Elite: An old persons view...

It's poorly implemented game design, regardless of how many use it.

Either have superpower affiliation and develop it properly, or don't have it.

To have it and not implement it properly is the worst outcome, right?

It's the same with "grind". As a design philosophy "grind" takes no skill, it's merely a function of time spent. Whether you engage or not with the process, grind as game design is poor.

I'm sorry so many CMDRs have trouble accepting that.
The problem is making the assumption that superpower alignment is the default.
As it's actually abnormal the game has to be built around the independent perspective which tends to render superpower alignment as a temporary arrangement for unlocking items.
The fact that we are not beholden to anyone is a central plank of Elite.
 
Last edited:
Yup, I've been a gamer for most of my long life, the original Elite and ED are easily in my top 5 games of all time.

Issues aside it's a stunning technical achievement and the core parts of the game, the graphics, sound, flight model and stellar forge are just amazing.

So, I may complain about this and that from time to time but I really wouldn't be here if I didn't love ED.
 
I find it interesting that 'an old persons view...' is formed from a comparison of the old vs. new rather than the modern vs. modern with all the history that went in between.

What that basically translates to imho is games have improved over 40yrs. Yes ok I can go with that a perfectly reasonable observation.

..and then you struggle to understand why people get bored or frustrated with the modern Elite, which I would suggest comes from people making different comparisons and changes in expectation of quality and gameplay in the modern era. Not because they are in some fantasy zone of thinking but because they have had those experiences in other titles and as a consumer actually have some idea as to what is or is not feasible.

Now here is the thing does your 'old persons view...' allow for the curiosity and willingness to understand in what those issues are (cos you do accept they exist in other players), or is it a fixed view not willing to budge from 'thou shalt be grateful for what is given, you've never had it so good and I refuse to consider other factors.' One of those I'd be happy to discuss over a few beers and a bite to eat at the local pub* and the other just keeps Elite relevant to a niche audience.

*positive vibes as requested
 
Yes Elite Dangerous is a magnificent achievement. I'm 59 and I remember doing simple 3D animations using vector graphics on my PC XT, just because the optical illusion of moving in 3D space was something my brain highly appreciated watching. Before that I had done an even more primitive attempt to create a similar illusion using sprites on a C64. We've gotten quite far since then.

I agree that flying a spaceship through the mindblowing distances in space in VR using a Hotas is one of the most amazing (game related) things I've tried, and I came to ED from VR sim racing, so I should have been hard to impress even further, but I was blown away the first time i started ED and found myself inside a flippin' spaceship. Once I got the spaceship launched, and had to maneuver towards the mail slot, in this giant highly detailed space station, I was hooked. I have been hooked ever since.

That is why I disagree with the recent management of the game. I have absolutely no interest in the game without VR, and I started playing a spaceship simulator. I want more of that, and less pancake shooting on foot.
 
Of course with kind words such as this game is dead, it sucks, Developers are awful, etc., how could one not see the love flow.
At least in recent threads, these words are far more likely to be found in the posts of "white knights" setting up scary strawmen in what would otherwise be a civilized discussion about player numbers, ship interiors, performance, story pacing, etc. It's actually pretty rare these days that I see people who genuinely post such things because they actually believe it. Maybe all the true doomsayers are in my ignore list so I don't see them? 🤷‍♂️
 
is the argument being made here that games were primitive or so simplistic 30 years ago that elite is comparatively awesome and so anyone who negatively reviews it or complains is just doing so from an inferior point of view or a point of view that is entirely unfair and so not really relevant?
I remember when WoW was not an "art style" but pinnacle of 3d open world environments. Nowadays, its marketed as an art style "cartoonish design", but in fact its just their choice of not changing their inhouse game Engine as its not financially worth. Its the same problem with elite as I see it, from the state of art software that " stellar forge" is and was at the time of release (i cant even imagine the hours needed to Invest in such a marvel piece of technology) , to a mediocre fps that should've make the switch to attract casual players with the tools that they have at disposal without many investments. All of that cus financially its not worth the changes that some players (ME included) would like. I dont think we can compare 80/90 gaming perfomance with today even from a marketing model standing point, "we do this game with this feature as it would appeal to a certain number from a huge billion people market" being a philosophy that could not be applied then for the obvious reason that not many was able to even use a pc or own it. Those days was the powerhorse that pushed the things towards what gaming is, but its nothing more than nostalgy comparing what games was and what games are.
 
Except for the fact that alignment with a superpower is the exception in Elite. Most of us are Independent Pilots which tends to limit that idea.

Well, considering most players pull rank this is either untrue or we have ourseleves a case of ludonarrative dissonance.

Either way though, whats better? Turning generic courier runs for 40 hours to get a couple of permits and ships; or engaging with tailor made, narrative lead content that engages you with the universes lore and tells a story.

It's poorly implemented game design, regardless of how many use it.

Either have superpower affiliation and develop it properly, or don't have it.

To have it and not implement it properly is the worst outcome, right?

It's the same with "grind". As a design philosophy "grind" takes no skill, it's merely a function of time spent. Whether you engage or not with the process, grind as game design is poor.

I'm sorry so many CMDRs have trouble accepting that.

Agreed. Also, while a certain amount of grind can be necessary and isn't a problem; the kind of grind in ED is partiularly bad.
 
The problem is making the assumption that superpower alignment is the default.
As it's actually abnormal the game has to be built around the independent perspective which tends to render superpower alignment as a temporary arrangement for unlocking items.
The fact that we are not beholden to anyone is a central plank of Elite.

In what is the biggest MMO on the planet right now (FF14) and its precursor (FF11) you are an adventurer (independant mercenary).

In both games you have superpowers that have colourful relationships with each other, their own internal problems, and a greater existential threat appears that affects them all.


You align to a superpower for narrative purposes. However, this is more in the sense that you're a mercenary for hire who is helping them for your own personal gain. You're frequently treat as such until you've gained trust too.

The superpower stories converge into a joint alliance in both games, where you continue as a mercenary for hire.

In IX you can change superpower, in XIV you can't but it doesnt matter so much because the joint initiative is what matters narratively.


Anyway, point being, the biggest MMO right now has a similar base setup and deals with it just fine. So, no reason why ED couldn't either.
 

Flossy

Volunteer Moderator
I will be 69 in October and have played E: D since alpha. However, I did not play it in the 80s like many others, but did often watch my husband (Wrongway/Zebedeee) playing. I never even imagined I'd ever play myself, having a 2-year-old toddler to take care of at the time, and didn't think I'd ever be able to fly!

In 1998, my husband introduced me to a WW2 combat simulator, Air Warrior, which he had been playing for several years. Still not able to 'fly', I would drive ground vehicles or man guns in bombers or on the airfields. Eventually I was persuaded to try flying which was OK as long as I didn't have to fight or I ended up spiralling into the ground! Then I discovered bombers which I grew to love.

Although the concept of space-travel is much faster than the old WW2 aircraft, I think it did help when it came to flying in Elite, especially using a HOTAS and rudder pedals as I had done for many years previously.

I love E: D and now Odyssey too. Not much of a combat pilot, but I've come to really enjoy the ground combat. Also love the stations and walking around on planets looking for strange plants. There is always something to do and discover in Elite: Odyssey and I am sure I will be playing it for many more years to come! 🥰

[edit - oops I am 68 now and will be 69 in October!]
 
Last edited:
That's the nature of RPGs though. The skills are the character's, not the players (unless the player is a genuine spell-casting wizard in real-life, or an actual interstellar pilot and trader, or an Orc). The player "skill" is having more determination to play the game instead of doing other real-life stuff. A truly skilled person would be able to play many hours per day by using their "real-life skills" to free up the time. And as Stalin said, "quantity has a quality all its own".

grind is a function in rpgs and is acceptable in that role when and only when those games include activities that are beyond grind loops to acquire the same and better rewards in far less time but with much more skill and risk involved.

Elite dangerous doesn't have such higher level game loops. You have grind loops, and then you have the same exact grind loops but done at the behest of a mission giver, with the difference in skill and risk being so small that often there is none and the difference in reward being frequently nil.

Sure, you have the option in elite dangerous of not burning yourself out by repeating the same activities as fast as possible, but this doesn't eliminate the fact that it's all grind loops. All the exact same activity. With the exception of combat ...which has some small amount of risk and skill scale (but not nearly enough). It's missing the more complicated gameplay loops that leverage the skill you've built up in your initial grinding stage that allow players who have really mastered those game mechanics to acquire significantly higher / better rewards in far less time but at a significant risk of meaningful loss.

But i'd go further than simply critique the lack of any game loops above grind and suggest that the grind loops themselves are unremarkable. They dont live up to the achievement of the Stellar Forge. They're almost exactly the same game loops that existed in the game decades ago with basically aesthetic updates. There's really no attempt to make these game loops interesting or novel. There's no progression or evolution of the game mechanics involved, just stagnation - copies of what was designed before.

Elite dangerous is a playable game with few if any real alternatives competing in the same exact genre and there is nothing really so annoying that you'd rage quit it or not find something to waste some time doing in it. But it's a game that lets down the technical achievement that apparently all of the effort and imagination and innovation went into, the Stellar Forge, by strapping copy and pasted game mechanics that are 30 years old to it. It'll be another elite game noted for it's technical achievement rather than it's gameplay - and that's regrettable because there's so much existing game content out there to get inspiration from compared to elite 1984.
 
grind is a function in rpgs and is acceptable in that role when and only when those games include activities that are beyond grind loops to acquire the same and better rewards in far less time but with much more skill and risk involved.

Elite dangerous doesn't have such higher level game loops. You have grind loops, and then you have the same exact grind loops but done at the behest of a mission giver, with the difference in skill and risk being so small that often there is none and the difference in reward being frequently nil.

Sure, you have the option in elite dangerous of not burning yourself out by repeating the same activities as fast as possible, but this doesn't eliminate the fact that it's all grind loops. All the exact same activity. With the exception of combat ...which has some small amount of risk and skill scale (but not nearly enough). It's missing the more complicated gameplay loops that leverage the skill you've built up in your initial grinding stage that allow players who have really mastered those game mechanics to acquire significantly higher / better rewards in far less time but at a significant risk of meaningful loss.

But i'd go further than simply critique the lack of any game loops above grind and suggest that the grind loops themselves are unremarkable. They dont live up to the achievement of the Stellar Forge. They're almost exactly the same game loops that existed in the game decades ago with basically aesthetic updates. There's really no attempt to make these game loops interesting or novel. There's no progression or evolution of the game mechanics involved, just stagnation - copies of what was designed before.

Elite dangerous is a playable game with few if any real alternatives competing in the same exact genre and there is nothing really so annoying that you'd rage quit it or not find something to waste some time doing in it. But it's a game that lets down the technical achievement that apparently all of the effort and imagination and innovation went into, the Stellar Forge, by strapping copy and pasted game mechanics that are 30 years old. It'll be another elite game noted for it's technical achievement rather than it's gameplay - and that's regrettable because there's so much existing game content out there to get inspiration from compared to elite 1984.

Excellent post. Its all about design philosophy and the studios priorities - or understanding of how to make qualitative content.


Engineers are grind loop crafting system. You spend hours gathering materials which requires patience, and then dump them on an engineer. The design philosophy only cares about how much time it takes to gather materials.

The idea that "its a crafting system, so harvesting grind is a natural consequence of that" is unimaginitive.


I recently got around to playing one of those Atelier JRPG's - the two Atelier Ryza games. They're alchemy themed RPG's built around gathering and crafting as its core mechanic.

You basically craft everything in those games.

You gather materials, craft raw into refined materials, craft to create equipment, craft to create supplies, and craft to upgrade equipment.

The thing that stuck out to me was that I was expecting a grind heavy game, but it wasn't. The game throws materials at you like candies. It places its emphasis on the crafting system itself. They'd spent the time to create a deep, highly flexible crafting system that wants you to experiment with materials and see what happens.
 
Excellent post. Its all about design philosophy and the studios priorities - or understanding of how to make qualitative content.


Engineers are grind loop crafting system. You spend hours gathering materials which requires patience, and then dump them on an engineer. The design philosophy only cares about how much time it takes to gather materials.

The idea that "its a crafting system, so harvesting grind is a natural consequence of that" is unimaginitive.


I recently got around to playing one of those Atelier JRPG's - the two Atelier Ryza games. They're alchemy themed RPG's built around gathering and crafting as its core mechanic.

You basically craft everything in those games.

You gather materials, craft raw into refined materials, craft to create equipment, craft to create supplies, and craft to upgrade equipment.

The thing that stuck out to me was that I was expecting a grind heavy game, but it wasn't. The game throws materials at you like candies. It places its emphasis on the crafting system itself. They'd spent the time to create a deep, highly flexible crafting system that wants you to experiment with materials and see what happens.

crafting was thrown on top of the game loops in elite dangerous to achieve one goal. Continued gameplay time. Because players were dropping off in droves once they acquired all the ships and best modules. There was nothing else to do because the BGS is/was just an endless loop that drives towards nothing and the 400 billion systems you can visit are all content-less. So engineers was created to exploit the gambling and addiction part of the brain (it was initially very casino-gamey) so that players had a reason to continue to strive towards getting "the best" gear. And it worked.

but it was never about putting something into the game that innovated the game loops involved or improved gameplay or designing something novel. It's purpose was to keep players playing with as little continued cost on their part as possible (not have to create and release assets frequently like new ships or new modules, etc).
 
but it was never about putting something into the game that innovated the game loops involved or improved gameplay or designing something novel. It's purpose was to keep players playing with as little continued cost on their part as possible (not have to create and release assets frequently like new ships or new modules, etc).
It is amazing the authority you put into such a comment, do you work for Frontier, or just speculating wildly, as is the modus operandi on the forum?
 
I'm not quite as cynical as you @Darth Ender !

I genuinely think the addition(s) were an attempt at adding more gameplay but very poorly implemented

It's a return to these gameloops I'd prefer them to revisit rather than any new feature
 
It is amazing the authority you put into such a comment, do you work for Frontier, or just speculating wildly, as is the modus operandi on the forum?

It's an easy observation given the fact that i was playing before it and during it and after it's rollouts.

And we can look at the mechanic itself and see that there is no intention of making crafting an improvement on gameplay. You dont do anything different in the game acquiring materials than you did prior ...same game loops ...no additional action needed on your part to get the stuff. Then actually crafting requires no change in gameplay ....you space truck it to a certain location. The crafting action itself is a trade transaction (barter system instead of credit purchase). ..but the recipes are fixed, the result is fixed (to a significant degree). The end result is a better module without any additional asset creation and what purpose does this better module have in the game? None really because you dont really need them to play against npcs and you only need them to play against other people because they're doing it too. It exists solely to exploit the need by players to have the best and keep them playing by creating a vastly higher number of options for what they can strive for compared to the actual assets that fdev created initially.

Engineers is an answer to "how do we keep players wanting to play for months and months when they can get all the assets in a few weeks without having to spend money every month since we dont charge a subscription?" Nothing about it is about improving gameplay or adding gameplay because it doesn't do either. You see that right? I'm not sure what the "leap" is you think i'm making about engineering is.
 
It's an easy observation given the fact that i was playing before it and during it and after it's rollouts.

And we can look at the mechanic itself and see that there is no intention of making crafting an improvement on gameplay. You dont do anything different in the game acquiring materials than you did prior ...same game loops ...no additional action needed on your part to get the stuff. Then actually crafting requires no change in gameplay ....you space truck it to a certain location. The crafting action itself is a trade transaction (barter system instead of credit purcahse). ..but the recipes are fixed, the result is fixed (to a significant degree). The end result is a better module without any additional asset creation and what purpose does this better module have in the game? None really because you dont really need them to play against npcs and you only need them to play against other people because they're doing it too. It exists solely to exploit the need by players to have the best and keep them playing by creating a vastly higher number of options for what they can strive for compared to the actual assets that fdev created initially.

Engineers is an answer to "how do we keep players wanting to play for months and months when they can get all the assets in a few weeks without having to spend money every month since we dont charge a subscription?" Nothing about it is about improving gameplay or adding gameplay because it doesn't do either. You see that right? I'm not sure what the "leap" is you think i'm making about engineering is.
So, truthfully, you are just speculating wildly, and actually know nothing of how Frontier run their business.

I thought so. (y)
 
No reason why it should, either?
As you may have guessed, PowerPlay is of no interest to me either, so its deficeinces are of no import, to me...

Frontier have chosen to not develop PP for whatever reason, they may change in the future, but currently it is what it is, good or poor.

Since when was choosing not to engage with content a reason not to make it better? Thats not how anything works.

Anyway, here are some reasons why they should:

1. Give superpower ranks a purpose

2. Reduce grind with qualitative content

3. Streamlining the games existing lore and narrative so that it is presented in a more meaningful, digestible way

4. Address the weird dissonance where you can be working for two opposing superpowers military at the same time without consequence

5. Introduce opportunities to leverage the permit locked systems that currently don't do anything meaningful

6. Expand on the games lore and narrative

7. Fix the problems with Power Play, give it meaning (depends on reworking PP into a proper conquest system, but still)
 
Since when was choosing not to engage with content a reason not to make it better? Thats not how anything works.

Anyway, here are some reasons why they should:

1. Give superpower ranks a purpose

2. Reduce grind with qualitative content

3. Streamlining the games existing lore and narrative so that it is presented in a more meaningful, digestible way

4. Address the weird dissonance where you can be working for two opposing superpowers military at the same time without consequence

5. Introduce opportunities to leverage the permit locked systems that currently don't do anything meaningful

6. Expand on the games lore and narrative

7. Fix the problems with Power Play, give it meaning (depends on reworking PP into a proper conquest system, but still)
I've read a lot of @Rubbernuke posts on powerplay, he makes some excellent suggestions that allegedly could be incorporated without any real effort by Frontier. The fact that they are not doing so speaks volumes in itself, perhaps they regret the introduction?

As for choosing to not engage with content not being a reason to make it better, did I say that, or are you just trying to put words into my mouth?
 
So, truthfully, you are just speculating wildly, and actually know nothing of how Frontier run their business.

I thought so. (y)

You dont need to be an employee at a company to know how their actions are motivated when it's so obvious.

Where's the alternative motivation? Where's the new gameplay? Where's the improvement? What other result comes from this mechanic in elite dangerous?

If a company buys their competitors and then shuts them down and says they're doing it to provide a better service but you end up paying more for the same service, are you supposed to just sit there stupidly and say "they said it's to provide better service so they did that to provide better service" ... or are you allowed to observe reality and say "oh, they did that to become a monopoly so they could drive profits up and continue to give us the same crappy service they've been giving us"?

You're welcome to show how the conclusions i've made about the purpose of engineering is wrong. But I dont think you will be able to refute the points i've made because i'm not making them up. They're staring you in the face every time you play.
 
Back
Top Bottom