Does complexity equal fun?
- Thread starter Spacecat
- Start date
Rogue System is crazy. Spent like my first hour just trying to figure out the buttons on my chair. xD
Problems concerning engineers have nothing to do with complexity.
The engineers mechanisms are not complex. The problems are mostly caused by:
- lack of in-game information about the materials/commodities: where to find them - how to get them.
- lack of available in-game information about blueprints: only one blueprint visible after you pinned it. All blueprints should be visible after we visited a particular engineer and fulfilled the introductory request. This will enable better us to collect mats in a more rational way. We should not have to depend on out-of-game information sources.
- lack of storage of engineer commodities which causes all kinds of gameplay problems (will be solved eventually)
- some people want more control over the generation of the mods / less randomness.
There have been some technical problems, but the srv scanner is fine as it is. It could be enhanced though by enabling us to give an input to the scanner to make it search for only the mats we want.
Simpler? You feel it is complex?
I agree to a certain extend. I would want to pay a fee to be able to view all available commodities (and ship modules too) in every station in a system without having to hop around, but.... only when I am in that system. I do not want to be able to view commodities in every station in the universe from everywhere in the universe.
Last edited:
Does complexity equal fun?
Impossible question to answer because for some the answer would be Yes, but for others No. Like most things, the least awful solution lies somewhere between the extremes.
However, there are kinds of complexity that are unequivocally bad. For example: conspicuous artificial difficulty. Alas, this is something ED has in a not insignificant quantity.
Conspicuous artificial difficulty is, broadly speaking, complexity that doesn't also add depth. Without breaking into a lengthy sermon that most have heard many times before, this is best explained with one simple in-game example:-
Trading is made more difficult because of the inability for pilots to obtain and/or store market listings outside of a hangar. The reason ED does this was directly admitted: giving pilots market data and other useful in-game tools would make trading “too easy”.
The essence of the issue here being that the Trade gameplay loop in ED is so basic that FD decide to add artificial difficulty to create the illusion of complexity (cf. depth).
(There are myriad other reasons why Trading in ED is... 'less than satisfactory,' shall we say.)
And another quick example:-
Planetary landings 'look cooler' in the dark so your ships aren't able to have things like stronger lights, basic light amp, terrain following radar on the HUD (even tho ships already have it on the tiny radar circle), forward-looking infra-red... you name it. Sometimes even the Rule of Cool can be stretched too breaking point.
Personally, I love complexity done right. That's why I'm a huge fan of the grand strategy stuff that developers like Paradox produce. And, dare I say it, SC looks like it's getting the right kind of complexity ingredients into the mixture; granted, the proof will be in the tasting.
Impossible question to answer because for some the answer would be Yes, but for others No. Like most things, the least awful solution lies somewhere between the extremes.
However, there are kinds of complexity that are unequivocally bad. For example: conspicuous artificial difficulty. Alas, this is something ED has in a not insignificant quantity.
Conspicuous artificial difficulty is, broadly speaking, complexity that doesn't also add depth. Without breaking into a lengthy sermon that most have heard many times before, this is best explained with one simple in-game example:-
Trading is made more difficult because of the inability for pilots to obtain and/or store market listings outside of a hangar. The reason ED does this was directly admitted: giving pilots market data and other useful in-game tools would make trading “too easy”.
The essence of the issue here being that the Trade gameplay loop in ED is so basic that FD decide to add artificial difficulty to create the illusion of complexity (cf. depth).
(There are myriad other reasons why Trading in ED is... 'less than satisfactory,' shall we say.)
And another quick example:-
Planetary landings 'look cooler' in the dark so your ships aren't able to have things like stronger lights, basic light amp, terrain following radar on the HUD (even tho ships already have it on the tiny radar circle), forward-looking infra-red... you name it. Sometimes even the Rule of Cool can be stretched too breaking point.
Personally, I love complexity done right. That's why I'm a huge fan of the grand strategy stuff that developers like Paradox produce. And, dare I say it, SC looks like it's getting the right kind of complexity ingredients into the mixture; granted, the proof will be in the tasting.
Complexity for its own sake doesn't equal fun.
Depth isn't derived from complexity either.
I'd like to direct everyone interested in this to this wonderful Extra Credits video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVL4st0blGU
Depth isn't derived from complexity either.
I'd like to direct everyone interested in this to this wonderful Extra Credits video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVL4st0blGU
I agree. Most gameplay elements are fairly simple. At the same time they may be in various ways obscure.
In my opinion...
BGS appears to be fairly simple. It just isn't very intuitive and the game doesn't give enough information about how it works. We are playing the BGS game but only know some of the rules. Even out of the game (forums etc) we do not know some of the rules.
Trading is very simple. But we don't have in-game information or tools to plan trade routes -- export/import routes only give some hints. Also, I would like to see more dynamic markets, more dynamic events (famine etc) and learn about events in some intuitive way -- local area multi-system news?
Rare-trading is worse. How can I even find rares? Combing Galnet? Scrolling commodities list at random markets? Reading system/station descriptions?
Exploration is just simple. Wave scanner is ok, even if weird (and currently broken). But ship's POI scanner is an unintuitive and unimmersive piece of garbage.
Collecting engineer materials, data and commodities is simple, tedious and too randomized. Recipes/blueprints are unintuitive. Crafting is too randomized and changes too dramatic. Though, I like FSD improvement -- the galaxy is still huge.
Smuggling was too simple and easy the last time I tried it (2.0). I liked boosting through the mail slot.
Mining is a chore and has complexity that doesn't do much to improve gameplay. I can see that mining can be relaxing, though.
Combat is actually positively complex and yet fairly approachable. There is a good selection of weapons, shield/armor, utilities and engineer mods. Actual combat requires some skills and know-how but can be intuitively learned for a nice PvE experience.
But as a whole, as a product ED is a complex beast. Hats off to the smallish dev team that has brought us this far. I wish they get the complexity under better control in near future and kill a bucketload of bugs.
TL;DR ED is a complex package of simple but often obscure gameplay elements.
Well said.
I would like Combat to have some deeper meaning than just killing of an endless stream of pirates. Like after killing off 50 ships, the area is clear of danger and as a Bounty Hunter you'll need to find a new spot. And after killing off enough pirates from a pirate faction, that faction disappears.
I would like there to be more, process in some of the game elements, but in the main I think Frontier have got the complexity about right, so far. For example choosing "Flight Assist" off is more challenging, so that players who wish for more "game than sim" can have that choice.
As I said I would like more complexity, in some of the mechanics but as mentioned already "behind the curtain" of the coding this is a "Complex Beast" but I would say that there is an aspiration within Frontier to as much as possible too balance accessibility with skill, and so they will never be able to please everyone, while maintaining a worthwhile player base.
As I said I would like more complexity, in some of the mechanics but as mentioned already "behind the curtain" of the coding this is a "Complex Beast" but I would say that there is an aspiration within Frontier to as much as possible too balance accessibility with skill, and so they will never be able to please everyone, while maintaining a worthwhile player base.
Then why are you playing? Walk away from this joke of a game and it's forum. I, for one, love the game.
I don't think complexity is a sufficient condition for fun, but it is a necessary one. If the game is too simple, then there is nothing to figure out, and people get bored and drift away. Power Play is a perfect example of a system that is too simple. Sure it seems complex at first, but is really so simple that it is almost infantile, 2 mission types. Interdict or get interdicted. Add in a government by referendum, and a massive Excel sheet accounting sim, and you're done.
Last edited:
I don't play since several months, 8 I think and I will stay here on the forums. Thanks.
- - - Updated - - -
Powerplay didn't bring anything new to the game. Its a recycle of the same simplistic mechanics we had since beta. Infinite Conflict zones, interdictions and courier missions.
As you said, Elite needs involving complex gameplay. The activities in this game are so volatile and short.
The only time the above would be an issue is when people are in a hurry to get a rank, ship or credits. SRV scanner works well and lets you differentiate mineral versus artificial contacts at a glance. Regular contact sensor screen does not.
- - - Updated - - -
Because it's a game and the same comparison can be made to any video game ever made. Pacman, Far Cry, Assassin's Creed, Zelda...
It's the way it's always been in the Elite series of games. I wouldn't expect it to change too much anytime soon, or indeed ever.
The game has no complexity at all. Don't confuse complexity with a flood of material required to build something.
In fact if I see how simple the missions are done or the BGS by design (there is no real economie to start with) I wonder if FD avoided game complextiy at all cost. It's a pitty because good games require a certain complexity (= life) to give a good experience. Doesnt mean the user have to see it. That can all be hiddin in a good BGS. It just have to work and make fun.
Lets take combat for instance. Let's compare ED vs Skyrim. How many different ways are there deal with an enemy? Skyrim has countless ways to approach an npc obstacle, no question, tons.
ED has no flexibility in comparison, not by a long shot, and this aspect has by far been more fleshed out than anything else. This is one reason I have been pushing for an active full spectrum sensor array. It could fill the role and gaps in many areas.
Today aircraft do not just use missiles and guns. They have dynamic sensors. Can we jam another ships sensors/transmissions? Very narrowly. Can we damage anothers sensors/transmissions? Ha, what am I saying we don't have transmitters. [yesnod] Can we fool another ships sensors? Can we even call what we have as sensors?
On and on we can go about how relatively narrow ED is compared to so many games. There is very little variety in ways to accomplish tasks in ED, even in the combat aspects. This makes ED not very interesting in most aspects. I hope they can develop more choices to add variety, and make being a commander interesting.
At the moment I see ED as being akin to KOTOR 2, without face to face contact and voiced dialog, and an even more messed up story line .
ED has no flexibility in comparison, not by a long shot, and this aspect has by far been more fleshed out than anything else. This is one reason I have been pushing for an active full spectrum sensor array. It could fill the role and gaps in many areas.
Today aircraft do not just use missiles and guns. They have dynamic sensors. Can we jam another ships sensors/transmissions? Very narrowly. Can we damage anothers sensors/transmissions? Ha, what am I saying we don't have transmitters. [yesnod] Can we fool another ships sensors? Can we even call what we have as sensors?
On and on we can go about how relatively narrow ED is compared to so many games. There is very little variety in ways to accomplish tasks in ED, even in the combat aspects. This makes ED not very interesting in most aspects. I hope they can develop more choices to add variety, and make being a commander interesting.
At the moment I see ED as being akin to KOTOR 2, without face to face contact and voiced dialog, and an even more messed up story line .
Last edited:
Does complexity equal fun?
Not really, not by itself.
I understand people like the multiple choice play from a sandbox perspective but it would be nice to have some game 'unpredictability'. There isn't much of this other than being interdicted or a mission changing minimally. For the most part I choose everything I want to do in the game. Fun is inside instances. It would be cool if the game reached out more.
1. Ship module breaks...maybe the repairman will fix it...maybe he'll send me out for a parts search on a planet
2. I get ready to take off and wait...my ship was stolen ... cops have a lead ... I can help get it back. They offer me a loaner ship...I hope it's better than the last time I got a loaner.
3. I get ready to take off and wait...my ship is impounded and quarantined because whatever I just hauled was infected with some disease... I have to go to several different systems to collect chemicals to make the bug spray to clean it.
Surprise us! Gives us some random scenarios we have to deal with (and a button to opt out of random scenarios). They could be procedurally generate from simple to complex.
Not really, not by itself.
I understand people like the multiple choice play from a sandbox perspective but it would be nice to have some game 'unpredictability'. There isn't much of this other than being interdicted or a mission changing minimally. For the most part I choose everything I want to do in the game. Fun is inside instances. It would be cool if the game reached out more.
1. Ship module breaks...maybe the repairman will fix it...maybe he'll send me out for a parts search on a planet
2. I get ready to take off and wait...my ship was stolen ... cops have a lead ... I can help get it back. They offer me a loaner ship...I hope it's better than the last time I got a loaner.
3. I get ready to take off and wait...my ship is impounded and quarantined because whatever I just hauled was infected with some disease... I have to go to several different systems to collect chemicals to make the bug spray to clean it.
Surprise us! Gives us some random scenarios we have to deal with (and a button to opt out of random scenarios). They could be procedurally generate from simple to complex.
Last edited:
I happen to like the complexity of Elite - it's more flight sim than game, supports an amazing number of input devices, and just has a really good feel to it.
I wish there were more complexities in what we actually have to do though. Perhaps the two most complex activities are Wartime Planetary operations and hunting materials with an SRV.
I wish there were more complexities in what we actually have to do though. Perhaps the two most complex activities are Wartime Planetary operations and hunting materials with an SRV.
