A Message To Elite Dangerous Developers

[Marc_Hicks]

TLDR - I stopped at "I desperately want to like this game". If you don't like it, don't play it. Don't ask the Devs to tailor the game to suit your needs. They don't owe you anything, and you're one person out of thousands who DO enjoy the game.

I used to enjoy exploring in this game until I came to the conclusion that there's very little out there to find. So guess what, I chose something else to do. Bounty hunting, passenger missions, and playing other games. Because FDev don't owe me anything, and I choose my entertainment to suit my wants and needs.


Sorry but the whole " I want to like the game so please change it" is <ahem> ridiculous.

I disagree. The posts I hate are the, I hate the game & am going to rage quit for the following reasons.

Instead, whether you agree with all his point or not, Hat Man has offered up a lot of constructive feedback. I *love* this game, but can definitely see ways in which it can be improved......as can the Devs, given the time they plan to devote to improving core gameplay.

 

[Marc_Hicks]

Keep in mind that Elite is a game in which you​ fly a spaceship.

I'd be OK with making Exploration an activity greatly enhanced by Multicrew.....and then allow players to hire crew members. This would, of course, have to be a part of an overall improvement to the depth of the Exploration Mechanics......as Sandro has already said they are looking at.

 

[khaos526]

Missions
Think of each faction of a station like a franchise of a major pub chain (or fast food chain). Let's just say Wetherspoon's pubs. You can build up quite a reputation with your local Wetherspoon's pub (Say it's called the "Hairball and Mutton"), the bar staff knows you as you may be a frequent customer, the people in there know you by name, etc. Because you're a frequent patron, you might get free drinks, or discounted food by the staff.

Now say you take the tube across town to the other side and hit another Wetherspoon's pub called say "Cockle me Winkles, Eels and Ales" and you go in. They are the same chain of your local pub, but the staff there has no idea who you are. You don't have a reputation with them, they won't be giving you discounts, the locals won't be greeting you and your experience will have to then start from scratch.

This is kind of how missions here work from station to station. Same parent company, but each has their own franchise and rules and opening and closings per say.

Now with this you mentioned the "Why show me missions I can't obtain"? Well think of that as their advertising or loyalty program. Buy 5 pints and get the 6th for free type of thing. The individual factions at stations are showing you the great stuff you could have if you were loyal to them. They are trying to entice you to become a member of their pub (faction)...

 

[Stealthie]

Missions
Think of each faction of a station like a franchise of a major pub chain (or fast food chain). Let's just say Wetherspoon's pubs. You can build up quite a reputation with your local Wetherspoon's pub (Say it's called the "Hairball and Mutton"), the bar staff knows you as you may be a frequent customer, the people in there know you by name, etc. Because you're a frequent patron, you might get free drinks, or discounted food by the staff.

Now say you take the tube across town to the other side and hit another Wetherspoon's pub called say "Cockle me Winkles, Eels and Ales" and you go in. They are the same chain of your local pub, but the staff there has no idea who you are. You don't have a reputation with them, they won't be giving you discounts, the locals won't be greeting you and your experience will have to then start from scratch.

This is kind of how missions here work from station to station. Same parent company, but each has their own franchise and rules and opening and closings per say.

Now with this you mentioned the "Why show me missions I can't obtain"? Well think of that as their advertising or loyalty program. Buy 5 pints and get the 6th for free type of thing. The individual factions at stations are showing you the great stuff you could have if you were loyal to them. They are trying to entice you to become a member of their pub (faction)...

TBH, I think simpler explanation is that the mission board shows you missions you can't accept in order to provide you with an opportunity to attempt to meet the required criteria and take the mission.

Often all that's required is to store your SRV or passenger cabins and fit some cargo racks, or vice versa.

 

[VR Jay Le Chardon]

Haven't had time to read the OP yet, but plus one repped it immediately as a thank you for taking the time to make the effort to put that article in the forum for us to discuss.

 

[Stealthie]

Haven't had time to read the OP yet, but plus one repped it immediately as a thank you for taking the time to make the effort to put that article in the forum for us to discuss.

I made the effort to wade through a lot of it and, TBH, it strikes me as being a bit like listening to somebody who's bought a Ferrari instead of a Range Rover and is going on - at great length - about all the reasons why the Ferrari fails to deliver what they might have expected from a Range Rover.

There are a couple of valid points, all of which have been raised before, buried within a mountain of misplaced expectations but that's about it.

 

[Assimilator1]

Wow! Re the op, sorry, don't have time to read all that!

 

[nexxo]

The problem with wall-of-text feedback is that it gets lost in the detail. The problems with ED are a bit more fundamental than that: game design principles at work.

ED consists of four games: combat, trade/missions, mining/crafting, exploration.

Each game consists of a challenge, game rules and reward structure.

Combat challenge: Shoot them before they shoot you. Basic rule: The more skilled the pilot and better the weapons, the tougher the fight. Reward structure: pilot ranking, level-up in offensive weapons, ship (through credits gained from bounties, cargo).

Trade/mission challenge: Make loadsa money. Basic rule: The greater the profit, the greater the challenge/risks. Reward structure: profit, which translates into a level up in defensive weapons, ship, cargo capacity, access through agents to more profitable trade/missions (with greater challenge/risks).

Mining/crafting challenge: Find/craft good stuff. Basic rule: The more valuable the stuff, the harder it is to find/craft. Reward structure: obtaining good stuff, which translates into a level up in weapons, ship, cargo capacity, crafting tools, access to more profitable resource extraction sites (through being better armed and earning tips on locations from agents to which the materials are sold/supplied).

Exploration challenge: Go and travel as far as you can. Basic rule: The further you go, the harder it gets. Reward structure: pilot ranking, distance travelled, systems discovered (which translates into credits which translate into level up in weapons, ship, exploration tools, more profitable exploration missions from agents, and of course the important micro-reward of beautiful vistas seen.

Each game is set in the same universe (environment + narrative), so their game challenges, rules and rewards have to interact logically and fit with the narrative and environment.

Note what wrote in bold: these elements are missing from the game, hence the reward structure in ED is somewhat borked. There are more offensive than defensive weapons; there are almost no specialist mining/crafting or exploration tools. This makes certain activities like combat and trade more profitable and rewarding than mining/crafting and exploration, which creates a lopsided economy* and universe. But also there is a lack of logic in the game rules. There are artificial limits that are not consistent with the basic game rule. There are game rules that are inconsistent with or conflict with other game rules (e.g. how you fuel and maintain the ship vs how you fuel and maintain the SRV).

FD seems to work these things out by committee, and that results in inconsistency and lack of coherence. They need a games designer --which is not the same as a games coder, or a games art designer-- but someone who specialises in game rules and logic.

* This is not a big problem now, but will become one as ED fleshes out its background simulation.

 

[Thatchinho]

Thank's, I'll check it out. I don't usually go for older games (muh resolution), but since good space sims aren't very common, I tend to be more willing where they are concerned. Also, I've noticed some people drawing comparisons to the older games this one is based on. This is good, it's good to look at precedent, and see what worked best and what didn't.

I do hope they don't do subscription... I mean... I'd probably pay it, now that I'm in, but it's one of the reasons why I avoided Eve for so long. I can see they need funding for continued development, as it's probably why they charged for horizons like it's separate. If they kept doing that, I know I'd keep getting the DLC. It's one of the few games that does DLC right. Personally however, I think the best thing this game could do is try to appeal to the largest audience possible. If this game had AAA levels of players populating it, they certainly wouldn't lack funding for a while. Now... that being said, there's a good way to go about it and a bad way to go about it. The bad way is to become an unfocused mess because of conflicts between different kinds of content, or the lack of content in certain areas. The good way is to come up with balanced content that provides players of most schools of thought options to tailor their experience. The space sim players get their space sim, the PVP crowd get their MMO, the economic tycoons get their economy sim, role players etc. This would not only benefit people from a specific camp, but those who like many types of games, and could take advantage of all of it.

If you feel that it's just not the same as the older games (which were probably dedicated space sims), that's a sentiment I can fully understand. Sometimes I feel that way about Halo. Having a prior context builds a certain expectation, one that gets disappointed when you realize the truth that it isn't exactly what the series used to be. Whenever this happens in gaming, I can never really tell which is better, take the beloved series in a fresh direction, or start anew.

Elite in it's context was one of the best games ever made.

Elite 2&3 were awful in comparison IMO. The flight mechanics moved to a much more Newtonian model, which largely ruined that side of things. The cost of the extra realism was drastically reduced playability. Also with that kind of flight model, an autopilot is pretty much a basic necessity. The travel models used inf 2&3 don't translate into multiplayer either, as the in-game times involved are huge. A hypersleep concept was used to make those huge times pass very quickly from the players perspective but in game hours, days and even weeks would have passed.

E: D has basically gone back to Elite and expanded on that basic model. That has been a very good thing. Supercruise has dealt with the issue of in-system travel times exceedingly well and actually added a layer of play which wasn't there in previous games. Non-FTL flight is fun and playable again (particularly for combat). A huge amount of depth and other layers have been added.

It's the best of the series by far. Sure, it's not perfect, but equally it needs to be borne in mind that it's only partly into it's development.

The one area I can think of where it's dropped behind the originals is that in Elite the system security levels really meant something. Going to an anarchy system was very very risky and going to a high security system was very safe, and crucially the level of potential reward was in line with the level of risk. E: D doesn't really have that, and suffers a bit as a result of IMHO.

Sure, atmospheric planet landings were there in 2 &3 and are missing from E: D, but they're in the pipeline and personally I'd rather FD took their time and did a good job on those. A year or two of real world computer power increases will also help make that better when it comes.

 

[yodajedifishmaster]

The problem with wall-of-text feedback is that it gets lost in the detail. The problems with ED are a bit more fundamental than that: game design principles at work.

ED consists of four games: combat, trade/missions, mining/crafting, exploration.

Each game consists of a challenge, game rules and reward structure.

Combat challenge: Shoot them before they shoot you. Basic rule: The more skilled the pilot and better the weapons, the tougher the fight. Reward structure: pilot ranking, level-up in offensive weapons, ship (through credits gained from bounties, cargo).

Trade/mission challenge: Make loadsa money. Basic rule: The greater the profit, the greater the challenge/risks. Reward structure: profit, which translates into a level up in defensive weapons, ship, cargo capacity, access through agents to more profitable trade/missions (with greater challenge/risks).

Mining/crafting challenge: Find/craft good stuff. Basic rule: The more valuable the stuff, the harder it is to find/craft. Reward structure: obtaining good stuff, which translates into a level up in weapons, ship, cargo capacity, crafting tools, access to more profitable resource extraction sites (through being better armed and earning tips on locations from agents to which the materials are sold/supplied).

Exploration challenge: Go and travel as far as you can. Basic rule: The further you go, the harder it gets. Reward structure: pilot ranking, distance travelled, systems discovered (which translates into credits which translate into level up in weapons, ship, exploration tools, more profitable exploration missions from agents, and of course the important micro-reward of beautiful vistas seen.

Each game is set in the same universe (environment + narrative), so their game challenges, rules and rewards have to interact logically and fit with the narrative and environment.

Note what wrote in bold: these elements are missing from the game, hence the reward structure in ED is somewhat borked. There are more offensive than defensive weapons; there are almost no specialist mining/crafting or exploration tools. This makes certain activities like combat and trade more profitable and rewarding than mining/crafting and exploration, which creates a lopsided economy* and universe. But also there is a lack of logic in the game rules. There are artificial limits that are not consistent with the basic game rule. There are game rules that are inconsistent with or conflict with other game rules (e.g. how you fuel and maintain the ship vs how you fuel and maintain the SRV).

FD seems to work these things out by committee, and that results in inconsistency and lack of coherence. They need a games designer --which is not the same as a games coder, or a games art designer-- but someone who specialises in game rules and logic.

* This is not a big problem now, but will become one as ED fleshes out its background simulation.

its interesting that collector and prospector limpets are not mining tools, i assume the almost no means you class mining laser as such. i dont see any need for any more exploration tools than i already have - a modded detail scanner to scan faster, and ADS to scan the system so i can see targets to detail scan on the sys map. I can land on planets with the srv, get mats for AFMU or srv refuel/repair and FSD injection. today i found a bunch of occupied escape pods (make it sounds like someone invaded them lol) on a planet thousands of ly away from the bubble. I'm not sure I buy any logic for that - it just seems like random generation. what I would buy for random finds is things like archaic ships - say an old cobra mk ii wreck, or the remains of a krait, or a wrecked gal navy ship from the old thargoid war or something.

we have exploration missions - mostly take rich tourist to see X, rather than take scientific expedition to X and help them set up an outpost to study system. i don't see what exploration 'agents' would do, other than this - if a system has not been scanned for a while, particularly inside the bubble, they will forward request from a body which monitors stellar states, and missions generated for scanning already scanned systems that could pose a danger to inhabited systems if they go nova. so a detail scanning job on all stars in the target system with a slight mission payout on top of any exploration data you can sell. its not like we get mysterious caravans from another human colony and get hired to find a sea route to get the expensive spices faster and cheaper. we have no east indies discovery voyages someone can sponsor. humanity has the bubble, some asteroids and colonia and thats it.

more profitable mining resources would not come from tips from agents. said agents would have already started to exploit them. the ONLY more profitable will be uninhabited pristine systems. and the way to find those is to go look inside and just outside the bubble. since i think mining without limpets is essentially less efficient, it is not worth going far out of the bubble just to find pristine - besides, plenty of uninhabited systems in the bubble with pristine reserves and metallic rings if you go look. res are just there as pirate honey pots for bounty hunting. you want to mine seriously? go to a prisitne reserves system with both icy, and metallic rings in it. make sure you enter the rings and hang around - the game will generate npcs, and often these will be pirates. once they scan you and leave because you only have limpets not cargo, you let them jump out and can mine in peace until full hold. jump back to the place you determined has best prices, sell, restock limpets, rinse and repeat.

 

[Thatchinho]

The problem with wall-of-text feedback is that it gets lost in the detail. The problems with ED are a bit more fundamental than that: game design principles at work.

ED consists of four games: combat, trade/missions, mining/crafting, exploration.

Each game consists of a challenge, game rules and reward structure.

Combat challenge: Shoot them before they shoot you. Basic rule: The more skilled the pilot and better the weapons, the tougher the fight. Reward structure: pilot ranking, level-up in offensive weapons, ship (through credits gained from bounties, cargo).

Trade/mission challenge: Make loadsa money. Basic rule: The greater the profit, the greater the challenge/risks. Reward structure: profit, which translates into a level up in defensive weapons, ship, cargo capacity, access through agents to more profitable trade/missions (with greater challenge/risks).

Mining/crafting challenge: Find/craft good stuff. Basic rule: The more valuable the stuff, the harder it is to find/craft. Reward structure: obtaining good stuff, which translates into a level up in weapons, ship, cargo capacity, crafting tools, access to more profitable resource extraction sites (through being better armed and earning tips on locations from agents to which the materials are sold/supplied).

Exploration challenge: Go and travel as far as you can. Basic rule: The further you go, the harder it gets. Reward structure: pilot ranking, distance travelled, systems discovered (which translates into credits which translate into level up in weapons, ship, exploration tools, more profitable exploration missions from agents, and of course the important micro-reward of beautiful vistas seen.

Each game is set in the same universe (environment + narrative), so their game challenges, rules and rewards have to interact logically and fit with the narrative and environment.

Note what wrote in bold: these elements are missing from the game, hence the reward structure in ED is somewhat borked. There are more offensive than defensive weapons; there are almost no specialist mining/crafting or exploration tools. This makes certain activities like combat and trade more profitable and rewarding than mining/crafting and exploration, which creates a lopsided economy* and universe. But also there is a lack of logic in the game rules. There are artificial limits that are not consistent with the basic game rule. There are game rules that are inconsistent with or conflict with other game rules (e.g. how you fuel and maintain the ship vs how you fuel and maintain the SRV).

FD seems to work these things out by committee, and that results in inconsistency and lack of coherence. They need a games designer --which is not the same as a games coder, or a games art designer-- but someone who specialises in game rules and logic.

* This is not a big problem now, but will become one as ED fleshes out its background simulation.

A thought provoking post, +1.

I have to disagree on a fundamental point though. E: D consists of one game - being an independent pilot/cmdr in the 3300's.

The 4 areas you've listed are just some things that you can do (or things that might happen to you).

Treating it as 4 games and looking at it like that, rather than looking at what the game actually is, will mean missing out on a lot of things, and unrealistic expectations about those 4 aspects.

Just to illustrate what I mean, how many times have you seen someone go down the route of one of the 4 you've listed, decide that that is the game and then kick up a massive fuss because what they see as the game isn't getting enough development, and doesn't work exactly the way they think a dedicated game of that nature should work?

 

[Thatchinho]

My goal is the same, exploration, and maybe some passenger missions. But then those aspects are some of what I criticize the most. I'll be trying out some different ways of playing this weekend to see if I can have fun doing that anyway.

I think this kind of illustrates the core of the whole matter.

If your goal is what you say it is then why aren't you just doing it?

From everything read you seem to think that there are some massive barriers to you doing it or that you need to be told or given permission to do it. There aren't, and you don't, respectively.

To illustrate what I mean, I'm aware of someone recently getting Elite in exploration using nothing but a sidewinder, and doing no missions whatsoever, after starting from scratch in an alt account.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Elite in it's context was one of the best games ever made.

Elite 2&3 were awful in comparison. The flight mechanics moved to a much more Newtonian model, which largely ruined that side of things. The cost of the extra realism was drastically reduced playability. Also with that kind of flight model, an autopilot is pretty much a basic necessity. The travel models used inf 2&3 don't translate into multiplayer either, as the in-game times involved are huge. A hypersleep concept was used to make those huge times pass very quickly from the players perspective but in game hours, days and even weeks would have passed.

E: D has basically gone back to Elite and expanded on that basic model. That has been a very good thing. Supercruise has dealt with the issue of in-system travel times exceedingly well and actually added a layer of play which wasn't there in previous games. Non-FTL flight is fun and playable again (particularly for combat). A huge amount of depth and other layers have been added.

It's the best of the series by far. Sure, it's not perfect, but equally it needs to be borne in mind that it's only partly into it's development.

The one area I can think of where it's dropped behind the originals is that in Elite the system security levels really meant something. Going to an anarchy system was very very risky and going to a high security system was very safe, and crucially the level of potential reward was in line with the level of risk. E: D doesn't really have that, and suffers a bit as a result of IMHO.

Sure, atmospheric planet landings were there in 2 &3 and are missing from E: D, but they're in the pipeline and personally I'd rather FD took their time and did a good job on those. A year or two of real world computer power increases will also help make that better when it comes.

I personally enjoyed Elite 2 and 3 a lot, and I very much liked the full Newtonian flight model. Never even touched the autopilot, primarily because it was an idiot, and I could shave days off my trip insystem by using a brachistochrone trajectory: full thrust towards my destination, flipping over at the midway point, and full thrust away until I come to a full stop. Sure, it took a bit of math to pull off, but that's half the fun IMO.

I do have to agree that I'm willing to wait for Frontier to do justice to atmospheric planets, especially ELWs. This game remains brilliant, and I look forward to the day when I can do something I could never do in an Elite game: finally get up out of my command seat, and bring the rest of my body with me.

 

[Red Anders]

This is one of the things that bothers me with the original post (and subsequent displays of lack-of-knowledge). The poster should have first come on and said, "What am I doing wrong?" instead of saying "This is everything that Elite: Dangerous does wrong!"

That said, I've probably done the same thing at least once, so I don't want to shame the OP away from the game and the forum, but it would be nice to see him back away from rewriting the game his way until he understands the game as it currently is, a lesson I myself have had to learn (and continue to learn).

Fair comment that and yeah, a lot of us have done something similar.

There's a post from me on here somewhere from ages ago commenting on what a pain in the butt it is to plot your course, undock and discover your jump point is obscured and then have to unselect it and select either something that isn't obscured, or nothing, just so you can get into supercruise to fly round the obstacle, before re-selecting your jump out point.

Obviously someone helpfully mentioned that there are actually two separate key bindings available, one for 'engage SC' and one for 'jump'. I'd been playing for maybe a year at that point.

In my defence, I'm as sure as I can be that they're both mapped to the same key by default which is exactly why it had never occurred to me - I'd never even looked for separate bindings because nothing prompted that they existed. The point though is that often when you look at something in the game and think 'this is really dumb' the problem is between chair and keyboard. Not all the time obviously, some stuff is in fact really dumb, but enough times that now I will always ask whether I'm missing something first.

 

[Thatchinho]

I personally enjoyed Elite 2 and 3 a lot, and I very much liked the full Newtonian flight model. Never even touched the autopilot, primarily because it was an idiot, and I could shave days off my trip insystem by using a brachistochrone trajectory: full thrust towards my destination, flipping over at the midway point, and full thrust away until I come to a full stop. Sure, it took a bit of math to pull off, but that's half the fun IMO.

I do have to agree that I'm willing to wait for Frontier to do justice to atmospheric planets, especially ELWs. This game remains brilliant, and I look forward to the day when I can do something I could never do in an Elite game: finally get up out of my command seat, and bring the rest of my body with me.

Ah, fair enough, that's interesting! How did you feel 2&3 compared to 1?

(And my previous post is duly edited to include an 'IMO' )

 

[Blackcompany]

Well, that is an utter lie. I do very little combat, but my time hyperjumping is tiny compared to other stuff. I take it that when you don't do combat you just do hyperjumps from one system to another as you have nothing else to do. Sorry but your lies are so transparent I suggest you don't say them at all.

Projection is real. Claiming others are lying when you yourself blatantly are is a very common practice amongst liars. Case in point, yourself.

Flying in this game, outside of combat, consists of three things:

-Jumping. Which isnt flying, its a loading screen.

-Supercruise: Flying in a straight line. So exciting that its SUPPORTERS actually recommend doing or watching something else on another screen while doing it. Some great game mechanic there.

-Docking: The only real, non combat flight in the game. Lasts about 90 seconds at a stretch. How very exiciting.

So, demonstrably, I'm not the liar. Which means, of course, that you are. But we already knew that, now didnt we.

 

[Blackcompany]

You are still driving. When you drive a car it is about as monotonous.

Not true.

I play Forza Horzion and Eurotruck Sim 2. Both feature travel that is far, far more compelling and involved than anything Elite offers. Elite has managed to take flying your own space ship and turn it into something every bit as boring as being a commercial airline pilot. You're along in case they script an avoidable interdiction for you by a psychic pirate who magically spawns on your six after being told by the game engine, with zero counter play, where you were. Also, to dock - which is about the most involved non-combat flight of the game. Which is no surprise, since its the ONLY involved non combat flight of the game.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I personally enjoyed Elite 2 and 3 a lot, and I very much liked the full Newtonian flight model. Never even touched the autopilot, primarily because it was an idiot, and I could shave days off my trip insystem by using a brachistochrone trajectory: full thrust towards my destination, flipping over at the midway point, and full thrust away until I come to a full stop. Sure, it took a bit of math to pull off, but that's half the fun IMO.

I do have to agree that I'm willing to wait for Frontier to do justice to atmospheric planets, especially ELWs. This game remains brilliant, and I look forward to the day when I can do something I could never do in an Elite game: finally get up out of my command seat, and bring the rest of my body with me.

Yea, it was quite good not so much for combat, but I fully enjoyed newtonian flight in "Independence Day" (both games). There was no combat during the "light speed" travelling. Instead you jumped / supercruised to locations where action would unfold locally.

 

[Sylveria]

Not true.

I play Forza Horzion and Eurotruck Sim 2. Both feature travel that is far, far more compelling and involved than anything Elite offers. Elite has managed to take flying your own space ship and turn it into something every bit as boring as being a commercial airline pilot. You're along in case they script an avoidable interdiction for you by a psychic pirate who magically spawns on your six after being told by the game engine, with zero counter play, where you were. Also, to dock - which is about the most involved non-combat flight of the game. Which is no surprise, since its the ONLY involved non combat flight of the game.

Some jobs are more interesting than others, I suppose.

Peculiarly, the same holds true outside of the game, too.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Ah, fair enough, that's interesting! How did you feel 2&3 compared to 1?

(And my previous post is duly edited to include an 'IMO' )

I felt that Frontier: Elite 2 was an improvement over the original. It had everything I liked from the original, added a much more realistic galaxy, there were lots of different ships you could modify and fly, and I liked the more realistic flight model. First Encounters, OTOH, I never really got into, primarily because I felt it didn't bring in anything new to the table, and there were a LOT of interesting games on the market. I was also just starting to get into MUDs, though AOLs hourly rates combined with my limited budget meant I didn't spend too much time online.