Elite Dangerous is the Largest Empty Sandbox Ever Made

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Players can not influence the universe in any meaningful way.
There's at least 50 systems with different governments due to my CMDR's efforts. This is pure sandbox.

I've created a rare good, part of discovering 3 more, helped bring 7 others back on the market, as well as been part of the CGs that created several more. Granted this is manually added stuff, but it still counts. Just like the CG to created stations and Aegis weapons.
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Well I don't know about you, but I bought a game that explicitly stated that there is a shared galaxy that I could affect from any game mode.

All players did - no matter when they backed or bought the game.

That's the thing isn't it, it would be a tough one (not an impossible one) for FD to backpedal on.
Money changed hands because of it.

.... and the fact that players can choose to play Solo and still affect the economy, politics, etc. remains part of the advertising.
 
Last edited:
Alrighty.

The reason that ED doesn't have player-built structures is because its instance based server architecture doesn't allow it. The reason ED has that server architecture is because its non-prescription pricing model doesn't generate enough income to fund a single instance server like EvE Online has.

EvE Online does since recently offer free to play accounts, but it took 14 years of healthy funding by subscription to get there.

Having said that, Frontier has to consider what kind of game it wants ED to be. The first games were very much open-ended: here's space, you go do your thing in it. Objectively speaking, ELITE did not allow you to do much, but it allowed you to do it at your own whim. No rigid narrative to follow, no set levels, no cumulative mission objectives leading to a defined conclusion or outcome. No quest, no climax.

Elite II was more of the same, but in a bigger universe with more activities to engage in. But basically it is the same: space trade/prospector/piracy/bounty hunter simulator. That's it; go do your thing.

Some people make the mistake of thinking that ED should be like, say, Mass Effect, with a storyline and a quest working towards a climactic conclusion, that the player is at the centre of. Frontier made the mistake of trying to meet those expectations with Power Play: an artificial Game of Thrones like narrative that patches badly on the game's activities where the player is very much not the centre of the universe --hence there is no direct way to get involved with this narrative, only very indirectly through the usual player-centred activities acting as some vague proxy. And because ED is fundamentally open ended, that narrative doesn't actually go anywhere, ever. There is no progression, no resolution and no climax --there can't be, because in an open ended game there can't be a Game Over-- so all activity invested by the player ultimately remains unrewarded and pointless.

Basically the problem is (to borrow psychological models) one of objectives vs value. Because there is no narrative arc: no quest with climax, player activities don't have any narrative imposed objectives to strive for, and no satisfying climax to give them a point. In order to be worthwhile doing the player has to be able to project his own personal purpose on those activities. As such, they have to have inherent value: they have to be fun to do in themselves.

What makes activities fun to do in themselves? That depends on the player's values. Some players like to explore, some like to create, some like to socialise, some like the challenge and skill of combat, and (unfortunately) a few just like to grief (because there are bullies with inferiority complexes everywhere--even in the White House). There is no ultimate point or objective to valued activities; we just do them because the activity in itself has meaning to us: it is fun, we enjoy doing them and we enjoy getting better at them.

Secondly, activities have to create a sense of accomplishment, so need a careful balance between challenge/effort and reward (RNG in Engineers breaks that relationship by making reward ultimately a random outcome independent from effort, which is why so many people don't like it).

Frontier needs to focus on the inherent value (fun) of activities rather than try to cast them as spurious proxies to to a narrative that doesn't put the player at its centre and ultimately can never reach a resolution or climax anyway, so what's the whole point? Power Play was a mistake --it's as disengaged as watching a soap opera through a neighbour's window across the road. Players should be able to create their own guilds and their own dynamic drama, that they are at the centre of and feels personally relevant to them. Players should be able to craft their own materials and products and services. Players should be able to create their own structures --but there may be server limitations to that. Frontier also needs to carefully balance activities in terms of challenge and reward.

Create some activities that are easy wins for the newbie; create very challenging ones for the experienced player. Don't homogenise the galaxy: have safe systems and very unsafe anarchies, have places that are searingly bright and hot; others that are pitch dark and cold. Space is hard: ED should offer hard for those who wish to seek it out.
 
Last edited:
Only if we get Iron Man too. I suspect a lot of the nonsense we see in Open wouldn't occur there

not sure i am hardcore enough to wipe potentially 1000 hrs+ gameplay but hell as an option, definitely, esp as it WAS in the KSer as well.....

I would say tho it would need a bit more work, with introduction of optional escape pods which would take a small slot (and dare i say these were meant to be in the game given we get a few seconds of "eject" warnings before we are spaced.)

generally speaking the way i see it, IF it was in the KSer / dev diaries or DDF then as far as i am concerned it is fair game to be included, which is not to say every part of them HAVE to be included, but if they are then, well they are the features we knowingly signed up for so should not moan if they come in.
 
Last edited:
Only if we get Iron Man too. I suspect a lot of the nonsense we see in Open wouldn't occur there

Like station ramming? I think that would be a very popular activity in a Iron Man mode.

And I'm very confident, that players will come up with "novel" ways to kill other players the added salt from perma death is just too tasty for some players.
 
The reason that ED doesn't have player-built structures is because its instance based server architecture doesn't allow it. The reason ED has that server architecture is because its non-prescription pricing model doesn't generate enough income to fund a single instance server like EvE Online has.

..................

Frontier needs to focus on the inherent value (fun) of activities rather than try to cast them as spurious proxies to to a narrative that ultimately never can reach a climax anyway. Power Play was a mistake --players should be able to create their own guilds and their own dynamic drama. Players should be able to craft their own materials and products and services. Players should be able to create their own structures --but there may be server limitations to that. Frontier also needs to carefully balance activities in terms of challenge and reward.

Create some activities that are easy wins for the newbie; create very challenging ones for the experienced player. Don't homogenise the galaxy: have safe systems and very unsafe anarchies, have places that are searingly bright and hot; others that are pitch dark and cold. Space is hard: ED should offer hard for those who wish to seek it out.

Seconded, Frontier should do what is possible within the technical limitations. Squadrons will be able to own and control Fleet Carriers (mobile base). So they could use the same tech for player owned structures (immobile base).

In Powerplay the player is always a small little peon. He or she can never climb ranks to become a leader with authority to manage something significant in the galaxy.

Indeed by empowering the players to (optionally) do things like create a guild, structures, craft things, that results in emergent gameplay which would keep people engaged and care about this game for years to come.
 
Last edited:
Damnit! Are you saying FDev pulled a Chris Roberts on me?

Live and learn I guess.

Damn gaming companies suckering people in with marketing.......

I agree FD play fast and loose with their marketing, but who doesn’t? i have seen loads of WOW trailers which do not represent the in game visusals. their (Elite's ) launch trailer is arguably the most unrepresentative i have seen from Frontier ...

but accusing them of going full CR on us...... man that is harsh! ;)

now, where can i buy me a plot of land in elite....... i have cash at the ready :D

Algomatic has said 1 thing ever that i agree with, and it is in this thread however...... he states the PvE side of the game is also lacking a bit.. and i agree with him/

so the question is, with resources being finite, do FD

1) throw all their energies into PvE content that every single player in the game does or has done at some point.

or do they

2) focus on content which a large portion of the player base have no interest in.

in some games, option 2 is definitely the way the devs have gone compare the battlefront reboot to the classic battlefront game, where they took a single player game with optional multiplayer and turned into a multiplayer arena shooter ***... but is it the right way for elite?

personally i say no. I think FD should add sand to the sand pit which everyone can use not just the special few.


*** not commenting on battlefront 2, where single player has made a bit of a comeback.
 
Last edited:
Seconded, Frontier should do what is possible within the technical limitations. Squadrons will be able to own and control Fleet Carriers, so they could use the same tech for other player owned structures.

In Powerplay the player is always a small little peon. He or she can never climb ranks to become a leader with authority to manage something significant in the galaxy.

Yes it's about empowering the player to do such things like create a guild, structures, craft materials. Now the player doesn't have such freedom, we're perpetually small proxies.
See? This isn't about gameplay, it's about ego.
 

verminstar

Banned
I wasn't implying that you wanted the game to fail at all. And for that matter ED could not improve one teeny little bit beyond the state it's currently in and it won't have failed. Personally, my gripes have more to do with the game's unrealized potential and the ominous feeling that the game is being back burner-ed so Fdev (sensibly) focuses on more lucrative ideas.

It has become increasingly obvious that they've painted themselves into a corner with their development choices, as well as the game's fundamental architecture, and I'm afraid all we're going to see going into the future are minor qol improvements, nothing approaching "adding sand." As far as I'm concerned (and I've been saying this publicly and loudly for months now) 2.4 was their chance to prove they even knew what sand was much less planned on spending their resources pouring it into the box for us to play with. Love it or hate it, ED is what it is, and that's not going to change to any large degree.

The first bit was more of a general not your direction...as much as we may disagree on some things, we very much agree on the rather bleak outlook, but...one must make the best use of the tools one has.

I agree that it looks like frontier have literally put themselves into a corner...cant go back and seemingly cant go forward either without ticking someone off. It reminds me of the adage of the rabbit who freezes when caught in headlights of a car...the game feels frozen. Maintenance mode has been a thing bandied around and as much as I hate to admit it, that term keeps sticking in my mind. 2.4 sure as hell hasnt helped dispel that feeling...2.4 has so far only made the feeling worse.

I think yer right that we arent gonna see a great many of the things we sit on the forums arguing about like spacelegs and a few others...we may well have a few more years left but the as ye say, and I agree that the fundamentals of this game probably wont change until the game dies completely.

In saying that, Im still hanging on fer those QOL changes next year especially the exploration love we all cried sore to get over the last year...waited this long may as well give them another few months. But thats from the perspective of playing another year to enjoy a bit more of the forge which is cool, but that wont last forever either. And as fer the rest of the game I hear them cry? I played bulletstorm last night which is how much I enjoy the rest of this game.

Call it pessimistic, call it doom and gloom till the cows come in fer milkin...but I dd love the game and hate seeing whats happening. The wasted potential alone is almost shockingly obvious...there was so much potential here it was at one time the envy of this niche corner of gaming. Nowadays its something they make fun off in other forums the way we made fun of NMS and that makes me a bit sad. Because unless frontier change direction, then I just dont see this game being as popular as it used to be in the beginning. It will continue fer a few years yet I would imagine, but as it stands right now, this games best days are behind it and 2.4 has only made this stagnation worse.
 
Deleted.
Have to stop coming to this forum again. I lose faith in humanity every time and am much happier not knowing what is going on with the thoughts of the hollow squares around the galaxy.

Must remember that this forum represents about 1% of the player base. Remember...

Guess I'll be surprised by the release of the T10 when I see it docking before me.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think FD would be wise to use the much-entrenched BGS system as the means to create a PvP flag system in Open.

Remove any affect BGS has on Open from Solo/PG- but then enable it as THE "flagging" system for engaging other players freely in Open. People say "PvP flagging can't be done", and I say- it's already there. Expand PG's abilities in Open and make PvP gameplay consensual instead. (no more free targets)

Wanna engage in PvP? Choose a "side" from the BGS- and now you have it. If you're Solo/PG and want to engage in the BGS to affect Open play- then you'll need to log into Open where you become fair game.

How's that for "compromise"?

Not much of one. It is essentially the same proposal that the GSPies keep promoting: "Lets get people who don't enjoy PvP out of Solo and Private Groups, so we can have easy targets to kill." Those of us who are, in any way, tolerant of "spontaneous" PvP are already in Open, and hard to kill. That's why GSPies want to force the rest of the player base out of modes where they can't kill them, because they simply aren't good enough to kill someone who is, in any way, prepared to be attacked.

I'm all for being able to pledge alliegance to a minor faction, or even a superpower, and allowing other pledged players to earn influence for their faction via PvP, with the usual huge list of rules to prevent the usual exploits. Toss in a "pirate" flag for those who just want to loot and plunder, and have it apply to the local anarchy faction.

Any compromise should be add to people's gameplay, not take game play away from others. I would love a revamp of Powerplay or the BGS to also take into account PvP.
 
Incorrect assumption. PvP bores us. Total waste of time.

And as someone else* pointed out, by logging into any mode of this game you have CONSENTED to the BGS being manipulated from other modes.

Sauce, goose.




(It was Rampant: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ox-Ever-Made?p=6169400&viewfull=1#post6169400 )


There wasn't nearly as much wailing about this as I expected when I posted it first time around.

It is actually MUCH, MUCH, MUCH deeper and more fundamental than this.

Here is the response I had prepared. I'm not sure whether PvPers even grasp this concept, but here goes...


Actually, just by virtue of any player holding an account for the game - you *consent* to the BGS being played - even when you are not logged into the game.

Shock and horror. (Time of Play is another one of the documented items on the list of fundamental reasons why a "bonus" for Open is a real non-starter.)

Yours Aye

Mark H
 
I remember there was a forum poll where people asked to have a separate server for Open, It got FD's attention and people objected to the idea... Figure that one out.
I would be willing to start from scratch just to be in a different universe than all PG and Solo players.

I remember asking for this 1-2 years ago.

A separate server, with a separate save. It was basically an idea that had no negatives for the anti-open playerbase. It would not affect them at all. It's not even hard for Frontier to setup, considering they have alpha and beta servers concurrently running all the time.

Out of the woodwork came all the Solo/PG players saying it was stupid or a dumb idea, or a waste of time.

? You literally cant get anything past these guys, mention "EvE" "Open "PvP" and they come down on you like a swarm of buzzing killbots. No It's fine if the entirety of PP and Minor Factions is controlled by Solo/PG hauling but dare Open get anything... eeeeeeeeeeeee
 
Last edited:
BZZZZZZZZT

Guess again.



BZZZZZZZZT

Guess again.

Would you like to link those metrics then?

Because if all you've got is the ones from Steam, they don't include XB1, PS4 or PC players who don't use Steam.
So Steam stats are as useful as asking Stevie Wonder to play I spy.

And as Frontier don't give out information (which is the only source of actual player stats), I think you prematurely "BZZZZZZZZT" that 2nd time.
 
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom