A mile wide and an inch deep...

[Rubbernuke]

You have it completely the wrong way around Rubbernuke

The other stuff, the endless play is an opportunity, an excuse to build different ships. Fundamentally, I don't play to beat other players, or even to interact. I play to fly the ships just as I might play world of tanks to drive tanks. The different playstyles are a reason to use the different ones & discover what they are good at, what they are not so good at.

If you didn't get this game to fly a spaceship & have reasons to do things with them I don't think any proposal for change is going to turn this game into something you want.

Everything in ED revolves around building ships, when that should just be the start, properly leveraging the BGS and proc gen- so that every mission or place you go is actually a unique event. Your past history, your ship, your superpower / power allegiance, location, Thargoids, RNG should all add up and make the depth much, much more.

But for me? I can predict where BH will pop up. I know like clockwork where sec will be, I know exactly what wrinkles I'll be offered and this will happen each and every time I fly. When I go after a deserter, why can't they persuade me to side with the rebels, go to a secret POI to chat, or for me to double-cross? All those people I sent to re-education, at least one might want revenge? Or that other powers might want to make me a spy and give me lucrative missions that if I'm caught land me in trouble?

Its this latter half driven by the data ED lacks, where it falls down because it does not join the game for long term enjoyment- because if done right it would be a true proc gen living galaxy, driven at a high level by players but given long term longevity by low level RNG based on your PvE actions.

 

[Riverside]

Everything in ED revolves around building ships, when that should just be the start,

Just No Rubbernuke, the game of flying ships is not just the start, it is the cake. The rest is icing, reasons to use the ships.

I'm not even saying I disagree with your opinion, I'm saying your opinion is wrong here. At best the scale you use (ships being only the start rather than the bulk) is vague hyperbole, much like the thread title.

If you like the idea of following a political story & feeling you are part of something bigger, I mean sure you could buy ED for that but even with that kind of motivation fundamentally you gotta want to do all that by flying ships around.

 

[Sublime]

In one podcast, particularly, they took the analogy a bit further by pointing out that an area 1 mile x 1 mile x 1 inch has a volume of "around 26 Olympic sized swimming pools" and suggested that's the "volume of content" in ED, implying that's a lot of content - even if it's spread thinly.

Im not sure it works that way. You can’t just say ED has a lot of content just because mathematically a mile wide and an inch deep equates to 26 swimming pools. That 2D plane that’s a mile wide consists of things that are all the same, and it’s the depth of it that refers to unique and interesting things to do in that environment. There’s no point to exploring that insanely huge area if it’s all the same area, with only a little depth at each specific point to dive into.


A game that’s 1km^2 in area and 1 cm deep has the same “volume” as a game that’s only 0.1km^2 in area but is 100 cm deep. The latter would be a much better game however because it implies that it has a lot more variety and unique things to do.

There are a lot of missed opportunities in the game right now, and even with EDO as an example, with existing game mechanics. Why do ground combat zones have to be so thoughtless, for example? What’s with those lame arbitrary control points? There’s no logic or reason to them?

Instead, why couldn’t they have implemented something interesting with an attacking force and a defending force? Attackers would have to take and control specific buildings, command, power, they’d have to cut panels, shut down power, shut down air defences, communication buildings to prevent further re-enforcements, etc. Defenders would need to defend those. A step by step invasion and control of an enemy held outpost, all using game mechanics that EDO have. Why did they have to settle for something so shallow?

The game is full of things like this. There is arguably a lot more variety of lame paint jobs and other cosmetics to buy with Arx than there is in actual gameplay variety, and perhaps that says something.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Just No Rubbernuke, the game of flying ships is not just the start, it is the cake. The rest is icing, reasons to use the ships.

I'm not even saying I disagree with your opinion, I'm saying your opinion is wrong here. At best the scale you use (ships being only the start rather than the bulk) is vague hyperbole, much like the thread title.

If you like the idea of following a political story & feeling you are part of something bigger, I mean sure you could buy ED for that but even with that kind of motivation fundamentally you gotta want to do all that by flying ships around.

Just No Rubbernuke, the game of flying ships is not just the start, it is the cake. The rest is icing, reasons to use the ships.

Thats odd, because FD went and added foot based shooting, and managed to add another mm of depth.

I'm not even saying I disagree with your opinion, I'm saying your opinion is wrong here. At best the scale you use (ships being only the start rather than the bulk) is vague hyperbole, much like the thread title.

I've just explained to you 'the vague hyperbole' which is how the BGS (which is a giant state machine full of data) can be used to make our lives in ED much more rich and complex. Right now, missions have very little variation between them as they play out (the 'inch deep' part) when its the BGS / RNG, proc gen that would add a huge amount of depth so that ED does not base its entire game loop around unlocking things. Right now, unlocking is really it because once thats done, the rest is very shallow and unsatisfying.

If you like the idea of following a political story & feeling you are part of something bigger, I mean sure you could buy ED for that but even with that kind of motivation fundamentally you gotta want to do all that by flying ships around.

All of that feeds into the BGS- right now you have lightweight missions, faction based gameplay that barely changes what we see, Powerplay which only changes a few coloured blobs, we have superpower ranks that do nothing other than to...you guessed it...unlock things.

 

[Stealthie]

I've heard that expression a lot and I don't buy it. This is a game where people play for thousands of hours; it can't reasonably be described as shallow. I think a better description of the frustration is that it's such a great game, but after a few thousand hours you find that you've done it all. It's finite; it ends. This is a nasty point to get to, but when you think about it, it's inevitable.

Not sure I agree with your reasoning although I do agree with your conclusion.

People spend, literally, thousands of hours playing stuff like Peggle and Candy Crush.
Those games are (IMO) like crack cocaine for people with limited imaginations.
They just do the same thing over and over, ad-infinitum, and it seems to keep them happy.

It's possible, of course, that ED just allows for a similar thing - on a slightly broader scale - but I'd like to think there's a bit more to it.

As Riverside said, you can be engaged in one activity (admittedly, probably doing similar things repeatedly) but there'll probably be at least 2 or 3 other, completely different, things that you can choose to do instead.
If you're the sort of person who just likes flying around in pretend spaceships, there's a reasonable selection of "toys" to play with in the sandbox FDev have given us.

The main problem, as somebody else also pointed out, is often that due to the "pure" sandbox nature of ED, there's nothing that realy signposts content and so you're often left to discover fun things by chance.

 

[[VR] Zakk]

an area 1 mile x 1 mile x 1 inch has a volume of "around 26 Olympic sized swimming pools"

True. But try to hold an olympic swimming contest in that area, and you will quickly notice that volume isn't everything, and the question how it's being distributed does carry some relevance.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Savage. And true.

I play ED in spite of these issues.

I can be top rank with Imperials and Federation. That's crazy. I can take a mission from a faction that I just opposed in a war. That's silly. I know: "gameplay", but it still grates.

I suspect I'll eventually I'll get bored, but currently I have a group I play with and a mission. Not a "take X to Y" type mission, but a long term strategic goal.

If it wasn't for this, I'd be gone.

Just think of proper military careers- in that you have to choose which s.power you side with, which has consequences regards what you fly, and where, and what missions you are offered / how highly the rival powers want you dead. Think of how via gameplay it ties lore, graded difficulty, builds in long term interest. Could you imagine as you whizz about as an Admiral being set up and ambushed by rival s.power hit squad? Or you given s.power specific missions to spy / take scans / assassinate without being caught? Imagine all that feeding into the BGS and shaping where and what we fly?

Instead we have two s.power ranks / reps (the Alliance seemingly not bothered at all) which we can max out with no consequences at all.

 

[Bonesaw]

Or the dreaded AI they call Chuck Norris waits for us there, sleeping, waiting to be awoken by the call of ....

Chuck Norris is Salvation.and the special weapon is just a Chuck Norris stare

 

[CMDR Serra]

Just think of proper military careers- in that you have to choose which s.power you side with, which has consequences regards what you fly, and where, and what missions you are offered / how highly the rival powers want you dead. Think of how via gameplay it ties lore, graded difficulty, builds in long term interest. Could you imagine as you whizz about as an Admiral being set up and ambushed by rival s.power hit squad? Or you given s.power specific missions to spy / take scans / assassinate without being caught? Imagine all that feeding into the BGS and shaping where and what we fly?

Instead we have two s.power ranks / reps (the Alliance seemingly not bothered at all) which we can max out with no consequences at all.

Indeed. If I massacre 100 ships from the "Federal Navy" in a CZ, why are they still cool with me being an Admiral. There should be consequences. Alas, no.

 

[Riverside]

Thats odd, because FD went and added foot based shooting, and managed to add another mm of depth.


I've just explained to you 'the vague hyperbole' which is how the BGS (which is a giant state machine full of data) can be used to make our lives in ED much more rich and complex. Right now, missions have very little variation between them as they play out (the 'inch deep' part) when its the BGS / RNG, proc gen that would add a huge amount of depth so that ED does not base its entire game loop around unlocking things. Right now, unlocking is really it because once thats done, the rest is very shallow and unsatisfying.


All of that feeds into the BGS- right now you have lightweight missions, faction based gameplay that barely changes what we see, Powerplay which only changes a few coloured blobs, we have superpower ranks that do nothing other than to...you guessed it...unlock things.

Being able to get out of your seat & walk around is another scale of transport, as was the SRV when that was introduced. In gameplay terms it's just another vehicle, not more depth, although I'm happy to accept it's more ways to interact with things (not really) or allowing more ways to crack an egg (again not really, it's just more look at, shoot or scan).

The BGS is a great tool to play around with, one of the games highlights, so is the stellar forge but both are still icing, not cake. The political and financial model the game simulates is relatively simplistic, only as complex as it needs to be to allow players to find reasons to fly around & earn money or achieve other goals. This isn't a trading game, or a mission taking game, nor is it a political chessboard at it's core, with flying ships a part of that. It's a game about flying spaceships with a bunch of almost entirely optional activities the players can do to act on & interact with each other.

I've had lots of days where I went to the same settlement & blew up their power plant, or scanned their beacon to locate a pirate. I did them because I was motivated to help some faction(s) to achieve some other goal. There could be more mission types of course but there are already loads, enough that I can take the ones that I find quick or easy & skip the ones I find boring or too time consuming for the reward. This is a minor quibble on your part, not some major depth-adding proposal.

There's enough mission types that a player could spend dozens or maybe hundreds of hours in the game & not do the exact same mission twice as they progress from freewinder to combat conda. If you want to play for thousands (and I'm on my way to 14,000 hrs played according to the codex) you are going to see the limits of procedural generation, and you are going to have explored most branches of play pretty thoroughly. PowerPlay is pretty simplistic but there is enough there for hundreds of hours of play. The problems you describe are minor quibbles imo.

 

[Riverside]

Indeed. If I massacre 100 ships from the "Federal Navy" in a CZ, why are they still cool with me being an Admiral. There should be consequences. Alas, no.

The rank thing is a decent point in terms of consequences for actions, but if you kill enough in a war you will go hostile with that faction. imo that's one of the more meaningful consequences the game has, and one I have spent a lot of time managing (and therefore reducing my time in CZs). Carriers kinda took the sails out of being hostile too tbh.

 

[[VR] Zakk]

Just think of proper military careers

One of these features that would have been rather easy to implement, but were never touched. A true military career that gives you access to ships you cannot fly as a civilian / privateer. And that offers tailor-made and narrative-driven missions. Elite has all the toolsets for it. But they were never used.

And for the privateer playstyle, Sid Meier's Pirates! set a perfect example for how you can interact with different factions and use them to your advantage. A letter-of-marque based piracy playstyle woud have offered so much more variety than Elite's approach, where you're either loved or hated by everybody. Which leads to all factions in the game feeling shallow and generic.

 

[CMDR Serra]

The rank thing is a decent point in terms of consequences for actions, but if you kill enough in a war you will go hostile with that faction. imo that's one of the more meaningful consequences the game has, and one I have spent a lot of time managing (and therefore reducing my time in CZs). Carriers kinda took the sails out of being hostile too tbh.

Yes, but if I fight against a faction in even one CZ they should turn hostile. None of this: "well it was only one or two battles you fought against us, so we're now only cordial".

 

[Rubbernuke]

Being able to get out of your seat & walk around is another scale of transport, as was the SRV when that was introduced. In gameplay terms it's just another vehicle, not more depth, although I'm happy to accept it's more ways to interact with things (not really) or allowing more ways to crack an egg (again not really, it's just more look at, shoot or scan).

The BGS is a great tool to play around with, one of the games highlights, so is the stellar forge but both are still icing, not cake. The political and financial model the game simulates is relatively simplistic, only as complex as it needs to be to allow players to find reasons to fly around & earn money or achieve other goals. This isn't a trading game, or a mission taking game, nor is it a political chessboard at it's core, with flying ships a part of that. It's a game about flying spaceships with a bunch of almost entirely optional activities the players can do to act on & interact with each other.

I've had lots of days where I went to the same settlement & blew up their power plant, or scanned their beacon to locate a pirate. I did them because I was motivated to help some faction(s) to achieve some other goal. There could be more mission types of course but there are already loads, enough that I can take the ones that I find quick or easy & skip the ones I find boring or too time consuming for the reward. This is a minor quibble on your part, not some major depth-adding proposal.

There's enough mission types that a player could spend dozens or maybe hundreds of hours in the game & not do the exact same mission twice as they progress from freewinder to combat conda. If you want to play for thousands (and I'm on my way to 14,000 hrs played according to the codex) you are going to see the limits of procedural generation, and you are going to have explored most branches of play pretty thoroughly. PowerPlay is pretty simplistic but there is enough there for hundreds of hours of play. The problems you describe are minor quibbles imo.

Being able to get out of your seat & walk around is another scale of transport, as was the SRV when that was introduced. In gameplay terms it's just another vehicle, not more depth, although I'm happy to accept it's more ways to interact with things (not really) or allowing more ways to crack an egg (again not really, it's just more look at, shoot or scan).

FD broke ED to add legs, and then.......did very little with that. All concourses / hangars / bars do the same things. Mission givers stand in the same places, the BGS never impacts the appearance in any way. Down on planets its getting better combat wise, but what about anything else?

The BGS is a great tool to play around with, one of the games highlights, so is the stellar forge but both are still icing, not cake.

Its what provides the background for your time in ED. If your ship is a surfboard the BGS / Forge is the coastline and sea you play in. Its not the icing at all. The original Elite was about you getting to Elite- in ED its a sandbox which should throw entertaining and ever changing situations at you via proc gen and the BGS. This is where the depth comes from, in how complex the world you exist in actually is. But sadly its not.

I've had lots of days where I went to the same settlement & blew up their power plant, or scanned their beacon to locate a pirate. I did them because I was motivated to help some faction(s) to achieve some other goal. There could be more mission types of course but there are already loads, enough that I can take the ones that I find quick or easy & skip the ones I find boring or too time consuming for the reward. This is a minor quibble on your part, not some major depth-adding proposal.

Higher level play (i.e. BGS, Powerplay) is built on multiple instances of simpler lower level activities (such as missions, take x to y etc). From my own experiences each activity is largely the same with little variation which could easily be added if FD leveraged via states / BGS / rep etc.

This is a minor quibble on your part, not some major depth-adding proposal.

So making assassination missions turn into more complex situations is not worth it? LOL, please. At a purely PvE grazing level making missions have more complex outcomes / wrinkles (leveraging POIs, legs, background) adds depth and longevity. At a BGS level where you are doing the same things repeatedly it could make stacking a thing of the past if you gain more INF from doing logical things (rather than gaming the system).

I could (and have) written out wrinkles for missions (as well as Powerplay) and yet FD stick to very binary missions, with the odd "BH coming to get you, do you want to sell your passengers?".

There's enough mission types that a player could spend dozens or maybe hundreds of hours in the game & not do the exact same mission twice as they progress from freewinder to combat conda. If you want to play for thousands (and I'm on my way to 14,000 hrs played according to the codex) you are going to see the limits of procedural generation, and you are going to have explored most branches of play pretty thoroughly. PowerPlay is pretty simplistic but there is enough there for hundreds of hours of play. The problems you describe are minor quibbles imo.

Its not a matter of limited mission types (which there are- cargo this, passenger that, kill x pirates...its not as varied as you think it is) its using that mission as a springboard (via RNG/ POIs/BGS etc) and mix it up with complications. So an ordinary courier mission might trigger the local sec forces who want you to go undercover and scan that factions megaship, or that a rival wants that data and will pay- you drop down but its an RNG triggered double cross and they try and take it from you. Thats what I'm talking about- using what FD are supposed to be good at and make each mission a mini adventure, rather than a "load cargo > take off > press J x times > ooo tasty cargo pirate > shake interdiction > land > repeat.

 

[jojon]

I get the sense that when people speak of "depth", they often mean different, sometimes mutually exclusive things.

Some would say it's about the density and variety of things in the world, which you can engage with.
Some would say it's about how detailed the depiction of the world and culture, and environmental storytelling is - the immersion factor.
Some would say it's about how granularly, and seamlessly, and persistently you can interact with the world and individual characters - immersion again.
Some would say it's about how an action in one game system affects another, like actions quietly pushing numbers in the BSG.
Some would say it's about how my lone and singular action immediately gratifies me with drastic results in relationships like the above, rather than only contributing a tiny fraction of a percent to the sum of all players together - it's a multiplayer game after all, for better and for worse.
Some would say it's about how these things are presented: Spreadsheet-like, or with a cheesy speech delivered in-game-location by Gary Oldman, or just by the amount of litter in a location increasing as its controlling faction falls on bad times.

I could have a compellingly written, hand-crafted, scripted multi-stage quest line, with dialogue trees, and a plethora of performance-captured NPCs acting their hearts out and having their fictional lives changed forever, and spectacular cinematic set pieces - is that depth? It may let me experience a great story, but other than that, does it do anything beneath the lovingly, painstakingly crafted surface, that any template mission does not, or is it just as much veneer as it is? Can I play it more than once, without a sense of repetition kicking in? Can it fit into a non-linear larger scale narrative?

I reckon things Elite will always unabashedly "show the machinery behind the scenes", with obvious lists, and tables, percentages, statistics, and calculations, boiler-plate text, and narratives which do not directly involve the player's character, and so on, all with a bit of cold limited attachment to anything in the vast game world, even when delivered through humanoid automatons. -It's what the series has always been.

That said, I would none the less love a greater variety of mission types, including longer heavily scripted ones -- maybe the odd one-off bespoke story, aside from the recurring procgens.
Pre-conceptualised experiences, which one can add to the less, or at all, authored and more player's-own-imagination-requiring ones in one's "personal narrative", do not have to be events that upend the power balance in the galaxy, or even the stock of sandwiches at the local cafeteria. :7

 

[Spaceman-FXL5]

The game as it is is already good, it just isn't perfect. I play with the bits I enjoy, there are usually enough of those that if I fancy a change there is something else I can do. I don't do the bits I find frustrating for any reason. For example I have never pledged

I support this totally.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Yes, but if I fight against a faction in even one CZ they should turn hostile. None of this: "well it was only one or two battles you fought against us, so we're now only cordial".

It should not even be that. Wars should be like a CG where you sign up for it and can't change without penalty. The system, its SC space etc then becomes a battlefield, with faction ships after you wherever you go, land etc. But again, its all lightweight.

 

[Spaceman-FXL5]

Speculation: The permit-locked systems in COL 70 is where the Guardian AI has its (currently dormant) fleets.

óó

 

[Rubbernuke]

I get the sense that when people speak of "depth", they often mean different, sometimes mutually exclusive things.

Some would say it's about the density and variety of things in the world, which you can engage with.
Some would say it's about how detailed the depiction of the world and culture, and environmental storytelling is - the immersion factor.
Some would say it's about how granularly, and seamlessly, and persistently you can interact with the world and individual characters - immersion again.
Some would say it's about how an action in one game system affects another, like actions quietly pushing numbers in the BSG.
Some would say it's about how my lone and singular action immediately gratifies me with drastic results in relationships like the above, rather than only contributing a tiny fraction of a percent to the sum of all players together - it's a multiplayer game after all, for better and for worse.
Some would say it's about how these things are presented: Spreadsheet-like, or with a cheesy speech delivered in-game-location by Gary Oldman, or just by the amount of litter in a location increasing as its controlling faction falls on bad times.

I could have a compellingly written, hand-crafted, scripted multi-stage quest line, with dialogue trees, and a plethora of performance-captured NPCs acting their hearts out and having their fictional lives changed forever, and spectacular cinematic set pieces - is that depth? It may let me experience a great story, but other than that, does it do anything beneath the lovingly, painstakingly crafted surface, that any template mission does not, or is it just as much veneer as it is? Can I play it more than once, without a sense of repetition kicking in? Can it fit into a non-linear larger scale narrative?

I reckon things Elite will always unabashedly "show the machinery behind the scenes", with obvious lists, and tables, percentages, statistics, and calculations, boiler-plate text, and narratives which do not directly involve the player's character, and so on, all with a bit of cold limited attachment to anything in the vast game world, even when delivered through humanoid automatons. -It's what the series has always been.

That said, I would none the less love a greater variety of mission types, including longer heavily scripted ones -- maybe the odd one-off bespoke story, aside from the recurring procgens.
Pre-conceptualised experiences, which one can add to the less, or at all, authored and more player's-own-imagination-requiring ones in one's "personal narrative", do not have to be events that upend the power balance in the galaxy, or even the stock of sandwiches at the local cafeteria. :7

ED is run by a giant database which meshes our past actions, other players actions, RNG and states. It would not require heavy scripting just bringing these areas closer together that allows actions to have wider and deeper consequences as you play.

 

[jojon]

ED is run by a giant database which meshes our past actions, other players actions, RNG and states. It would not require heavy scripting just bringing these areas closer together that allows actions to have wider and deeper consequences as you play.

Feel free to list some examples of what you envision, beyond what it already does. :7