One of my friends who is on the Elite Dangerous train bought the expansion and feels its tacked an FPS onto his space game.
He isn't totally wrong.
I'm ok with it but its not his jam.
I mainly want Odyssey for FC interiors, and maybe the on foot exploration. Is it worth it for those 2 things? I will not be doing any FPS missions.
- Thread starter Aaron T
- Start date
He isn't totally wrong.
I'm ok with it but its not his jam.
FC interiors we don't know yet. The super early preview looked cool and actually is a response to player requests.
The on foot exploration is.... well its ok but I haven't run into anything great. I do like the atmo planets.
You used to get scenes similar to this. This was in beta. Mixed plants and all over the place.
Now, its not so much. You have to go hunting around for homogenous zones of plants.
However, it is still better than the 1-4 super small patches of homogenous special items that we used to get. Now you can potentially find stuff all across the planets.
The on foot exploration is.... well its ok but I haven't run into anything great. I do like the atmo planets.
You used to get scenes similar to this. This was in beta. Mixed plants and all over the place.
Now, its not so much. You have to go hunting around for homogenous zones of plants.
However, it is still better than the 1-4 super small patches of homogenous special items that we used to get. Now you can potentially find stuff all across the planets.
Indeed, why ...exploration is the largest aspect of the game and it's completely unused for anything in the game. Nothing you do exploring matters and is entirely pointless.
The game doesn't care in any single way about the things you have explored. It is nothing more than a screenshot excuse in its current state.
Gathering materials by shooting at rocks has a use, since the things you get from doing it are given purpose that can't be filled by shooting just any rock. You have a point to shooting the rock ...as minimalist in gameplay as that may be.
You have no point in staring at a non-interactive "alien". You dont get anything that has a purpose by doing it. The samples you gather aren't utilized by the player in some way. The BGS doesn't care about your samples. You've not had to accomplish anything in getting the sample. It's literally provided no gameplay value at all. You've just moved around on the surface of a planet, which you can do in horizons. You can do the entire thing in horizons within your srv and the only change is the game will recognize it in odyssey, but not horizons.
I'm not sure where you were going with the rest of your rant, but it has nothing to do with what I was saying. My idea of good gameplay involves an activity the player does to overcome a challenge to accomplish a goal for a reward. But at the very least, minimal gameplay involves the player doing an action to accomplish a goal. You dont do anything in exo biology, you're just travelling. And what's the goal? is there a rumored special fungus that is different from the rest? At least ship exploration has the tease of mysteries scattered in the endless empty systems in the game. The use of space spiders was just one way that can be done for exo biology using assets that presumably fdev already intends to have in the game (space spiders) rather than create new ones (reactive alien funguses and such). It's not the only means that gameplay can be added.
I wish this type of thing was still possible/as frequent. I've seen some dense areas but nothing close to what we saw before launch. It would be neat if big "forests" would only occur in certain regions, like on the equator or around volcanic regions.
Iirc the new engine has been made much more expandable as far as planet generation and atmospheres go. Apparently people have seen that (more)accurate atmospheric flight and surface liquids (lakes rivers seas) are possible. Maybe we will get those HMC worlds with the lakes and clouds on them soon.Then again such a gaffe would have really forced them to actually optimise performance. I can't even remember the last time they mentioned merging clients.
Also, European/American Truck Simulator.
Well I'm going to give you a slightly different answer. So for background, my main enjoyment from the game comes from flying FA off and seeking increasing mastery over it. I do power play , some bgs, planet/station hooning in ships and both pve and pvp. I don't do exploration , or mining , nor do i do much trading either, neither float my boat.
I have Odyssey and have given it a good go. But for me, Horizons is the better and the only time I'm in Odyssey now is to collect a squad wing mission payout. I will explain why I think this.
1. Lighting. Odyssey is Dark, it's like they turned it into a DC superhero movie. Yes you can sort of fix it by adjusting the Gamma and HUD brightness, but even then the colours are kind of washed out. And that applies to the ships and suits. I personally prefer the Horizons lighting, so I don't see an improvement.
2. Planet Generation. I fly down to planets to find canyons and ravines to fly through to test the fa off skills. Called Hooning, it only works where the planets have these features and there are quite a few who do this. The new Odyssey planet system has taken out the canyons and ravines and replaced them with a rounded much flatter blamange topography. It's useless for planet hooning. I'm told that they had to do that to enable to new on foot biology details /features to work. So although great for this new on foot activity , it's removed a whole area of game play for me . So I perceive the new planet tech as a negative.
3. The cockpit menus when docked. I find the Horizons version better laid out and more intuitive to use. One exception though is the Odyssey Galaxy Map which is a massive improvement. In fact for me it evens out the other cockpit menu displays, so I will call this a Draw.
4. Stutter /Lag. I fly mainly in VR , have a new PC. In VR, I find Odyssey much more prone to lag stutter issues and crashes (especially around Stations) when compared to Horizons i barley have an issue . I cant comment on that in 2D mode though.
5. The Shards /mat farming. The new planet tech in Odyssey has changed how they appear and scattered them about. They are easier to farm in Horizons.
6. Flight mechanics. Strangely Fdev fiddled with this , I'm not sure why. Its most noticeable in fa off , but the ships fly a little differently in Odyssey. In Horizons the controls are more lively and precise , in Odyssey they seem more sluggish and prone to surges . I've tested it out taking off and landing ( then switching games) and in a few other situations.
To be fair , what Odyssey does give is the Interiors , more landable settlements and FPS gameplay . But these three are all linked. The Interiors are where the main FPS activities are organised. ( But that means if you are not doing any FPS then the Interiors are pointless to leave your ship for).
There are more Settlements for the FPS to happen, but again if you are not doing FPS they are not really adding much to the Space gameplay.
Which then comes to the FPS - be that Combat or Exploration or Infiltration or any of the other options. The key here is if you are interested in doing that kind of gameplay, and that is subjective.
Speaking just for myself, I like elite as a space flight sim. That is the part I'm in it for . I'm not into any FP games (and we have plenty in the house ) . Getting out the ship and using the Avatar to do stuff I've zero interest in ( and I have tried it, I did the tutorials, I did a couple of on foot missions, did a few trips in the new space taxi). But it's not for me.
So when I compare Odyssey with Horizons, it's like I take a scalpel and cut away all of the Odyssey stuff that relates to FPS . And then I compare the Odyssey "original" game play against Horizons and the 6 points above are what I get.
Last year they were talking about merging Horizons and Odyssey, so I'm going to stick to Horizons in the meantime for as long as I'm able.
But if you fancy getting it to check out your FC Interiors and see then new jump , then go for it. I will certainly log into Odyssey and have a look about the FC to check it out, likewise the new jump. If it's anygood I may log into Odyssey just for the jumps and back out again when I get where I'm going .
Fly safe!
I have Odyssey and have given it a good go. But for me, Horizons is the better and the only time I'm in Odyssey now is to collect a squad wing mission payout. I will explain why I think this.
1. Lighting. Odyssey is Dark, it's like they turned it into a DC superhero movie. Yes you can sort of fix it by adjusting the Gamma and HUD brightness, but even then the colours are kind of washed out. And that applies to the ships and suits. I personally prefer the Horizons lighting, so I don't see an improvement.
2. Planet Generation. I fly down to planets to find canyons and ravines to fly through to test the fa off skills. Called Hooning, it only works where the planets have these features and there are quite a few who do this. The new Odyssey planet system has taken out the canyons and ravines and replaced them with a rounded much flatter blamange topography. It's useless for planet hooning. I'm told that they had to do that to enable to new on foot biology details /features to work. So although great for this new on foot activity , it's removed a whole area of game play for me . So I perceive the new planet tech as a negative.
3. The cockpit menus when docked. I find the Horizons version better laid out and more intuitive to use. One exception though is the Odyssey Galaxy Map which is a massive improvement. In fact for me it evens out the other cockpit menu displays, so I will call this a Draw.
4. Stutter /Lag. I fly mainly in VR , have a new PC. In VR, I find Odyssey much more prone to lag stutter issues and crashes (especially around Stations) when compared to Horizons i barley have an issue . I cant comment on that in 2D mode though.
5. The Shards /mat farming. The new planet tech in Odyssey has changed how they appear and scattered them about. They are easier to farm in Horizons.
6. Flight mechanics. Strangely Fdev fiddled with this , I'm not sure why. Its most noticeable in fa off , but the ships fly a little differently in Odyssey. In Horizons the controls are more lively and precise , in Odyssey they seem more sluggish and prone to surges . I've tested it out taking off and landing ( then switching games) and in a few other situations.
To be fair , what Odyssey does give is the Interiors , more landable settlements and FPS gameplay . But these three are all linked. The Interiors are where the main FPS activities are organised. ( But that means if you are not doing any FPS then the Interiors are pointless to leave your ship for).
There are more Settlements for the FPS to happen, but again if you are not doing FPS they are not really adding much to the Space gameplay.
Which then comes to the FPS - be that Combat or Exploration or Infiltration or any of the other options. The key here is if you are interested in doing that kind of gameplay, and that is subjective.
Speaking just for myself, I like elite as a space flight sim. That is the part I'm in it for . I'm not into any FP games (and we have plenty in the house ) . Getting out the ship and using the Avatar to do stuff I've zero interest in ( and I have tried it, I did the tutorials, I did a couple of on foot missions, did a few trips in the new space taxi). But it's not for me.
So when I compare Odyssey with Horizons, it's like I take a scalpel and cut away all of the Odyssey stuff that relates to FPS . And then I compare the Odyssey "original" game play against Horizons and the 6 points above are what I get.
Last year they were talking about merging Horizons and Odyssey, so I'm going to stick to Horizons in the meantime for as long as I'm able.
But if you fancy getting it to check out your FC Interiors and see then new jump , then go for it. I will certainly log into Odyssey and have a look about the FC to check it out, likewise the new jump. If it's anygood I may log into Odyssey just for the jumps and back out again when I get where I'm going .
Fly safe!
Herein lies the entire problem -- you feel your idea of good gameplay is paramount to all others, and thus gives you the right to condemn all others' opinions and preferences as useless. It is to laugh.
Last edited:
Deleted member 182079
D
That's not at all what he wrote.
And just like that, yet another sensible and constructive post with various examples of what could be added to the game brushed aside again dragged down into personal attacks and selective out of context quoting.
I've been wondering though, if I leave Elite running while rummaging through my fridge looking for a beer, would that qualify as exploration gameplay?
When Odyssey dropped for realz I was on my way out to the Eta Carina nebula doing my usual exploration thing, so I've had a couple of months of discovering the details in the variety of terrains now on offer. To be honest, the highly exaggerated features of the terrain extremes I find very amateurish, because they defy the basic rules of geology and orogenesis -- they are far too obviously a game-setting-generation mechanic and thus break the immersion for me in a big way. That said, I did find a large number of planets where that kind of planet-building produced what should be some prime hooning locales. While seeking out ExoBio samples I often had to swoop along sinouous ravines with kilometer-high walls of around 70 to 80 degree slope and so narrow as to make scraping the paint on my AspX a matter of concern
. Whole regions of tortuous terrain form intricately interlaced mazes, not as deep as the gorges but far more elaborate. There were also a large number of mountain ranges where the magnified vertical scale made the peaks seem more like racecourse pylons, so if speed and maneuverability are your thing, they offer a challenge, and it is fully three-dimensional. Yes, there is a lot of "blamange," but such is also the case in Horizons. But my experience so far does not indicate that that's a majority of cases for planetary surfaces. Lots of variety and extremes of both types. The .GIF below shows a planet criss-crossed by deep rills, on the edge of one was perched a settlement called Craig's Edge in the Choki system. This particular trench was about 2 km deep with relatively gentle slope to the walls but very cramped at the bottom. The screenshot shows some of the exaggerated sawtooth peaks that can be found, forming a veritable hooning obstacle course if so desired.
Last edited:
Yes, I've had some mixes of stuff. I don't do much on foot exploring now but have seen some. It's not all homogenous.
Regarding Odyssey gameplay employing the Scorpion and multicrew, here's a scenario the game does not explicitly offer but which is nonetheless unique to Odyssey:
Salvage and restoration missions most often require taking care of competing scavengers before you can complete the missions. One method is dumbfire barrages, easy, not much challenge, good if you're in a hurry 'cause it's expedient. Or, you can load up your Dom suit and fight the scavs on foot, challenging when they have numbers on you and probably the developers' principal intent. The former will increase your Combat rank a little as it is ship-based, the latter your Merc rank since it's on foot. Either will earn you bounty creds. Scavs often come is waves, and I have encountered as few as three and as many as twenty-five on a mission. Threat level is no guarantee in that regard and seems to refer more to the gear the NPCs are using, higher levels being tougher suits and shields and more powerful firearms.
A third approach, which I use occasionally in a Scarab, is to take the scavs on in an SRV. As a mobile weapons platform it is very versatile if, for the Scarab at least, a bit clunky since you have to shoot and drive at the same time. But with the Scorpion you can split the roles, right? One driving, one on the turret, and you can go all Mad Max on the scavvies. The Scarab's repeater knocks down shields quickly at lower Merc ranks and once down, the scavs are basically dead meat if you keep them from getting under cover. The turret is a very good semi-auto gun and has target lock, both allowing for smart ammo conservation. At salvage sites the terrain is your challenge both for driving and for shooting and getting good position, which will require tight communication. In settlements for Restore missions, it's more complicated because, as Flynn said about the Recognizer, "Baby don't handle too well in the city." The SRV's broad stance gets easily stuck in the clutter that is common in settlements, so a lot of the shooting will have to be done from the perimeter, with targets always seeking cover behind that clutter. Self-created challenge. Cleanup on foot could be required as well -- some NPCs seem to enjoy staying under cover. Rewards are the same as doing any mission -- credits, mats, Influence and/or Reputation -- and will have BGS effects, I assume.
The game doesn't ask you to use the Scorp this way, but it does nothing to prevent it, either. I'm not sure how this approach affects ranking, but does it matter?
Salvage and restoration missions most often require taking care of competing scavengers before you can complete the missions. One method is dumbfire barrages, easy, not much challenge, good if you're in a hurry 'cause it's expedient. Or, you can load up your Dom suit and fight the scavs on foot, challenging when they have numbers on you and probably the developers' principal intent. The former will increase your Combat rank a little as it is ship-based, the latter your Merc rank since it's on foot. Either will earn you bounty creds. Scavs often come is waves, and I have encountered as few as three and as many as twenty-five on a mission. Threat level is no guarantee in that regard and seems to refer more to the gear the NPCs are using, higher levels being tougher suits and shields and more powerful firearms.
A third approach, which I use occasionally in a Scarab, is to take the scavs on in an SRV. As a mobile weapons platform it is very versatile if, for the Scarab at least, a bit clunky since you have to shoot and drive at the same time. But with the Scorpion you can split the roles, right? One driving, one on the turret, and you can go all Mad Max on the scavvies. The Scarab's repeater knocks down shields quickly at lower Merc ranks and once down, the scavs are basically dead meat if you keep them from getting under cover. The turret is a very good semi-auto gun and has target lock, both allowing for smart ammo conservation. At salvage sites the terrain is your challenge both for driving and for shooting and getting good position, which will require tight communication. In settlements for Restore missions, it's more complicated because, as Flynn said about the Recognizer, "Baby don't handle too well in the city." The SRV's broad stance gets easily stuck in the clutter that is common in settlements, so a lot of the shooting will have to be done from the perimeter, with targets always seeking cover behind that clutter. Self-created challenge. Cleanup on foot could be required as well -- some NPCs seem to enjoy staying under cover. Rewards are the same as doing any mission -- credits, mats, Influence and/or Reputation -- and will have BGS effects, I assume.
The game doesn't ask you to use the Scorp this way, but it does nothing to prevent it, either. I'm not sure how this approach affects ranking, but does it matter?
Just to give you a little hope; I've absolutely run into mixed groups of exobiological specimens on planets with high numbers of them, in the live game post-alpha. I think the most I've seen intermingling in one place was 4, but usually it's 2, sometimes 3 if there's bacterial patches around.
At minimum, it's easy enough to find something like a crater that contains 4+ species, even if they're in their own patches of the crater and not intermingling directly like this.
Fair enough. Sorry, I just see it bandied about a lot and get grumpy about it.
Ironically, after watching some videos from a dedicated SC YouTuber featuring in-depth interior walkthroughs, my reaction was essentially "neato, but I don't feel like I have to have that". Especially since it seems to fixate on the idea that multiplayer is absolutely required in order to make any use of most of it, which I'm not keen on. Plus the parts of it that are "gameplay", like needing a bed to log out or a med bay to respawn, feel like interesting concepts that have frustrating practical gameplay effects. It felt... heh... "a mile wide and an inch deep".
I also saw videos from the same YouTuber being real about the fact that the whole experience over there feels very, very stagnant. It wasn't lost on me how much many of the complaints about Elite Dangerous boil down to "I saw it in that game and I want it copied here". Which, considering the statement that it feels stagnant over there, actually dovetails with the idea that the "complaints" are just folks trying to snare people away because the Other Game is multiplayer-dependent and entire swathes of its features seem unusable without other people.
So yeah... I think you're right. And for what it's worth, I do think that Fleet Carriers getting interiors is a smarter decision (for now) that dovetails better with Odyssey. Despite my "oh joy, you get to go shopping in a thing you own" comment, I do appreciate that now players are going to get a meaningful interior space that both provides gameplay functions and scratches that "I want to own a thing and personalize it and feel immersed and connected to it" itch that a lot of people want. This basically turns Fleet Carriers into Elite's equivalent of player housing, but it's in space and you can move it. I truly do hope that folks enjoy it and are at least a little bit satisfied by it.
sowing discontent between playerbases is fairly next level conspiracy theory'ing.
The playerbase here has never been content. Even before launch. it's always been a struggling bunch of different gameplay ideologies trying to shift the compromise that is ED towards their own favorite. The space legs wants / dont wants and suggestions and everything involved with them has been around from the start as well. The difference these other space games make is a good one though. It provides test samples of what is working and not working and some may do well adapted to elite, some may not.
It's all the same opposition and frustration as it's always been though. Just now sometimes with examples to leverage.
The playerbase here has never been content. Even before launch. it's always been a struggling bunch of different gameplay ideologies trying to shift the compromise that is ED towards their own favorite. The space legs wants / dont wants and suggestions and everything involved with them has been around from the start as well. The difference these other space games make is a good one though. It provides test samples of what is working and not working and some may do well adapted to elite, some may not.
It's all the same opposition and frustration as it's always been though. Just now sometimes with examples to leverage.
Ignoring the doll-house aspect, which if Frontier are smart will spawn a heap of Arx-driven cosmetics, I already see a use, for me, in getting a friend to play more - he is very slow in learning to fly, but plays a lot of FPS games - I can transport him around to EDO settlements for 'fun' until his flying skills improve. (his ship is already on one of my FCs)
Deleted member 182079
D
I find it quite appealing actually, especially if the mat trader aspect allows for some - it's just a shame that FDev had to lock it behind a 5bn+ credit grind wall. I'm about half way there, and have to say I've lost my drive to get the remaining credits together; in parts because I don't have the stamina to grind them, but I also don't have the patience to get them through "normal play" i.e. something that could take months based on my current playstyle.
At least I can try them next week or so on someone else's carrier to see if they're even worth working towards still (if bugs won't stand in the way that is, which ... well, we know it's going to happen).
We could always hope for some gameplay options that involve significant skill to complete so that acquiring the assets needed can be done in less repetitions of the same action while still being of equal and fair "effort".
But that's not very likely.
The "most fun" way to get your carrier is by doing it with other players who dont need the money.. You can get obscene credits in a short amount of time while sharing the repetitions with others and that generally makes it less soul sucking.
Which when you think about what it is, was the original intended way to acquire one.
Deleted member 182079
D
My particular situation is that this is the second time I'm "saving" credits towards an FC - my first one was financed by Borann (non-egg) mining, and even that I found tough going towards the end because I get bored reasonably quickly and mining at the time was by far the biggest earner, so I had to do a fair bit of that. I wiped my account about a month or two into EDO, because I wanted to experience Odyssey through a new playthrough. That was more or less a disappointment so here I am trying to make up for that mistake now.
Things have changed since earnings wise - it's a bit more balanced but it does take longer, and it makes the gap between the first 1-2bn and the required funds for the FC feel more of a drag than before of course.
I spent most of January unlocking EDO engineers, G5'ing my suits, and upgrading my weapons, so money wise I made very little progress during that time - but I gathered a number of mats I don't really need anymore (Opinion Polls and the like), so my (naive) hope is that I might be able to make some decent credits selling those at other people's carriers.
Of course, at the same time I'm wondering whether re-obtaining a FC is really worth it as a goal for someone like me who did pretty much everything in the game now. I haven't logged into the game for a week or so now, and even just the thought that anything I'd want to achieve (unlock Cutter, Corvette, FC) requires some substantial time investment one way or another. I don't know if the game can offer enough mileage through fun gameplay to get me there anymore, that's my dilemma really - and there's absolutely nothing on the horizon in terms of new content being added that would sweeten that a little bit. First world problems of course, but I'm slowly drifting away from a game that has become stale (again - after my hopes that EDO would give my motivation a huge shot in the arm).
I actually don't hate it, and I'm saying that as someone who's hovering around 200 million and has a very long way to go to get one. Player housing in most games is an intentionally high watermark. It's something to strive for and work towards, and it's supposed to be a significant accomplishment when you get it.
Folks who play other games like Final Fantasy XIV joke around that getting a player house in that game is the "true endgame". Fleet Carriers are kinda like that for this game, as I see it. It's a thing that fundamentally changes how you play once you obtain it. Instead of being moored to a specific system or starport, now your ships are wherever you want them. You have assets and services that you define and can rely upon. It all means something. And maybe this makes me weird, but part of that meaning is that you have to clear a really high bar to do it.
Plus, especially with all the "get rich quick" tactics available in Elite, having something appealing cost a catastrophic amount of credits is one of the only ways to make credits still mean anything. At least for a moment.
the BGS was supposed to be leveraged as a thing to manipulate and work on rather than acquiring items (of which there are a finite variety). But fdev keeps that bgs manipulation in a fixed loop that can never really change or really matter. And powerplay never got power collapse and promotion so it too is stuck in a fixed loop of nothing changing to any point of mattering.
If players had a persistent impact on the bgs that changed it in ways that mattered, i think that would go a long ways towards giving players a reason to do things after they've collected their ships and are not willing to grind the carrier or already have one of those as well. If exploration factored into driving factions to expand into uninhabited systems, if players could fully eliminate factions ...taking them out of the game forever, new factions could be created, if stations could be destroyed for good (not directly obviously, but by initiating cz's)...allowing player activity to alter the landscape of the game ....it would create unpredictable gameplay that keeps things fresh, even when fdev hasn't really changed the individual activities.
but none of that exists, and carriers really are of limited use, and any personalization is likely not going to fill your game time since it's just things you buy, not things you make in-game. I'd say it would make a decent goal if you had other players to play with ... But that would be it's primary function, to be a goal with form that you can see and have. Rather than something abstract.