Hello, as an Elite fan since the BBC days and ED since Kickstarter, I love the game and have put more hours in than anything else I own by some margin since 2015.
There are things Frontier have done brilliantly, and should be applauded for. There are also gameplay mechanic issues that continue to leave me slightly disappointed in comparison to other large scale contemporary multiplayer games, and I hope that the major overhaul due in 2020 might address some of these, rather than simply add cosmetics and continue the current storylines. To me, gameplay mechanics are the foundation of an immersive and engaging game, and everything else is a 'nice to have' built on top of this.
I also appreciate there is a huge amount of complexity when designing the architecture of a system such as ED, and it's not simple to add or make significant changes. The design provides both opportunities and limitations. While I work in massively scalable server architecture myself, it is not for gaming, so I have a limited understanding of the process required. I have gathered what I know from listening to Dav Stott, Adam Bourke-Waite, and other Frontier staff who talk about architecture and gameplay design. Wherever possible, I try to suggest things that leverage existing gameplay and assets, rather than an unrealistic drastic rework.
What is great:
1. Bringing the essence of the original 1984 Elite into a persistent multiplayer world
2. Scaling the galaxy to be 1:1, the BGS, and a truly vast, beautiful, platform to utilise for gameplay
What is not so great, and the focus of the post:
1. Most of the core gameplay (combat / trade / exploration and related missions) remains too simplistic and repetitive - take cargo from A to B, fight X ships in location Y, explore by mostly looking at static non-interactive game objects. Gameplay for wings means scaling up the numbers. I would rather have one engaging target than one hundred dull ones
2. Recent improvements to engagement and interaction such as Thargoid combat, megaship battles, stellar phenomena etc still suffer from being repetitive, which I hope could be addressed relatively easily.
Dynamic elements - one of the core issues for me is that pretty much any gameplay you get involved with only needs to be experienced once - the lack of dynamic variables means that the experience rarely changes, and this is a major cause of the feeling of repetition and grind that is often complained about.
It's not easy to describe gameplay from other games that solves or sidesteps these issues if you haven't played them, because 'feel' is a big part of the changing dynamic. But let's try an example that comes to mind for me.
Take the Arma series - it might be a large scale co-op FPS game and not set in space, but there's a lot of dynamic gameplay ideas at work. In theory it is repetitive too, because it is ultimately always teams of players fighting the AI. I appreciate that it is a scriptable client-server system, and it is certainly not always perfect, but there are many areas of cross-over and it can provide hours of engagement on the right server with friendly players. How does this end up feeling less repetitive than other shooters?
1. The first dynamic is the scale of the world and interaction of the terrain with combat - flat terrain, hills, cover, night vs day (and the equipment that requires), even weather, has a direct impact on gameplay - how the players act, and how the AI responds. Elite could easily also use these variables on planets, but in fact it's rare to even engage the AI on surfaces. And space is all the same, right? Well yes, perhaps, but CZs for the most part are just team deathmatch free-for-alls. The addition of some objective-based elements is welcome, but underutilised. The objectives should be the main criteria to determine success, not an optional sideshow. There needs to be far more variety too - attack / defend megaships and installations, escort traders across systems and even down to surfaces, board hostile bases with dropships carrying 'cargoes' of troops, and so on.
2. The second is balance of forces and turning the tide ('the tipping point') in combat. In Arma, tactics are very much determined by size, or difference in size, between the two sides. So two evenly matched sides may need to slug it out and find the tipping point - use air power to remove dangerous ground defences and so on. So what about when one side is much larger than the other? What type of forces and weapons? Where are assaults? Where are retreats? Being forced to change your tactics based on a changing situation adds an exciting element of survival. The moments of quiet where it's unclear who has the upper hand, is just as immersive as the gunfire. Again, these things do vaguely exist in Elite, but are again just underutilised. Instead we have 'There's bunch of ships there, go shoot them until the numbers crunch.' Too tough? Boost 7km out or rejoin the instance. Mission done, repeat until bored.
3. Instances and persistence - instances are the double edged sword of Elite. They allow for the vast scale we enjoy, but they also limit the experience - assets are entirely created and destroyed for the instance and restricts persistence. I appreciate persistence must be managed, otherwise the servers, databases etc, could not cope with the performance and data storage required. But because of this, we can't have classic sci-fi scenarios beyond the superficial - where is the chasing bounty hunter? Why can't we lose him or her in an asteroid field to make good our escape? Instead, we have a trigger in the instance for an interdiction - which happens twice, and then stops. For me, it isn't currently engaging or convincing. Repetition is one thing, but the ability to exactly predict the outcome destroys any sense of excitement, threat, or danger. It all becomes routine predictable repetition, which in my opinion is the last thing this type of interaction should be. I'm happy for Frontier to cheat - recreate the AI asset in the next instance, but at least create the appearance of a consistent and persistent world where an escape or a catch feels like an achievement.
There should be so many dynamic variables and elements that it should be hard to determine exactly what the AI will do. Maybe they won't show at all - then even empty space becomes tense, because you never know if they will turn up when you are not expecting it. Take a derelict megaship, ripe for salvaging. Perhaps it will just be you and you will get your goods for free. Perhaps other players will show up. Perhaps AI pirates, security, or even Thargoids will make an appearance. Be ready to fight or flee at a moment's notice. I hope it is clear that we do have all these elements now, and recent patches over the years have made definite improvements to the interactions, but they're just not being pushed to the limits of excitement that they should be
4. Emergent gameplay - to me, this is usually when you are aiming to complete one objective, and find yourself immersed / sidetracked in an completely unexpected situation that arises from the dynamics of the situation. An Arma example would be when you are being ferried to a mission area, and you or other players are ambushed en route, perhaps shot down. The immediate objective then becomes one of survival or rescue for your group. In Elite, this would require events to unfold around you and force your hand - currently too much gameplay in Elite is 'opt-in', with exceptions such as interdictions or hyperdictions.
5. All the above needs a good variety of AI to back it up. I want to chase, or be chased, down to surfaces and run through canyons, lose them in those asteroid fields I mentioned earlier, use stealth to circumvent overwhelming force that I cannot fight on my own, and so on. Thargoids aside, we haven't seen any significant leaps in AI capability for a long time.
I hope that I have at least managed to convey the gist of what I would love the core of the game to become in 2020 and beyond. Ever increasing engagement and unpredictability - after all, isn't that what makes Elite, 'Dangerous?'...
o7
There are things Frontier have done brilliantly, and should be applauded for. There are also gameplay mechanic issues that continue to leave me slightly disappointed in comparison to other large scale contemporary multiplayer games, and I hope that the major overhaul due in 2020 might address some of these, rather than simply add cosmetics and continue the current storylines. To me, gameplay mechanics are the foundation of an immersive and engaging game, and everything else is a 'nice to have' built on top of this.
I also appreciate there is a huge amount of complexity when designing the architecture of a system such as ED, and it's not simple to add or make significant changes. The design provides both opportunities and limitations. While I work in massively scalable server architecture myself, it is not for gaming, so I have a limited understanding of the process required. I have gathered what I know from listening to Dav Stott, Adam Bourke-Waite, and other Frontier staff who talk about architecture and gameplay design. Wherever possible, I try to suggest things that leverage existing gameplay and assets, rather than an unrealistic drastic rework.
What is great:
1. Bringing the essence of the original 1984 Elite into a persistent multiplayer world
2. Scaling the galaxy to be 1:1, the BGS, and a truly vast, beautiful, platform to utilise for gameplay
What is not so great, and the focus of the post:
1. Most of the core gameplay (combat / trade / exploration and related missions) remains too simplistic and repetitive - take cargo from A to B, fight X ships in location Y, explore by mostly looking at static non-interactive game objects. Gameplay for wings means scaling up the numbers. I would rather have one engaging target than one hundred dull ones
2. Recent improvements to engagement and interaction such as Thargoid combat, megaship battles, stellar phenomena etc still suffer from being repetitive, which I hope could be addressed relatively easily.
Dynamic elements - one of the core issues for me is that pretty much any gameplay you get involved with only needs to be experienced once - the lack of dynamic variables means that the experience rarely changes, and this is a major cause of the feeling of repetition and grind that is often complained about.
It's not easy to describe gameplay from other games that solves or sidesteps these issues if you haven't played them, because 'feel' is a big part of the changing dynamic. But let's try an example that comes to mind for me.
Take the Arma series - it might be a large scale co-op FPS game and not set in space, but there's a lot of dynamic gameplay ideas at work. In theory it is repetitive too, because it is ultimately always teams of players fighting the AI. I appreciate that it is a scriptable client-server system, and it is certainly not always perfect, but there are many areas of cross-over and it can provide hours of engagement on the right server with friendly players. How does this end up feeling less repetitive than other shooters?
1. The first dynamic is the scale of the world and interaction of the terrain with combat - flat terrain, hills, cover, night vs day (and the equipment that requires), even weather, has a direct impact on gameplay - how the players act, and how the AI responds. Elite could easily also use these variables on planets, but in fact it's rare to even engage the AI on surfaces. And space is all the same, right? Well yes, perhaps, but CZs for the most part are just team deathmatch free-for-alls. The addition of some objective-based elements is welcome, but underutilised. The objectives should be the main criteria to determine success, not an optional sideshow. There needs to be far more variety too - attack / defend megaships and installations, escort traders across systems and even down to surfaces, board hostile bases with dropships carrying 'cargoes' of troops, and so on.
2. The second is balance of forces and turning the tide ('the tipping point') in combat. In Arma, tactics are very much determined by size, or difference in size, between the two sides. So two evenly matched sides may need to slug it out and find the tipping point - use air power to remove dangerous ground defences and so on. So what about when one side is much larger than the other? What type of forces and weapons? Where are assaults? Where are retreats? Being forced to change your tactics based on a changing situation adds an exciting element of survival. The moments of quiet where it's unclear who has the upper hand, is just as immersive as the gunfire. Again, these things do vaguely exist in Elite, but are again just underutilised. Instead we have 'There's bunch of ships there, go shoot them until the numbers crunch.' Too tough? Boost 7km out or rejoin the instance. Mission done, repeat until bored.
3. Instances and persistence - instances are the double edged sword of Elite. They allow for the vast scale we enjoy, but they also limit the experience - assets are entirely created and destroyed for the instance and restricts persistence. I appreciate persistence must be managed, otherwise the servers, databases etc, could not cope with the performance and data storage required. But because of this, we can't have classic sci-fi scenarios beyond the superficial - where is the chasing bounty hunter? Why can't we lose him or her in an asteroid field to make good our escape? Instead, we have a trigger in the instance for an interdiction - which happens twice, and then stops. For me, it isn't currently engaging or convincing. Repetition is one thing, but the ability to exactly predict the outcome destroys any sense of excitement, threat, or danger. It all becomes routine predictable repetition, which in my opinion is the last thing this type of interaction should be. I'm happy for Frontier to cheat - recreate the AI asset in the next instance, but at least create the appearance of a consistent and persistent world where an escape or a catch feels like an achievement.
There should be so many dynamic variables and elements that it should be hard to determine exactly what the AI will do. Maybe they won't show at all - then even empty space becomes tense, because you never know if they will turn up when you are not expecting it. Take a derelict megaship, ripe for salvaging. Perhaps it will just be you and you will get your goods for free. Perhaps other players will show up. Perhaps AI pirates, security, or even Thargoids will make an appearance. Be ready to fight or flee at a moment's notice. I hope it is clear that we do have all these elements now, and recent patches over the years have made definite improvements to the interactions, but they're just not being pushed to the limits of excitement that they should be
4. Emergent gameplay - to me, this is usually when you are aiming to complete one objective, and find yourself immersed / sidetracked in an completely unexpected situation that arises from the dynamics of the situation. An Arma example would be when you are being ferried to a mission area, and you or other players are ambushed en route, perhaps shot down. The immediate objective then becomes one of survival or rescue for your group. In Elite, this would require events to unfold around you and force your hand - currently too much gameplay in Elite is 'opt-in', with exceptions such as interdictions or hyperdictions.
5. All the above needs a good variety of AI to back it up. I want to chase, or be chased, down to surfaces and run through canyons, lose them in those asteroid fields I mentioned earlier, use stealth to circumvent overwhelming force that I cannot fight on my own, and so on. Thargoids aside, we haven't seen any significant leaps in AI capability for a long time.
I hope that I have at least managed to convey the gist of what I would love the core of the game to become in 2020 and beyond. Ever increasing engagement and unpredictability - after all, isn't that what makes Elite, 'Dangerous?'...
o7