If ED was like a perma-death survival game, players would be extremely careful and maybe a lot less griefing since the perma-death would go both way. You'd be a lot more careful, especially if a player has reached more riches. Players would rather gather up against the NPC pirates. Ganking the NPCs instead.
Braben’s Vision and It’s Implications
- Thread starter Delilah
- Start date
Imo hard scifi does not have to necessarily be absolutely hardcore and set everything within +40 years of predictable developments of existing science - in the Elite case i see it more as an attempt to portray a world with causality, coherence and well-defined technology that does not logically contradict with existing science. Soft scifi uses tech as magical gimmicks to advance plot/base gamey mechanics on. we can't really put Elite in that category...except of course for the dadaism inherent in multiplayer as such: fighter range vs telepresence, and the bumpercar weapons arsenal e.g. missiles with 1/20th of the range of typical Vympels and ASRAAMs.
Now does Rust really result in that sort of dynamic?
Now does Rust really result in that sort of dynamic?
Last edited:
Nah, you'd just have perverse a-holes on alt accounts with a disposable CMDR, and the griefing would - if anything - actually be a heck of a lot worse.
IME people don't use missiles, probably because of this. If they had better range & took out a shield, you'd have to consider installing counter measures. Which leads nicely into one of my bugbears...
...why do ships all have a similar number of optional slots, albeit differing sizes? The current system makes sense for hardpoints, because they have a single mounting point, but the optionals must, presumably, simply take up internal volume. So why can't I install two size 1 in a size 2 slot? It's not like it would be difficult to program because the necessary code is already there, such as when you fit a vehicle pod: that shows up on the display as two items in the one slots. Imagine the loadout possibilities this would allow.
If this is a vision of the future, why don't I have left/right/rear vision like the original Elite? And no side or rear facing weapons, seriously? Oh, I see, we're supposed to play it like War Thunder, eh? Dog-fighting is space. In the original I fitted a high power mining laser on the back, so I'd spin over to mine, but be able to buy time for myself when I was running away.
I have to wonder if the vision been compromised to suck in the PC flight-sim enthusiasts.
I doubt it. FS enthusiasts won't leave their existing games for one set in space, and it would be pointless to try, they're too invested.
Sadly, I suspect you are right, but all the same death in ED should have much more significance. It just seems to me that it's just a case of "Darn, that was careless. Oh well, it's cost me 20% of my CRs, but never mind I'll soon get that back."
Yes, but then it's punishing you for playing it, which is the problem EVE suffers from in many respects. If you're risking hours of progression just by trundling around in your ship, then you may as well play something else, which is more of a game and less of a job.
Actually, I just pledged for Space Odissey, which is a project endorsed by the legendary Neil de'Grasse Tyson. It seems quite a promising project. It two years ahead, to be really realist and, if ED somewhat fail to correspond to Braben's vision and - yes, this is utterly important - to the players's expectation, well, there will be another amusing project.
Hm, maybe that's modern thinking.
Seems 'hardcore' isn't good these days. Folk expect to be able to go all out & the game pick up the pieces when it goes wrong. The FPS games I enjoy the most are those that 'punish' you for going in guns blazing, but rather expect you to be more cautious & intelligent in your play.This is really what I'm saying. If you want to go 'gung-ho' then ok, but you have to expect consequences if you're not up to the challenge. Sure, the vision is to allow you to play however you want, but when the game doesn't offer any real consequences when your aspirations exceed your ability, then what's the point?
In the original, starting out, only the foolish or suicidal ventured into an Anarchy system. Initially, we earned money trading until we could afford those bad- weapons & then we were deliberately flying into those 'no go' systems. In that game your ability mattered & you knew it.
In this version, there are no significant consequences unless you can't afford the insurance.
Hm, maybe that's modern thinking.
This is really what I'm saying. If you want to go 'gung-ho' then ok, but you have to expect consequences if you're not up to the challenge. Sure, the vision is to allow you to play however you want, but when the game doesn't offer any real consequences when your aspirations exceed your ability, then what's the point?
In the original, starting out, only the foolish or suicidal ventured into an Anarchy system. Initially, we earned money trading until we could afford those bad- weapons & then we were deliberately flying into those 'no go' systems. In that game your ability mattered & you knew it.
In this version, there are no significant consequences unless you can't afford the insurance.
The
Hm, maybe that's modern thinking.
This is really what I'm saying. If you want to go 'gung-ho' then ok, but you have to expect consequences if you're not up to the challenge. Sure, the vision is to allow you to play however you want, but when the game doesn't offer any real consequences when your aspirations exceed your ability, then what's the point?
In the original, starting out, only the foolish or suicidal ventured into an Anarchy system. Initially, we earned money trading until we could afford those bad- weapons & then we were deliberately flying into those 'no go' systems. In that game your ability mattered & you knew it.
In this version, there are no significant consequences unless you can't afford the insurance.
Not modern thinking, it's just some of us grew up, got a job, and no longer have time to no life it in a game, only to lose everything because... well, bad luck chum. When I was a young adult, EVE was the best thing since sliced bread, and I played a lot of it, and I mean a lot. But now? Sorry, it's a job wrapped in a spreadsheet, masquerading as a game.
Oner thing I think often overlooked despite iits obviousness, really, is how close E mirrors the "look and feel" of 1984 Elite and aspects of Frontier, FFE tof course there's the clealry evident overall elements that seem to have become clich€ common to any and all space sims, but there are certain specific areas which are very much "ELITE" and recreated as core features in E without many really being aware of the nitenbtional purpose of such design - especially gien as how this often detracts from a 'realism' or extrapolated future of design.There are many features of Elite Dangerous when examined as a game, or particularly as a MMO game, that do not sit so well with veterans of such games in other fields, nor does it exemplify core traits that have become expected and standard in such : "Looking for a group, need a tank and healer? Let's run this qurst 3 times I've got two hours..." - yet adamantly refuses stubbornly, to change in its core structure.Series favourites remain and are in essence at the core of the gameplay:1) Crazy goatsoup "randomnisity" providing plenty of fun to discover2) Overheating is bad.3) Space is big. Very big.4) You can be a trader, combat pilot, miner or explorer / but opportunities are far greater if you embrace all these aspects5) Stations will be hidden behind celestial bodies and you will be asked to dock on the most awkkward, distant place possible.6) The HUD will screw up when things get hot or during hyperspace etc.Clear direct descendants from Elite- and it's these touches, more than simply ship/planet names and that it's a space-simulator are the real coonnotations that I think Braben wanted to bring 1984 Elite up to a modern technological standard with multiplayer and details.The passenger ferrying, hit-jobs and time-specific contracts were big features of Frontier.I am really expecting some CG to invovle ferrying refugees from a system in the future where there may be a Nova candidate star... (WHaddya reckon?)The Thargoids are the icing on the cake and a way to really express the alienness and unecpeted terror of encounters.
mirrors the "look and feel" of 1984 Elite and aspects of Frontier, FFE tof course there's the clealry evident overall elements that seem to have become clich€ common to any and all space sims, but there are certain specific areas which are very much "ELITE" and recreated as core features in E without many really being aware of the nitenbtional purpose of such design - especially gien as how this often detracts from a 'realism' or extrapolated future of design.There are many features of Elite Dangerous when examined as a game, or particularly as a MMO game, that do not sit so well with veterans of such games in other fields, nor does it exemplify core traits that have become expected and standard in such : "Looking for a group, need a tank and healer? Let's run this qurst 3 times I've got two hours..." - yet adamantly refuses stubbornly, to change in its core structure.Series favourites remain and are in essence at the core of the gameplay:1) Crazy goatsoup "randomnisity" providing plenty of fun to discover2) Overheating is bad.3) Space is big. Very big.4) You can be a trader, combat pilot, miner or explorer / but opportunities are far greater if you embrace all these aspects5) Stations will be hidden behind celestial bodies and you will be asked to dock on the most awkkward, distant place possible.6) The HUD will screw up when things get hot or during hyperspace etc.Clear direct descendants from Elite- and it's these touches, more than simply ship/planet names and that it's a space-simulator are the real coonnotations that I think Braben wanted to bring 1984 Elite up to a modern technological standard with multiplayer and details.The passenger ferrying, hit-jobs and time-specific contracts were big features of Frontier.I am really expecting some CG to invovle ferrying refugees from a system in the future where there may be a Nova candidate star... (WHaddya reckon?)The Thargoids are the icing on the cake and a way to really express the alienness and unecpeted terror of encounters.Hm, maybe that's modern thinking.
This is really what I'm saying. If you want to go 'gung-ho' then ok, but you have to expect consequences if you're not up to the challenge. Sure, the vision is to allow you to play however you want, but when the game doesn't offer any real consequences when your aspirations exceed your ability, then what's the point?
In the original, starting out, only the foolish or suicidal ventured into an Anarchy system. Initially, we earned money trading until we could afford those bad- weapons & then we were deliberately flying into those 'no go' systems. In that game your ability mattered & you knew it.
In this version, there are no significant consequences unless you can't afford the insurance.
I agree with this sentiment in general but it's also worth noting that, while we're talking about previous versions, in FE2 the only limit to your shield strength was the number of shield generators you could fit into your ship, which in turn was limited only by it's capacity. It was possible to build an indestructible ship in FE2, park it outside the "mailslot", shoot the station and sit there laughing as countless security vessels would come screaming out and explode against your impenetrable shields.
In ED, if you want to increase the effectiveness of your shields beyond design specification it means tens of hours of grind that I, for one, simply can't be bothered to commit to.
Imagine the chaos if we had those shield mechanics...
Spectacular is the word that springs to mind
I'm not suggesting we do have those shield mechanics, but if there are going to be areas of space where survival is extremely difficult then you need to provide players with accessible mechanics to mitigate the increased risk. Having systems that are basically guaranteed death sentences on entering them is pointless. From a gameplay perspective a system like that might as well not be in the game as it offers no experience to the player other than guaranteed death.
He said he always wanted to recreate the galaxy so you might be right.
Well, he's certainly achieved that, however you look at it. It just needs a bit more work in places, and a bit more content in others. But it's not as if we don't have time, we absolutely do, considering Star Citizen is still an alpha after five years of development, I'd say Frontier did pretty damned well getting the game out when they did.