, working out how to deal with those defences, discovering the pylons, working out that how to activate them, figuring out the last part with the relic, and activating the orb, and seeing some real activity in the sites whereas the Ancient Ruins were inactive. Yeah, it was pretty great actually!

So yeah, when it comes to the puzzle, in that context it was fun. It was also good to see the range of puzzles in the Guardian content fleshed out with something that could readily be worked out by most people on their own. (Everything prior to that either wasn't (and still isn't solved) or was only solved via huge community effort - there was nothing which could have been done by someone just on their own.)

Again, the exact nature of the goal and the approach taken has a considerable impact on how things seem.

You want to upgrade two shield boosters, one to G5 res augmented, the other one G5 HD. What mats to you need? I know the game provides that information, but doesn't it seem unnecessarily obscure?

Not really to me to be honest. Personally I expect to be playing as an independent pilot in the early 3300s, and I don't particularly expect the early 3300s to be orientated around allowing me to get and upgrade ships easily and conveniently. Now that's not to say that I wouldn't like to see it being made a bit more convenient, I hasten to add. If Inara wasn't around I would do what I've done in the past (and am doing to a certain extent with a new alt account) - make notes of what's needed, take screenshots, or take photos of it. And yes it would be good to have a way to record and check what mats are needed in game rather than out of game.

The rest of my view on it then has two angles:

- If ED was a finished game, then yes, I would think it's very daft that there's no in-game facility to make a record of what mats are needed for engineering (once you've unlocked the engineer and they've told you).

- As ED is game that we're playing while it's being developed, then it comes down to prioritisation, and as I can use the approaches I mentioned above or use Inara, I would say that there's a lot of other things which are more important and I'd rather they concentrated on those other things.

I was more onto the multiplayer part, due to the mentioning of DWE 2.

Fair enough. In that case there's the PGs. Fuel and Repair limpets. Wings (for joint travel and materials gathering if someone's lacking equipment). Squadrons (& squadron bookmarks). Multicrew (to join players out in the black, and for players out in the black to join things elsewhere).

That's off the top of my head while writing. Was there something else that you had in mind?

 

[Ignition]

Which mechanics specifically? Trade? BGS? Mining? Exploration? Combat?

Please define which mechanics you think are shallow, why its bad they are shallow, and what is needed to make them deeper, and how making them deeper will make the game better.

You mention profressions - please go into more detial.

Thanks.

Its easy, for example now we have mining and exploration, these 2 are more complex and deep than they were before. This is an example of making a more complex and engaging game. They need more complexity but its a real good start. These professions went from pressing 1 button, to have a little gameplay and involvement.

Another small example I mention in another thread:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/473340-Define-depth?p=7368956&viewfull=1#post7368956

 

[[VR] optimal_909]

Yeah, new players complain the immense learning curve, then someone credible states 'wile wide, inch deep'. Hell, there are many aspects of the game I'm not familiar with even after clocking 1000s of hours.

 

[CMDR Jayce MacLeod]

I've been playing since 2015, taking breaks from the game here and there. I have almost 3000 hours in Elite. I dont think I would have gotten here if the game was shallow. I would have been permanently bored of the game and would have moved on. I will admit it can be a bit dry at times, and I definitely think Frontier developments needs to work on several aspects of the game, but overall Elite Dangerous has been a fantastic, riveting adventure that I keep coming back to time and time again. Shallow is definitely not a word I would use to describe this experience.

 

[Guest193293]

If people choose to instead not do the stuff in the more natural manner, and instead find ways to focus purely on getting mats as quickly as possible, there's got to be an acceptance that there's some consequences to that approach, one of which is that it might all feel forced (because it is being forced). Another consequence of that approach is that it is voluntarily disregarding a load of content, and content which arguably adds quite a bit of depth to the game, which ties back to the subject of the thread. Now if people take the responsibility for that and acknowledge that they are cutting themselves out of stuff then fine. If they cut themselves out of a load of stuff and then go on about the game lacking content or the game lacking depth, then that's a different matter. (Just to be clear, I'm talking in general terms here and not aiming that at anyone in particular.)

This should be pinned; some people are obsessed with credits, materials and doing things the fastest way possible like it is a race or something.

 

[davedx]

First, let me caveat by saying this is in no way ageist, but there is a difference on what gamers from different geberations have grown to expect as minimum. I'm 33. So i'm not a child but I'm not Elite 1 or 2 age either. For me, a game that has you limited to sitting in a space ship chair is a game that lacks gameplay depth. I would wager most under 35-40 will be used to having that kind of variety and linked up gameplay that it seems a basic failing when not done - in a game like Elite. Older gamers grew up with games like this. It probably seems more acceptable to them. Similarly, in 20 years time I'll have lower standards than someone is 13 now. Elite D is, for all the garnish and pretty looks, an old fashioned style of game. It's essentially a set of mini games that don't really link together very cohesively. I'm not used to that. I still enjoy it but it does feel pretty shallow (albeit admittedly improving). I do think if/when legs and atmos arrives the linkage it can offer in the gameplay will add depth..it will feel MUCH more like a living, breathing game universe. Right now, you don't see a single human (npc or otherwise). You see a load of little ships. Don't rule out the psychological impact of never interacting with an npc human face. It makes the game feel just a bit cold and lifeless.

I see what you're saying (I'm 40 and played Elite+, Frontier 1 and Frontier 2 extensively too). But I don't really agree. Our kids don't play games with a lot of "depth", they play things they can easily dive into and that their friends at school play, like Fortnite, CS:Go, Roblox. That last one is a great example. Go check out Roblox.com -- I can tell you many kids from the ages 8-15 or so spend tons of time playing Roblox games.

I think there is definitely a significant segment of gamers who *do* want games with "depth" (let's not try to pin down the definition too much here), like for example more involved RPGs with detailed complicated storylines, character progression and so on. But I don't think it's an age thing at all.