David Braben compares in-game Sagittarius A* image (modified) with today's M87 black hole image
- Thread starter StuartGT
- Start date
I still find them playable games but interesting combat isn't a part of why. There are other combat-related aspects that are an improvement in some ways in the old games - unless you had a Clipper or ImpExp loaded with shields there was always some risk from NPCs for example. Quite a lot of risk if you did what I often did, Ironman from the Lave start, with a rule that you can only sell the Cobra for something more expensive (saving allowed to deal with game crashes and random unavoidable good-as-dead - contrary to what some claimed you could get "misjump, drive destroyed" when the drive is brand new). But the combat flight mechanics were not entertaining themselves, as well as unrealistic enough in their own way - once a fast ship got out of weapons range of a slower one it should be impossible for the slow one to catch up again but you're still left with having to destroy it to carry on.
How much of an authentic Elite revamp do you mean? The original wasn't Newtonian.
Personally speaking? A better the impression that a game gives that I'm really in that fantasy world the better. So I'm actually on board with the "not realistic" criticisms. Sometimes that contradicts gameplay, and one or the other has to give. The better the game the fewer contradictions and compromises.
Pure fuddery around this place.
It does look alike, doesn't it.
Should I now go into the, Im so clever - look at me - facts will destroy the fact that the two images DO look alike - fuddery mode ? No
It does look alike, doesn't it.
Should I now go into the, Im so clever - look at me - facts will destroy the fact that the two images DO look alike - fuddery mode ? No
ED isnt a true Elite revamp cos it doesn't have accurate physics? Seriously?
I hate to break it to you guys but it's Elite II and First encounters that are the also-rans here - even with all thier Newtonian accuracy.
It's the original Elite game with all its WW2-planes-in-space wonky greatness that ED is reimagining.
I hate to break it to you guys but it's Elite II and First encounters that are the also-rans here - even with all thier Newtonian accuracy.
It's the original Elite game with all its WW2-planes-in-space wonky greatness that ED is reimagining.
The original 8-bit monochrome wireframe version? With basketballs for planets and a single planet and star per system, where your ship blew up if you got too close to either? No, that's obviously not what i want - tho it is what ED is largely a 'sequel' to.. hence why i can't stand it.
I mean the 16-bit versions - Elite, unleashed. Don't get too caught up on 'Newtonian' - it's meaningless (most games are fully Newtonian, and ED is far too Newtonian, just on all the things Newton got wrong) - the previous games had freeform spaceflight, whereas ED does not. That's my big issue.
As for your claim that it was necessary to "catch up with a faster ship to continue" - nonsense i'm afraid; as soon as it's out of 'mass-lock' range you can re-engage max time acceleration, or do whatever you want.
I've made a few vids demonstrating combat in FE2/FFE, and it's every bit as frenetic as the furballs in the 8-bit version if you know what you're doing - and nothing like the anemic 1-on-1 slow-pitching contests ED has to offer..
Remember, FE2 on the Amiga (and also the original FFE on PC) never had full manual control of thrusters either (tho that's now fixed in FFED3D, as shown in my vids) - but even without it, combat was far more fun and exciting..
As far as i'm aware, every single person criticising combat in the last two games was trying to fight with flight-assist on "set speed" mode.. and you'll not get any disagreement from me that it's not fun or exciting (impossible, more like), but then that's not what you see me doing in my combat vids is it?
Like i say, if ED had combat like the last two games, i'd be making my whole life all about it..
And if it's trying to attack you it'll pretty immediately lock you again even if you're faster (you could get away with it to a degree with less than full acceleration), unless FFED3D has changed that. It's also harder to get out of mass lock range than it would be without the velocity fudge.
I don't think we'll ever agree on that one.
Point us at your videos then!
If i understand correctly, what you're deriding is player choice to fly a bomber rather than a fighter. But that's on you, not the flight physics! If a bomber can keep up with a fighter, then it's just a larger 'fighter', isn't it? Artificially enforcing parity between the two is a false economy, gameplay-wise - taking away more than it adds, all in the name of an "everyone's a winner!" pandering ethos.
Like the il-2 franchise (et al), Elite traditionally provided for such tactical diversity, explicitly catering to it, instead of writing it out of the game!
I linked 'em in the posts you're replying to, but again for your benefit: CLICK ME
Yes the ancient graphics don't hold up, but just compare the combat density and arcade action to what's offered in ED!? Elite - ever since the 8-bit original - played like Defender in 3D. Frenetic, twitch-reflex arcade action. ED's 1-on-1 slow-pitching slug-fests just don't hold a candle to it. The only occasion on which a single fight would last as long would be when trying to kill an Imp Explorer using a small fighter with a 1 MW laser. Attempt any of the "Photograph / Destroy a military installation" missions and you'll quickly be up against dozens of enemy ships, all gunning for you at the same time, with more joining the fray faster than you can shoot 'em down.. That, my friend, is an Elite furball.
Even going back to classic Elite, attack a Coriolis station and you'll be engulfed and inundated with police Vipers in a matter of minutes. Just trying to fly a 'safe' trade route, you'd be engaged by whole hordes of pirates, simultaneously - and no sooner had you cleared one assault, you'd be readying for the next bunch encroaching on the edge of your scanner, even as your "low shield" warnings blips were still complaining.. half the time, trying to jump out would land you in witch space facing half a dozen Thargoids, spawning whole throngs of Thargons.. frying-pan-to-fire.
I have never bought nor deployed a 'hatch limpet', and God forbid, never intend to. There's just no comparison in combat intensity between ED and its supposed predecessors..
Last edited:
Not, even if you fly a small, light fighter a slow lumbering attacker (IIRC the slowest that turned up as pirates were Lanners) will still intercept you again as soon as you hit maximum time acceleration, unless something like FFED3D has changed that since I last played it (years ago). There's more false parity in FFE than ED, what with that and the in-combat velocity fudging which makes it far slower to get out of range in the first place than it should be (it's almost as if the ships are tied together with elastic). Try a very tanky ship (so you can ignore any attacks) and wait after exitign hyperspace (so you can sit there with your velocity reading zero), wait until you're attacked, and watch your speed change as ships fly around you.
So you did, don't know how I missed them, sorry! It looks pretty much how I remember it. Turn and shoot, turn and shoot, with the rate of turn fast enough that you can't really manoeuvre much in comparison. Other human players involved or even decent AI and it would be whoever had the best shields and hull to weapon ratio, in many cases wth a strong "who opens fire first" element. I'm glad we've got a game where positioning yourself matters now. Is it perfect? No, and permaboost builds have lessened it (as has the hit point inflation) IMO, and it is a great pity that it's tried to achieve all of that by throwing mechanical realism out of the window, but I'm still not remotely persuaded that FFE has better actual gameplay.
And it's a bit daft that one ship can take on dozens, no? The fast "arcade" action isn't Elite to me and isn't terribly fun or skilfull.
And you could swat them all like flies easily enough. I'm glad it's moved on from where your ship radically outperformed everything else in the galaxy.
Last edited:
Mr. Braben himself stated several times that he'd always wanted Elite to be "as scientifically accurate as possible". This is why they changed the look of stars, planets, and even modified particular star systems like Trappist-1, so the game more accurately reflects our real galaxy. The more knowledge we have about different stellar bodies the more realistic they can make the game, which is part of its vision. So now that we know more about black holes the in-game counterparts should be modified as well. Just as white dwarves and neutron stars had been before.
And IMO it's a pity where it's strayed in the other direction.
I don't like variations on "it's fantasy so you should accept anything." That's lazy. I like fantasies to be a twist on reality, set up their exceptions and differences to reality early on then run with them. Then they're more believable within their own confines and that helps make them more entetaining too. Games need gameplay too and as I said earlier (sparking off an argument it seems) that sometimes clashes with realism; finding a way that accommodates both is a big plus to any game.
This is a picture of a snail:
And this is a picture of a snail with adjusted brightness, contrast and a load of Gaussian blur:
(Sorry, I couldn't resist
)
And this is a picture of a snail with adjusted brightness, contrast and a load of Gaussian blur:
(Sorry, I couldn't resist
)