ED is not EVE. They are different type of games, dot

Why do people dismiss ideas just because another game has done it? Like, when someone says they would like corporations ingame, don't say "This isn't EVE". Say some actual articulate reasons why you wouldn't like it. Hell, just say you wouldn't like that idea. But just saying "This isn't insert-x-game-here" doesn't further the discussion and doesn't change anyone's mind. Be constructive.

I am not discussing eve features. Eve is great because creative peoples have made it working around a vision. Most of the eve mechanics are brilliant. That's because someone, doing his profession (this include study all he can find around), uses also creativity according to a vision.

Then... the topic is not about a specific feature. if you ever read all my posts you wouldn't ask me to say something about that specifc feature. Anyway... if you ever read all my posts you would have found the answer to your question. Be constructive.
 
I am not discussing eve features. Eve is great because creative peoples have made it working around a vision. Most of the eve mechanics are brilliant. That's because someone, doing his profession (this include study all he can find around), uses also creativity according to a vision.

Then... the topic is not about a specific feature. if you ever read all my posts you wouldn't ask me to say something about that specifc feature. Anyway... if you ever read all my posts you would have found the answer to your question. Be constructive.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't too clear, but I was referring to the general you, not you specifically. As in people on these forums and some people on this thread.
 
Eve is a fun space game, Elite: Dangerous is a fun space game. They overlap some, being from the same broad genre. In most ways, they're quite different.

That doesn't mean that Frontier can't steal some of CCPs better practices. CCP has done a ton of good things in the realm of open-world sandbox games, and they've had a few screwups. Frontier would be kinda stupid if they didn't swipe away some of the better ideas.

You can't have a good open-world sandbox without certain things. A light touch on moderating player interaction, constant feedback, and consistently enforced rules are the key to games like this. CCP found out very early on that the best thing to do is sit back and watch when the playerbase discovers an unexpected way to "play" the game. You just can't ramrod the "right" way to play down your player's throats, they'll revolt.

When you start a sandbox game like Elite, or Eve, you have to hand over a certain amount of control to the players. They may take your vision in a totally different direction than expected, and as a dev, you should be able to react to that and continue pumping out fun. Give the players the tools to make content, and see what happens.

Elite can pull it off. One day in the future, we may be looking back at these early days, with our ten year anniversary gifts, a fully player-driven economy, huge groups vying for control of the spacelanes, and say "Wow, look where we've gone." I sure hope so. Eve had a much rougher start, that's for sure.
 
Sorry, I guess I wasn't too clear, but I was referring to the general you, not you specifically. As in people on these forums and some people on this thread.

Fair enough np. i am a bit "rigid" and i thought you was referring to the the topic since you didn't quoted nothing.
 
EVE is one of the most successful MMO's of all time

Buddy that's WoW, and everyone knows that, despite how much you or me hates it.

This is one of those statements that it is all too obvious that you are trying to change history. EVE is not even remotely in the same ball park in the scheme of things.
 
Nobody is really against good ideas on principle, no matter the source. The architecture of the two games is markedly different, however. Some aspects of one game are impossible/impractical from a gameplay/technical perspective in the context of the other. Doesn't mean the nixed idea was a bad one.

Examples? We probably won't get giant EVE-style battles, due to P2P networking limits and the lower latency requirement of this game.

We could get permanent asset ownership, as long as ownership stands apart from faction control in the system the asset is located in - otherwise the architecture will make defending ownership virtually impossible.

(I'm not sure how realistic it would be to see a corporate state turn communist and expect the victorious commies to say "yeah, sure, you can keep exploiting our trade requirements to line your own pockets". You'd probably be turfed out of your shiny station, significantly out of pocket.)

There are non-technical restrictions as well. Lore in the Elite universe describes anything other than very low bandwidth FTL signal transmission being essentially impossible, and even that being out of reach from the average pilot. If this were not the case, the exploration mechanic as is would make no sense. Therefore, data feeds and other comms-related stuff has to be considered in that context, with those limitations intact, for fear of turning the reality of the game into an inconsistent mess.

Mining will be improved in a coming update according to the devs. The improved version may require a bit more of the player than EVE's way of doing it, simply because direct pilot control of stuff seems to be the theme running through the game at present, so I wouldn't necessarily expect it to be a "set it and forget it" deal.

There are so many places the game can be added to, and nobody wants 1984 Elite + GFX upgrades. But any ideas have to make sense in the context of gameplay as is, be implementable, and fit in the game's ethos. If your pet idea is taken round the back of Frontier's office and put to sleep due to these constraints, just move on. You can please everybody some of the time etc.
 
Sounds like you have just got a hardon for hating on EVE to be honest. We can mention things that are in EVE, but you don't want us mentioning that they were in EVE first?? I'm not really sure where you are coming from with this whole thread. I don't think I have seen a single post from someone on this forum saying, "X Feature that EVE has is Great! We should add it because EVE is great!", they are more along the lines of "X Feature that EVE has is great! E:D Should get this feature as well, because the IDEA is good, irregardless of what game it is in.".

At the end of the day, you are complaining about people complaining, which is pretty stupid, IMHO.
 
Another guy who doesn't read my posts.
I am open for every new features who can improve the game.
I am waiting and wishing for lot of the features i have posted here (you didn't read) and i have read here. (better multyplayer, better comunications, and such).
I am only saying that ED can't be compared to EVE just because they are different types of game. For this I am only saying that all the suggested features attributed to EVE should be discussed and suggested just because working fine and great feature, not because EVE is great, so i want it also on ED.


Sometimes our problem in this forum is that people respond in a "I don't want to hear any critic whatsoever, use your imagination, this game is not Eve, don't spoon feed" etc etc. Rather than just try to see the point the contributor is making. Of course ED is not EVE and never will be, but there are some things in EVE that would work wonderfully well in ED. What is wrong with somebody pointing that out? I am damn sure that DB and his team at FD will be looking at all that is good in other games and bringing some of it to ED in future expansions!
 
Just check all the Korean grind games and you'll see that there's no creativity at all there - they're all basically one and the same, with a bit different graphics and texts. Just saying, nothing to do with this thread per se however.
Who wants the creativity if thre they can "push" another player's face without any creativity.

Hey guy - i smash your nose or hey guy - i farm 9000 gold, is the same for the core auditory of these games.
 
Last edited:
Why do people dismiss ideas just because another game has done it? Like, when someone says they would like corporations ingame, don't say "This isn't EVE". Say some actual articulate reasons why you wouldn't like it. Hell, just say you wouldn't like that idea. But just saying "This isn't insert-x-game-here" doesn't further the discussion and doesn't change anyone's mind. Be constructive.

If you pay attention, you'll note that many of us aren't having that kind of knee-jerk reaction to suggestions made just because "EvE does it." Some suggestions are constructive, but others simply can't be done with this game engine, and that's probably intentional. There is nothing wrong with pointing that out, to help people understand the game better, and decide if this is something they'd like to continue playing.

For example, corporations don't work here for several reasons. First, because the focus of the game is what you can do as a single pilot in your spaceship. Going beyond that, there are technical blocks to the idea. This is a P2P game based on small instance player encounters, with an option not to see any other players at all and still have a minuscule effect on the game world. There will never be huge fleets of player ships in this game or large corporations, just small groups of friends flying together.

The most number of friends you can fly together with in a coordinated group (or "Wing") will probably be 3-4 people, at first. You could maybe get 16 friends flying in several Wings in a shared instance, leaving room to see some other players. If you fill up your entire shared 32 player instance with friends, you will never see anyone else because you've hit the instance size limit. That's just how it works.

In addition, there will never be total player control of territory and choke points, due to the size of the Galaxy, the open 3D flight paths between stars for bypassing any attempt at control, as well as the ability of players to fly in other modes like Solo Online and Private Groups where you never see them. So there is no point in large-scale player corporations, because they can't control or own anything in this game. The network model just doesn't support it. It's not a pure client/server model, it's a bunch of pilots traveling in small instances that can occasionally see some other pilots, up to a point, and depending on the strength of everyone's direct P2P connections between their computers.

What I said right there isn't "This isn't EvE."

Instead I described how the game works on a technical level, which many people, it seems, still don't understand. If you want to suggest something that the game *can* support without fundamentally changing the entire game design and network model, then we're all ears.
:)
 

Aye, most ideas from other games simply don't work with the concept and spirit, and especially sheer scale (and other reasons) of ED. The closest thing it could borrow from that come to mind are all flight sims.

And EvE, it's so different in scope and style that most ideas from it would be like trying to shoehorn poker rules into chess - just not compatible.
 
Last edited:
Caution - I am about to bring Eve again.

Seriously though, am I the only person that thinks wormholes would be amazing in this game?
Would be very nice for explorers.
 
Why most of the people are always comparing these 2 games while talking about future devoloping, new features, marketing strategy, and such? They are different, they are not comparable. so all those eve/ed arguments i can read pretty everywhere are atleast pointless, maybe stupid (imo really stupid).

Most of the people making that comparison belong to either the "I want ED to be more like Eve", or the "I don't want ED to be like Eve" groups!
 
Caution - I am about to bring Eve again.

Seriously though, am I the only person that thinks wormholes would be amazing in this game?
Would be very nice for explorers.

Might be cool, but it might shrink the galaxy too much. I think the devs want it to be difficult to get around. If we could hop on the wormhole subway and get off halfway across the galaxy, it might make everything feel a little smaller.

Anyway, for all we know, there are actually 400 billion galaxies in the game, and we've only been exposed to one of them thus far - but as soon as someone finds that wormhole, or has the right kind of FSD malfunction, and finds themselves on the outer rim of Andromeda...
 
I've been playing EVE for years and plan to continue playing it. I think it's interesting how on-paper EVE and ED sound similar, but actually playing them is quite different. EVE tends to automate while ED simulates.

I love playing Elite Dangerous.

While I think ED could learn from EVE, I also don't want ED to become like EVE. I hope ED takes a different path.
 
Most of the people making that comparison belong to either the "I want ED to be more like Eve", or the "I don't want ED to be like Eve" groups!

And it's quite sad really. Most of the latter group probably have never played EVE judging from the comments.

Neither games features are mutually exclusive, nor do they have to be using the similar features. Any space game which has an economy in it will be compared with EVE simply because EVE has one of the best economies in any game and it's really a bench mark feature. Any game with crafting or mining will be compared with EVE, because as part of EVE's economy it requires player to mine and build (with a few small exceptions) all the items which populate the markets. Any PvP will also be compared because EVE's most famous feature is it's large scale PvP combat in 0.0 space.

So for people to say I don't want EVE-like features or say EVE-like features won't work in ED are just pulling words out of their backside , because many of EVE's features are so generic to any game which strives to have player interaction and control over the world they'll be playing in. Any new space game coming out which claims to be a sandbox and multiplayer will have to copy or use some of these ideas simply because they're logical ideas to use in a space sandbox game. They'll look different and the interaction will be different but like and isometric RPG, FPS or racing game, some basic elements are so generic they're the same across any title.
 
I think a quite a large number of players (myself included) hope that Elite becomes the ultimate sci fi simulator that CCP promised (and failed to deliver) that EVE would be.

Personally I am very optimistic, Elite has gotten off to a great start.
 
Any space game which has an economy in it will be compared with EVE simply because EVE has one of the best economies in any game and it's really a bench mark feature

Ah you mean the economy fueled by 0.01 trading bots and automated software that parses markets and puts buy and sell orders for you?

I love this game, it's so immersive and skill-demanding!
 
Ah you mean the economy fueled by 0.01 trading bots and automated software that parses markets and puts buy and sell orders for you?

I love this game, it's so immersive and skill-demanding!

You're talking about market bots which used to inhabit Jita (they've been dead for a while). How do these former bots (which existed at best in 3 stations), which buy and sell goods made elsewhere and imported in, fuel and an entire game economy when the is economy fuelled by the demand for items due to previous ones being destroyed? This demand being fulfilled in any station across New Eden where manufacturing slots are available? (at least that is until recently when manufacturing changed). I don't want to break forum rules but you've clearly never, ever played EVE (to any extent where you've manufactured at any rate) and have no idea what you're talking about. You're just trying to point score because you don't have a valid argument as to why ED shouldn't or couldn't develop an economy like EVE's because it's so generic in the first instance.
 
Back
Top Bottom