Everyone loves diversity, but does this game have it?

[Mikkel Toxwenius]

In my opinion, there is no diversity in this game. None at all.

100 players start with 1,000Cr and basic sidewinder. Let them play for 2 months, doing whatever they want.

After those 2 months , they would still have access to the exact same stuff.

All that matters in this game, when it comes to ships and equipment, is credits.

Absolutely nothing comes from siding with the Empire, Federation, Alliance. Nothing comes from becoming high rank in Combat, Trade, or Exploration.

I stopped playing about 1½ months ago, never looked back. I need something "special" as rewards for whatever I'm doing - a better weapon, more efficient armour, you name it. I would love to have something to fight for, other than a totally irrelevant rank in some totally irrelevant stat.

Anyone with credits can buy exactly the same, and there is nothing else than what can be bought. No diversity, no special stuff, everyone is playing the same vanilla game with the same vanilla items.

I love this game, but as it is now, it's just too empty and unrewarding to me.

I think you hit the nail on the head here. I have for long wondered why ED does for example not implement faction specific ship modules, that are only available at certain ranks, reputation etc. Such modules could have some major advantages AND some disadvantages, both depending on which faction you buy it from. This is just one example how rank/rep progression can be used creatively to reward the player in a diverse way (opening up for faction specific ship builds). But there is none of the sort, which is sad because implementation is long overdue. I really REALLY hope that game ideas like this will come at some point though. Again, David Braben has said FD's in it for the long run, and my hopes are still up about this.

 

[mysterious42]

i think that the thing is that we cant do nothing much.... there might be things we dont like or wont like about Elite Dangerous, but its David braben and Fdev game, and not ours...

in the sense that yes, there's a thing or two i'd like to be done in this game, but its at the devs preferences, and we cant do nothing about it but deal with it.

 

[Darrett]

I put a suggestion out today that would cover this. Point 3 in the following post: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=146298

 

[Ydiss]

I have owned an Annie for months. I also own an Asp, a Python, an FDL and a vulture.

I've flown the sidewinder, the Eagle, the hauler, the adder, the Viper, the cobra, the t6, the T7 and the t9.

Each and every one had its own purpose, for me. Some were stepping stones, some I disliked flying, some I loved flying.

But the ship I fly the least right now is the Annie. Not because it's bad. Just because it doesn't suit me for combat, I prefer the Asp for exploring and for mission running I love the Python.

The anaconda was a means to an end. A cash cow. She might get taken out of storage if drones turn out worthwhile. But she's definitely not the best at everything and in combat isn't my cup of tea.

I've spent a lot of time here and have seen more than enough evidence that players settle for the ships they enjoy, more than enough.

 

[B33 ENN]

I think the problem isn't the ships, it's the way they are implemented and the upgrade system is too colourless. An extract from a post I made elsewhere:

• The ship upgrade system lacks character with just its Class and Grade definitions, rather than manufacturers, are ridiculously priced artificially for grinding purposes rather than realistic reflection of capability. Ship slots are illogical in places, such as internal compartments being used for onboard system and utility items.
• Various systems don't reflect culture by having space stations of a particular design fitting a particular faction, but instead are all generic to everyone. For example, I might have expected that Coriolis type might belong to the Feds, the Orbis to the Empire... etc. More noticeable is that once inside, they are literally all the same barring the odd one having some minor decorative difference in theme. There needed to be more unique stations, each with their own artstyle and aesthetic to fill out culture and identities of the different parties. This would have made different regions immediately identifiable to the player flying into them.
• Similar problem exists with the ships in the game: everybody uses all the various types in the game, including some specific cultural designs like the Imperial ones. It would have been better if, like the stations, there was separation between the ship 'artstyles' you come across to be reflective of who's space you're in; and if necessary, many which were not yet player flyable (saving Frontier a lot of work in creating them). So when you're in Empire space, you see Clippers, the forthcoming Courier, but also many other smaller ones, like fighters that are used by the local authorities and inhabitants. Similarly, when you are in Fed space, you see it dominated by the classic polygonal designs of Vipers and Cobras, etc. This would have given the varous places of this universe instant recognition, colour and character, where right now, it all just looks the same barring the names on the stations and a few variations in voice overs.

And on the upgrade system:

I've mentioned it elsewhere on these forums and on Steam, that I feel this game would benefit greatly from a Borderlands style procedurally generated weapon mechanic, using a few distinct manufacturers with certain qualities, similar to what the ships have. So you might get a budget manufacturer with low reliability, a military grade manufacturer (like the Lance & Ferman military laser from the old game), an exotic technology manufacturer, and so on. Depending on systems you visit, and who controls them, their culture or allegience, you can buy different manufacturer items. Those might have different pros and cons modifiers to a standard type, more or less like in Borderlands, but changed to apply to this game effectively.

 

[Cowboy Bats]

Another thing that would probably be good for the game is to exclude modules from the insurance. Aka you only get the ship hull back. This way you may think twise about what kind of fit you use, rather than jusy going all A's.

I'd be interested in knowing which specifically you fly. Your suggestion would make anything larger than a cobra completely nonviable. The insurance on the hull of Anaconda would be petty stuff if the internals weren't covered. It would only be marginally better than no insurance at all. Couple that with already high operating costs, and it would just ruin larger ships.

 

[dayrth]

Nevertheless, your underlying point seems to be that Anaconda are undesirable, or at least enough so that many players will choose other ships in the end even if they had the money. That's an interesting assertion... do you have any evidence to back that up?

Just come from another thread, (lost it now or I would post a link), where the OP was saying how he had upgraded his ship, but was going back to his old one because it was more fun. The whole tread was full of people telling us what there favorite ship was and why they were sticking to it. There were fans of almost all types (even dropships ). Anacondas didn't feature much at all.

P.S. My favorites are Vulture, Python and Asp, depending on what I want to do.

 

[hanks01]

Just come from another thread, (lost it now or I would post a link), where the OP was saying how he had upgraded his ship, but was going back to his old one because it was more fun. The whole tread was full of people telling us what there favorite ship was and why they were sticking to it. There were fans of almost all types (even dropships ). Anacondas didn't feature much at all.

P.S. My favorites are Vulture, Python and Asp, depending on what I want to do.

Makes me wonder why the OP started this thread other than to put in the passive/aggressive fanboy line (just to make it absolutely clear that if we disagree with their assertion we may actually be fanboys.

I echo yours and many other people's sentiments. The Anaconda, whilst a powerful beast of a ship is not going to be the go to ship for everyone, even if we all had the money. For exploration I prefer an Asp as turning fast in supercruise is potentially just as valuable exploring as a large jump range (Anaconda would drive me round the bend if it turns slower than an FDL.)

For comabt I'd prefer an FDL, it can outrun most things and I certainly feel safest in it. I also just bought my first Vulture last night, what an awesome ship for RES hunting, dipping around the asteroids, lining up behind the big ships. I'm saving up for a Python but due to the Anaconda's size I'm really not fussed about getting one, and if I do, it wont be my go to ship, far too big.

I also bought a Viper the other week for PVP in Diso. Was in a wing of four (mix of Python, Clipper and Anaconda) against a Python, Clipper and two FDLs. It was great fun, being a small ship I wasn't perceived as a threat so could just sit behind the FDLs melting their shields with my lasers and slipping behind them when they turned to face me, or running and coming back (giving my wing time to damage the main target.) It must've been so irritating to fight but was great fun for me.

So yeah, to the OP's proposition, there is plenty of diversity in the ships. You may now call me a fanboy and dismiss my entire post.

 

[hanks01]

However, at this point there is basically one ship that is the best at everything and that everyone is going for.

Just to add a few extra points. The Anaconda is too slow to successfully hunt any player bounties on its own, it's too big to safely navigate and fight in a RES and it can be outrun by most ships. Whilst people may well want to buy one as it's the biggest of all the shiny things it's far from being the best at everything. It's just a big slow, cumbersome tanky ship with a lot of hardpoints.

 

[Iskariot]

Some people might be skeptical. I've seen them referred to as "fanboys" in a few posts, which is amusingly appropriate from a psychological perspective. They revere their godly developers — "No!" they exclaim. "The developers would never make any bad decisions. This game is perfect!"

This is when I knew I did not need to read any further.

 

[fergal]

@OP, sounds like you have earnt more money then I have, maybe 3 times more.
I haven't owned a type 9 or Anaconda, so I can't comment from experience of flying them.

I have seen many of them in action though, and I like a fast ship. One of the things I hate about the Vulture is how slow it is, to be honest I'm not all that thrilled about the 406 "speed" of the FDL.

I was perfectly happy playing this game in my viper. I had no aspiration of ever owning a 150 million cr ship. With the change in income I could get there fairly easily now though.

I agree that more ship variety would be good. There are too many ships right now that are just better than the cheaper ones, making the cheaper ships stepping stones while you earn more credits.

More ships are going to be added to the game, I hope they don't just make more ships stepping stones.

 

[Mister]

Yeaaaah I think Star Citizen is doing a better job of encouraging ship diversity.
I mean the basic ships are still dangerous if flown well.

 

[Kano Magnus]

Shame you have to pay £1000000000000000000 for each of them

 

[B33 ENN]

One of the things I hate about the Vulture is how slow it is...

Yeah, don't remind me, that's another thing I hated about it. At least with my Cobra I can out boost everything!

More ships are going to be added to the game, I hope they don't just make more ships stepping stones.

That's definitely a problem I feel the game has. There seems to be too much of a ladder approach to design and pricing. I think the game should have had a lot more varied ships that are not segregated artificially by price range so much. Two things would improve this, in my opinion:

- There should be more competition among manufacturers at all price poiints, each with subtle differences that might appeal to different styles of piloting. Basically, just like there are so many competing cars and aircraft in similar performance categories.

- If some of the existing ships had varying sub-models. Like, for instance, the Cobra could easily have another variant more aimed at combat, say with the small underbody hardpoints moved to the upper surface or tips, and a couple more utility spots, at the expense of some internal compartments. Another variant might be an explorer version, with less weapon slots, and more fuel capacity and bigger FSD drive.

That last idea would get us at least two to three times as many ships to buy than we do now, just based off the existing designs.

 

[Xenoxa]

(how to quote a quote from a diferen tread?)

Well B33 ENN Selfquotet:

I've mentioned it elsewhere on these forums and on Steam, that I feel this game would benefit greatly from a Borderlands style procedurally generated weapon mechanic, using a few distinct manufacturers with certain qualities, similar to what the ships have. So you might get a budget manufacturer with low reliability, a military grade manufacturer (like the Lance & Ferman military laser from the old game), an exotic technology manufacturer, and so on. Depending on systems you visit, and who controls them, their culture or allegience, you can buy different manufacturer items. Those might have different pros and cons modifiers to a standard type, more or less like in Borderlands, but changed to apply to this game effectively.

I completely agre!!! The game has a huge potential! But I see lot's of posts her in the forum about the lack of features, diversity, etc. in short stuff missing and the game not being finished. well it sadly isn't and won't be for quite a while. Hopefully will get there faster than we thing and will be presently surprised.

I personally thing that procedurally generated scanners, ships, waopons, station, etc. etc etc are the key to this problem. Make things modular and then combine them seemingly random! for me the genreal problem is stuff looks and feels to much the same everywhere, which totally brakes the immersion and gets boring. The basic mechanics are amazing but where is the proper amount of content?! The creature editor from the game SPORE could also be a inspiration here.

 

[Jason S]

Your post is mental long and has a huge spiiny thing in it.

Was interested by the title but not reading it. Suggest you edit it and sum it up in a couple of paragraphs.

It sunday and I'm tired. Interested but too tired to read all that with the really bad spinny ship.

It's a forum, some people like to post a lot.

 

[B33 ENN]

(how to quote a quote from a diferen tread?)

Just use the quote tool in the reply box to wrap the text in a quote tags or go to the original thread, select reply with quote and then copy/paste that to the new thread.

Well B33 ENN Selfquotet:

I've mentioned it elsewhere on these forums and on Steam, that I feel this game would benefit greatly from a Borderlands style procedurally generated weapon mechanic, using a few distinct manufacturers with certain qualities, similar to what the ships have. So you might get a budget manufacturer with low reliability, a military grade manufacturer (like the Lance & Ferman military laser from the old game), an exotic technology manufacturer, and so on. Depending on systems you visit, and who controls them, their culture or allegience, you can buy different manufacturer items. Those might have different pros and cons modifiers to a standard type, more or less like in Borderlands, but changed to apply to this game effectively.

I completely agre!!! The game has a huge potential! But I see lot's of posts her in the forum about the lack of features, diversity, etc. in short stuff missing and the game not being finished. well it sadly isn't and won't be for quite a while. Hopefully will get there faster than we thing and will be presently surprised.

I personally thing that procedurally generated scanners, ships, waopons, station, etc. etc etc are the key to this problem. Make things modular and then combine them seemingly random! for me the genreal problem is stuff looks and feels to much the same everywhere, which totally brakes the immersion and gets boring. The basic mechanics are amazing but where is the proper amount of content?! The creature editor from the game SPORE could also be a inspiration here.

Procedural generation, if used in the right way can be of massive benefit in creating believable, but seemingly unpredictable options for the player, like Elite has demonstrated for years. The Borderlands weapon mechanic is another great example where the fun of finding seemingly endless new weapons with unique stats adds so much to the gameplay. I've spent a lot of time in that game just comparing the loot and figuring out what to stick with, what to exchange, what to leave behind!

As I recall, the way it works is that in each gun class, you have a weapon made of three parts, I think. Those can fit together to make the weapon, but they make like dozens of them, so out of them you can have hundreds of weapon shape combinations. Then they do more tricks with the maths to create the stats. The same system could, for example, be used to make ships out of separate pieces that fit together. I think No Man's Sky is doing something like that for their ships, as well as even alien animals and plants!

I think in Elite the Orbis space stations use a system like that to make them up from standard parts so you get different versions. It might have been interesting if they'd gone down a similar path of creating ships from varying sections, so that you could buy something slightly unique and interesting at every station you visit.

Certainly, for me, as a Borderlands fan, that would have been crazy fun!

 

[Xenoxa]

Procedural generation, if used in the right way can be of massive benefit in creating believable, but seemingly unpredictable options for the player, like Elite has demonstrated for years. The Borderlands weapon mechanic is another great example where the fun of finding seemingly endless new weapons with unique stats adds so much to the gameplay. I've spent a lot of time in that game just comparing the loot and figuring out what to stick with, what to exchange, what to leave behind!

As I recall, the way it works is that in each gun class, you have a weapon made of three parts, I think. Those can fit together to make the weapon, but they make like dozens of them, so out of them you can have hundreds of weapon shape combinations. Then they do more tricks with the maths to create the stats. The same system could, for example, be used to make ships out of separate pieces that fit together. I think No Man's Sky is doing something like that for their ships, as well as even alien animals and plants!

I think in Elite the Orbis space stations use a system like that to make them up from standard parts so you get different versions. It might have been interesting if they'd gone down a similar path of creating ships from varying sections, so that you could buy something slightly unique and interesting at every station you visit.

Certainly, for me, as a Borderlands fan, that would have been crazy fun!

Yes in the Borderland games that worked wonderfully, there where some really funny weapons, like that one pistol that if reloaded would be thrown away to explode like a grenade! In ED they of course use Procedural generation for the star systems but there are so many possibility for it's implantation in this game.

Have you ever played spore? Here is a small vid from the creature creator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRr3lgckIAM imagine this but then with weapons and spaceships. Brings me to the question why we have to buy paint jobs in a stor e and can't make our own like in need for speed underground 2. I used to spend hours customizing my car with body kids, paint jobs and such. Of course for ED it would have to be in a totally different style and more lets say scientific.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Thank you for taking the time to type all that, the current generation lacks the attention span and the respect to read anything longer than a sentence.

Now, to closely examine the issue, here is what I conclude:

Players play the game seeking pleasure, this pleasure derives from different professions and activities in the game. The ships are the tools, or rather the instruments to obtain that pleasure. Therefore the essential controversies surround the instruments and the activities players use and engage in. There will be a best instrument for a specific task, and this task is related to an activity a player is interested in. Thus, the player will utilize that instrument.

Meta, oh a word drenched in blood and rage throughout countless games. A meta will definitely exist, meaning that there will be some weapon, ship, activity that will be the best and most used because of their effectiveness. Players that dislike meta chasing will always complain about balance issues, while meta players will defend to the death of the current meta.

Combat Meta: FDL
Trading Meta: Conda/T9/Python(for Outposts)
Exploration Meta: Asp/Conda

Combat(bounty hunting), trading, exploration are currently the meta for credit gaining.

Piracy, mining, and missions are relatively less credit rewarding but some people enjoy them regardless.

Piracy Meta: Clipper

Mining and mission do not matter since they do not have noticeable player interaction as of now.

There will always be a meta, there will always be the most effective. It will shift, however it will exist.

Observe as the coming faction exclusive weapons/modules drive people into a single faction due to faction weapon/module meta.

We love diversity, of course, but there will always be what is more effective and what is less effective. By nature people search for the easiest way to accomplish their tasks.

So I'm afraid your vision of coming back to this game a year later seeing only large ships may be true.

 

[Daffan]

no.

its bad!

1) Anaconda is best trade ship - everything else is trash

2) FDL is ez mode for PVP

3) everything else is useless filler garbage

There is no rock paper scissors in this game

There is no ship roles or balancing

There is only "tiers" where anaconda and FDL are the top "tiers" and everything below is garbage

Even if they were to change the weapon systems, the hull themselves have big problems in design.

Mainly because reverse makes maneuverability useless