And moons casting a shadow on the planet too! I can see in RL from the surface of Earth, the shadows of the Jovian moons transiting Jupiter’s surface using only a 4 inch refractor (a pretty good one though I’ll be honest). I’d love for this detail to be included in ED.
And they gave us a slow on foot GUI to get on foot missions and gear!
Still, I don't understand what's wrong with CQC, I've been there and thought it fun, even though I blew up all the time..
The problem with cqc was in how it was positioned as an answer to pvp ...which was entirely tone deaf on the complaints people had about pvp in the game. Also in how it was implemented as a separate game not really part of the shared galaxy.
cqc was fdev's answer to player agency in what they sold as an MMO but gave players no way to actually do MMO things on top of having really bad instancing problems. And so it solved none of those complaints while the alternative it did give was external to the game and extremely limited.
It was like, hey, we built this whole thing without asking any players if it was what anyone wanted and were entirely caught off guard when it was very poorly received. Lets just pretend it doesn't exist and move on.
I'm not going to blame a game that doesn't boast a quality (in this case procedural generation) for not having that quality. However, if a game boasts of having this quality and does no really better than games that don't, i'll blame it, indeed.
It seem that Horizon match it pretty well
He says he has no more knees.
Last edited:
For some bizarre reason I am not the least bit surprised.
Pro tip: Don't fix what aint broke. It was fine the way it was.
(so was the rest of the game BTW)
My thought.
Horizon used a unified algorithm to generate the planets and all their particular aspects (like biomes or geological features). But if you want to add a new particular aspect, you have to rework the algorithm. The tech generate a tile per planet strongly influenced by the intrinsic characteristics of the planet.
With Odyssey, they have isolated the algorithms that generate a particular aspect. This way you can add more algorithms that generate a particular aspect (forest, water,...). Then you have another algorithm that generates tiles, mixing all the algorithms mentioned above in a consistent way. Then an algorithm that will use all the tiles to generate planets in a consistent way. The tech generate a unique mix of tiles slightly influenced by the characteristics of the planet.
You keep saying the tracker is meaningless as some sort of counter to like a 1000 people voting for the issue. You can say it is meaningless all you want, it doesn't detract away from the fact that this many people actively identified the issue themselves and then went and voted for it. I actually have a rough, but measurable, estimate for the quantity of people that want to see this fixed. You currently have no estimate or anything near community consensus for not thinking this issue is a priority. The only thing you are going off of is your own, and maybe a few other's, personal opinions. Whether the issue tracker actually works or not is completely besides the point, as its function of just tallying votes alone is enough to support my point. 1000+ people VS a few opinions ...
aka "how people that aren't interested in exploration view exploration." Sightseeing ≠ exploration. My grandma going on a cruise ≠ Marco Polo. Sightseeing could be seen as included within exploration gameplay, however it is a small fraction of it.
Exploration, Combat and Trade are the core gameplay features of Elite. Don't be surprised when they get more attention then something more niche like Powerplay or C+P. Plus Odyssey's tiling has worsened planetary exploration as we have already established. Imagine if they updated C+P, but made it worse, refused to polish/repair it and then you see exploration players on the forums essentially saying "you've had your update, now be quiet". That's basically what you're doing and it's not helping the situation. This is either a case of extreme whiteknightery on your behalf or you just genuinely don't care about exploration gameplay. Either way, your opinion just doesn't equate to the large portion of players that wanted to see this fixed and are unhappy with this news.
Have we established that?
You may have...
Depending on the point of view, since there are limited tiles, there will come a time when all tiles will have been discovered, regardless of the number of existing planets. Like for plants.
But has it been established that it has worsened planetary exploration? It appears to be intimated that such a conclusion is universally accepted, when it isnt, is it?
Like i writed, "Depending on the point of view".
"Many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view"
Obi-Wan Kenobi
Why, I can believe 6 impossible things before breakfast!
The Red Queen...
Indeed, there are those who will believe anything...
You should see a physician about that breathing issue..
An issue gets some votes, which allegedly represents less than 0.2% of the monthly average players... Ok...
...hope that cough gets better.
ETA: An issue so well 'established' that the game developer has decided it isn't worth assigning resources to.
Last edited:
I would love the equivalent of a 4” refractor or larger on our ships, a zoom function for the SRV turret cam and helmet binoculars/spotting scope ‘weapon’ for the suits. No the camera suite is not the same thing.
728 as per the last Issue Report Top 20 from November last year. The next highest voted issue had 316.
Although it’s annoying for those that voted for it, I hope they’ll put their free vote to good use
Yep, but in the case of using tiling to map a planet instead of generate a unique shape, you don't need anymore to explore every planet to discover everything there is to discover. So, formaly and mathematicaly, it's a downgrade.
After that, it depend of what it's important for you in exploration. If it's just sucking first scan, you don't care. If it's just to have greats looking views, you don't care. If it's just to get first foot, you don't care. If it's just drawing giant shape with you jumps, you don't care. But if it's to find unusuals planets, it's dead.
Yeah, for those who treat a game seriously there would perhaps be some resentment because their 'perfect simulation' isn't.
For those who just play games, perhaps not so.
Me, I just do stuff, have fun, and remember, all of the time, it is just a game.
"some votes" ... x2 more than the 2nd most voted issue. If you've been reading the conversation throughout this thread you would have seen that apparently not many people use the issue tracker (as many some see it as "meaningless") so its likely a lot higher than 0.2%. A factor of x2 (at the time of the last issue report) is so large that even if that was extrapolated to all players (not just people that use the tracker) you'd expect it to still be the most requested bug to be fixed. But nah ... its not that significant ... just a small number of players ...
ye, as I said before, 1000+ is taking into consideration the fact that 728 is almost 5 months old, the large issue thread on the forums and also apparently no one uses the issue tracker. 1000 is a fairly conservative estimate.728 as per the last Issue Report Top 20 from November last year. The next highest voted issue had 316.
Although it’s annoying for those that voted for it, I hope they’ll put their free vote to good use
It's not like the interests of FDev and players are comparable.
So wanting to look for an unusual planet is treating the game seriously ? How is it more serious than any other activity ? And why is it a problem that some people treat the game seriously ? And does it seem like a good reason to sweep up and discredit those who don't have the same way of playing as you ?
[EDIT]Removing any mention of the term "argue"[/EDIT]
Last edited: