A Game At Odds with Itself and Why

[Pluvialis]

Off topic, but do you guys remember Jane's Combat Simulations!?! I LOVED Longbow Gold... But yeah, the era of book length manuals on how the game worked.

I did used to play some of the Jane's games - especially the ones where you could set up your own scenarios... I have one in mind but the name escapes me. Meh, never mind.

But yes, I loved games with those big fat manuals, that actually made you feel as though you were studying and learning.

But:

Plus the console gamer dilemma that didn't grow up with PCs from the 80s; didn't play PC games through the 80-90s where many games were much too complicated for the average console gamer.

I do wish we could get over this dismissive attitude towards console gamers.

Their chosen platforms have physical limits to how complex a game can be. They lack keyboards and HOTAS controllers and the like, and development convention says that console games tend to be more action-orientated. But it's not that 'the average console gamer' is unable to grasp the lofty esoteric entertainments available on 'proper' computers (which they may also own, incidentally). They choose one primary platform over another.

Besides, I've seen Steam. Let's face it: most PC games are facile as hell. That there are a few that're more complex is the advantage of the platform; but it has its disadvantages too. And in the end, as a kid I started out playing Up-Down-Left-Right-Fire Kempston joystick arcade nonsense on my ZX Spectrum. ED might not be that far from that, but that says nothing about the capability of the player, whatever machine they're running it on.

 

[Jex =TE=]

The game simulates the 'job' of a journeyman space pilot. Jobs generally do involve the same tasks over and over again, each day, for years. I find E: D at present actually has comparable content to its immediate predecessors (minus FFE's hand-crafted storyline). It could do with more complexity in using some ships systems, more 'character' to factions and a deeper simulation driving AI behaviour - and that seems to be coming (just not to the extent that the DDF discussions hinted at - e.g. fuel quality management anyone?).
.
However, expecting story-driven missions or huge player impact (hint: you are a lone individual in a galaxy of trillions - you *AREN'T* important! Deal with it! ) on the galaxy, doesn't seem reasonable to me. Certain other space games might be far better in this regard with a much smaller universe and properly persistent AIs (if they can pull that off).
.
Anyway, It's Elite. One man. One ship. One galaxy.

I think it's about time we dispelled the myth that it's one man, one galaxy and you are meaningless.

Let's take a RL example of one man, one galaxy and look at our own planet earth. Nobody ever heard of Billy the Kid? Spartacus? Han Solo? There are going to be people that get known in the universe for doing things.

I've probably shot down a thousand enemy spaceships. You would think that's quite a feat and that would certainly get me in some history books. In ED, that's nothing. Some people have shot down 10,000 ships in one system and we're saying they're completely unknown? That the name of their ship doesn't strike terror into the hearts of adversaries? To say that a player can't make a dent on the universe is ignoring reality.

So Mr Boooby in his stock sidewinder and novice rank is going to go up against Sporak the Mighty who's Elite rank and has killed 20,000 people? No, what he should be doing is saying over the chat system, "Arrgghh it's Sporak the Mighty....I'm off!!!"

 

[Cynaqq]

The premise of the OP is flawed in such a big way, actually we don't really have to talk about it's deeper merits.

This is not about the vision of Mr. Braben or the colour of his glasses he uses to look at what his team creates. This is about how players feel about it when they are playing. This feeling can't be expected to be the same for everyone.

The flaw comes from the assumption that DB needs glasses to look at how his game is doing and make interpretations that depend on personal feelings. This is never the case if you are running your own company. You don't have time for fantasies or imagination when you are dealing with actual production and finances. You have actual work to do.

Just like game developers, including all the technical staff from concept artists to lead programmers, FD has people working on financial transactions and marketing. DB pays people to work for him and provide him with actual relevant information so he can make informed decisions. It's delusional to think otherwise. No rose tinted glass can shield your eyes from numbers that show loss instead of profit. If revenue stops coming in, you can bet your ass things will change. For better or worse, drastic changes will occur when that happens but since things look pretty stable and they seem to be taking their time with major updates, I don't think there is a need for alarm just yet. Apparently, no matter how we feel about it, FD is making money instead of loosing it, or at least they are within their risk budget. If they were not, we would be seeing much more drastic moves from marketing, and the developers would be rushing 'lifesaver' changes to the game like 'player owned stations' etc. Things you can find mentioned a million times. An end game would be implemented in about two months complete with raids. Yes, big companies do make mistakes and can flop big projects but that's usually the case with the classical 'gambling' approach you usually find with the 'fund first, hope to profit later' model of producing things. FD's business model leaves a lot of room for corrections along the way.

 

[kilvenny]

My lad plays Planetside 2 on the PS4; there is no AI just real players fighting over territory. When you start the game you join one of the warring groups and players can create there own squads within that group. Whenever he plays he's always either helping to defend or attack a territory/installation either as an individual or with his squad. The game works because there is a constant ebb and flow of control of territory and installations. Play for an hour and you will have lost or gained several territories. Part of the reason it works is because life is cheap and the map is small. However there is a real sense that you are defending or developing your territory and because the transitions of ownership are relatively quick there is a real feeling that a few minutes of your time has a real impact and that you are helping your side, squad or your mates. In reality nothing much changes other than the system map changes colour, but sitting watching I can see that whilst levelling up is important, its that ability to look back at the end of the game session and reflect I helped achieve that.

For me this is the thing ED most lacks once you have the credits and the ships.

Player factions, wings and powerplay actually attempt to provide that platform, but the events that show and trigger the stages of regime change are not overt and don't happen in a timely fashion. Worse the cost of ship loss generally makes it difficult to sustain conflict.

I would be exploring having faction missions where you have to fly a faction provided ship (no rebuy cost). Spawn the conflict zones and space signals based on the regime status and make the missions reflect that. If I am with a player faction then I see missions only for that faction and they should support the activities of the current regime status. Instead of conflict zones spawning for a period of time, make them dependent on other variables eg if one side has 20 more kills than the other team then victory is achieved and that conflict zone disappears. Spawn new conflict zones until a criteria is reached that determines whether the system has been defended or not. Make it clear which faction has control of the system. When I hyperspace to a system show me the controlling faction and the system status and make it obvious on the nav map by the things that are visible. Let the systems flip status when a set of criteria are reached rather than have a weekly evaluation. I could go on..................

 

[KING5TON]

Oh look a reasonable, well written post that had negative aspects where certain posters tell them to go play something else.
Funny as there was a thread recently that people (including at least one mod) said this type of thing didn't happen and here I am seeing it the very next thread I read after that one got locked by a mod for going off topic (funny how that doesn't happen to the positive threads).
It took till page 3 for someone to tell the OP to play something else so some restraint was shown :|

Back on topic, I agree with what you're saying OP, I've read that and other articles and think "Are we playing the same game? Is there a game that the devs play that's got all these things in he's talking about that we don't have access to? Otherwise he's in cloud oo land"

 

[Jex =TE=]

Claiming to be able to shoot down an argument if you were so inclined and actually shooting down the argument are two very different things. You might as well have not posted at all for all the impact your expression of disagreement had. You're perfectly welcome to point out any perceived flaws in the OP's reasoning here and apparently able if you're coming back to post again. So go on then, what's stopping you?

No the OP is wrong and he has the argument to prove it except he's not going to tell us what it is lol

 

[Jypson]

The main issue with ED right now is that everything is meaningless. There's no connections to NPC's, to missions, to PP, to anything. This is what you get when you over rely on RNG and PG.

It boils down to this - "Computer, generate me a random mission and put it on the BB for me"

"Computer, generate random space station from stock pile of 5 and place in random .jpeg of planets in next system"

"Computer, place infinite spawning AI for me to shoot at."

It's a sterile and dead universe and it feels like one.

In my eyes you nailed it with this one. Elite: Dangerous is a phenomenal example of procedurally generated content. Does it all make sense? Is all of it fun? Absolutely not, but it is an impressive feat. Now what we need is someone to make a game out of it all!

I think it's about time we dispelled the myth that it's one man, one galaxy and you are meaningless.

Let's take a RL example of one man, one galaxy and look at our own planet earth. Nobody ever heard of Billy the Kid? Spartacus? Han Solo? There are going to be people that get known in the universe for doing things.

I've probably shot down a thousand enemy spaceships. You would think that's quite a feat and that would certainly get me in some history books. In ED, that's nothing. Some people have shot down 10,000 ships in one system and we're saying they're completely unknown? That the name of their ship doesn't strike terror into the hearts of adversaries? To say that a player can't make a dent on the universe is ignoring reality.

So Mr Boooby in his stock sidewinder and novice rank is going to go up against Sporak the Mighty who's Elite rank and has killed 20,000 people? No, what he should be doing is saying over the chat system, "Arrgghh it's Sporak the Mighty....I'm off!!!"

I feel it's the little things like this that would make a huge difference. I don't need to be catered to in game, but you could at least acknowledge my existence once in a while. A CMDR worth a couple billion credits with dozens of ships parked in their station, and the local station security jockies still scan and ram him before landing.
- "Welcome respected ally."
- I want your CAP Squadron Leader on my landing pad, now!

It's a bug, I know. However, I think the point still stands. It would be nice if the game treated you differently in a system where you have amassed wealth and influence, or kill-warrants and infamy.

Just this afternoon, I went to do some fund raising taking base assault missions. I'm considered 'Hostile' at that base, and I request permission for landing.
- "Your presence will not be tolerated, enemy! Docking request granted."
- Ok

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I feel it's the little things like this that would make a huge difference. I don't need to be catered to in game, but you could at least acknowledge my existence once in a while. A CMDR worth a couple billion credits with dozens of ships parked in their station, and the local station security jockies still scan and ram him before landing.
- "Welcome respected ally."
- I want your CAP Squadron Leader on my landing pad, now!

It's a bug, I know. However, I think the point still stands. It would be nice if the game treated you differently in a system where you have amassed wealth and influence, or kill-warrants and infamy.

Just this afternoon, I went to do some fund raising taking base assault missions. I'm considered 'Hostile' at that base, and I request permission for landing.
- "Your presence will not be tolerated, enemy! Docking request granted."
- Ok

It would be funny if you botched up landing at a station some time, and the comms would go: Welcome back Captain Butterfingers. Please try not to land on our control tower this time

 

[matemaster]

Taking time with major updates when competition is "knocking on the door" is not good strategy.
I don't consider nomansky to be real competitor for ED but some players playing ED will play it for sure. Star citizen can be real threat for ED for sure

IMO
2.1 will be the most important update since release. Many players are disappointed by lack of content introduced with planetary landings hoping that 2.1 will save the day if not ED will experience most significant player decline

Nevertheless
ED is not like standard MMO's. It doesnt have player-driven economy it doesnt have group-content only accessible for large groups of players. Its perfectly playable solo or in wing of 2-3 players. So even after many players decline the game won't spiral down to unavoidable doom like standard MMO's

 

[Jypson]

It would be funny if you botched up landing at a station some time, and the comms would go: Welcome back Captain Butterfingers. Please try not to land on our control tower this time

Me, botch a landing?! Never!
(looks around nervously)
Pst! You spying on me?

 

[Ian Skippy]

Taking time with major updates when competition is "knocking on the door" is not good strategy.
I don't consider nomansky to be real competitor for ED but some players playing ED will play it for sure. Star citizen can be real threat for ED for sure

IMO
2.1 will be the most important update since release. Many players are disappointed by lack of content introduced with planetary landings hoping that 2.1 will save the day if not ED will experience most significant player decline

Nevertheless
ED is not like standard MMO's. It doesnt have player-driven economy it doesnt have group-content only accessible for large groups of players. Its perfectly playable solo or in wing of 2-3 players. So even after many players decline the game won't spiral down to unavoidable doom like standard MMO's

I dont think any change in patching ideas matters for NMS. SC has been confirmed to be released in 2017 at the earliest, not really 'knocking on the door'.

 

[geoffrey.hdt]

People are losing interest, and worse, beginning to question whether this is even the game they were promised, or ever will be.

So true...
...so sad...

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Me, botch a landing?! Never!
(looks around nervously)
Pst! You spying on me?

No worries, they call me Captain Kangeroo in Distant Worlds because of my signature landings.

I'm not spying on you, I have people employed for just that

So true...
...so sad...

So what

Spoiler

Sorry couldn't resist.

 

[Bostlabs]

Sadly the claimed exodus of the people never extend as far as the forum.

Gosh darn it! I just gave you rep.
+1 my friend. LOL!

 

[znôrt]

Elite: Dangerous is a phenomenal example of procedurally generated content.

define phenomenal. all the outstanding features of the game (cockpits, ambientation and flight) are handcrafted. procedural generation in elite is not that sophisticated. galaxy? choose a random number of bodies from a small set of types within a few constraints, then choose a random number of stations and factions. ai, npc and poi spawn, mission generation? same thing but so dumb not even worth to mention, you would hardly call that procedural generation but more randomized scripting. horizons comes pretty close, though, which is a good sign, but given the performance hit i have concerns it will scale well with equipment foreseeable in the next couple of decades.

that said, procedural generation is just a technique. useful in certain situations. in games the player shouldn't even know about it, it's just the clever trick that makes magic possible. it shouldn't be the focus of anything, like in "hey, look, new game, it's procedural!!". that's pure consumer nonsense.

this was phenomenal, already back in the 80's:

Spoiler

 

[Finbar]

This is what worried me the most about his interview too. The firm belief that there, as the game stands, is a lot to do, means that the current repetitive mechanics are in fact not place holders, but the final product. This concerns me greatly... however, I have purchased Horizons and will give Frontier the benefit of the doubt for the time being

On the other hand a PC Gamer interview is not going to be where a CEO reveals any points where he thinks his product needs improvement. In effect as existing players we have been told what he thinks needs adding over the next year with the planned developments to crafting etc. Where you and I might share a concern is whether these changes will do enough to improve existing mechanics as against introducing further new features that themselves then need more filling out to be satisfying.

 

[Pluvialis]

The premise of the OP is flawed in such a big way, actually we don't really have to talk about it's deeper merits.

This is not about the vision of Mr. Braben or the colour of his glasses he uses to look at what his team creates. This is about how players feel about it when they are playing. This feeling can't be expected to be the same for everyone.

Indeed - but that is the very premise of the OP: the premise you begin by saying is flawed.

Again, this seems to be a case of "I don't agree so I'm going to try to negate the discussion".

 

[Jypson]

define phenomenal. all the outstanding features of the game (cockpits, ambientation and flight) are handcrafted. procedural generation in elite is not that sophisticated. galaxy? choose a random number of bodies from a small set of types within a few constraints, then choose a random number of stations and factions. ai, npc and poi spawn, mission generation? same thing but so dumb not even worth to mention, you would hardly call that procedural generation but more randomized scripting. horizons comes pretty close, though, which is a good sign, but given the performance hit i have concerns it will scale well with equipment foreseeable in the next couple of decades.

that said, procedural generation is just a technique. useful in certain situations. in games the player shouldn't even know about it, it's just the clever trick that makes magic possible. it shouldn't be the focus of anything, like in "hey, look, new game, it's procedural!!". that's pure consumer nonsense.

this was phenomenal, already back in the 80's:

Spoiler

View attachment 104660

Would "phenomenal to me" make you happy? If so, I shall apply (to me) to all further opinions posted!

 

[Jex =TE=]

I think procedurally generated universes is the way MMOs will go in the future as content creators relies they can never produce content quickly enough to keep players occupied more importantly paying subscriptions or merchandise/digital items so they must build systems that create this content procedurally, with tools to enable them to inject contents and stories into the system and have the universe flow around those story and content naturally.

I'm not so sure myself. If you want bland, mindless games then maybe. I'd prefer they made games that required you to learn things and train and workout and use those as barriers to slow down gameplay rather than giving an infinite universe with asinine shallow game play. I realise they will probably opt for the latter....

 

[znôrt]

Would "phenomenal to me" make you happy? If so, I shall apply (to me) to all further opinions posted!

oh, i see. procedurally generated happiness!