Fdev hint at space legs (Ship theft) Too soon™ - Barben video link inside

Your mention of Multicrew highlights how FD can throw development into questionable outcomes at times (eg CQC?). And even the latest new mining, basically with a clean slate to work with, is basically half baked and not working very smoothly.

We're 5yr into this game, and in truth precious little depth has been added to the mechanics... And space legs will do little more than allow FD to offer a whole new coal face with half baked shallow mechanics to work it with.
The 2020 dev run is way chunkier than the individual Seasonal deliveries though, we can assume. It seems to be as big as the launch run.

So I guess the question is: How half-baked did you find the launch title ;)

(Worth noting that a Legs DLC would likely stack with Multicrew incidentally. So there's that ;))
 
The 2020 dev run is way chunkier than the individual Seasonal deliveries though, we can assume. It seems to be as big as the launch run.

So I guess the question is: How half-baked did you find the launch title ;)

(Worth noting that a Legs DLC would likely stack with Multicrew incidentally. So there's that ;))
Understood... But does this 18-24month development have more time and people than 5yrs of the previous development we've seen? Does it have different designers? If not, why would it show a radically different outcome in depth of gameplay and/or quality of mechanics design?

I'll be frank. The last development that I actually thought raised the bar in ED, was surface landings. Most of what else has been added for me has been basiclly shallow bolt ons. Now a shallow/simple bolt on in itself isn't a problem. But when most of them are shallow bolts ons, or worse still, half baked clunky bolt ons...? Hmmm....

If we get space legs end of next year, given the past few years of design choices and quality, I think it will most likely be pretty shallow, clunky, vapid stuff.

I hope to be proven wrong! Honestly!
 
If ship stealing becomes a thing then I’m done.
I woudln't worry. As for what we know it will be a paid expansion so it's probably completely optional.

I mean, if you won't do space legs you never leave your ship anyway, so how would it be stolen?
 
Last edited:
Seems leak was legit!
No atmos of any kind (waste of galaxy size), just legs and base building......if soo i'll skip 2020 expansion!
 
We're in 2019 and we have tons of FPS games. I can only remember good ones... Doom, Duke Nukem, Unreal, Quake, Far Cry, Crysis, Half Life... software and hardware technology nowadays allows to make piece of arts with FPS. I can't believe it is still possible to make disasters... But then I think to Star Citizen... clipping, dying and falling through walls and floors...
So yes when I think about Legs in Elite Dangerous I'm a bit scared...
On the other hand I can't see what could go wrong developing some nice atmospheric planet. It's mainly cosmetic. The problems could only come from the additional gamplay.
 
So like, catch someone with a stray shot and scratch their paint means an entire res zone wanting to ream you a new bottom hole...

but, stealing ships is A-Ok...
 
Understood... But does this 18-24month development have more time and people than 5yrs of the previous development we've seen? Does it have different designers? If not, why would it show a radically different outcome in depth of gameplay and/or quality of mechanics design?

I'll be frank. The last development that I actually thought raised the bar in ED, was surface landings. Most of what else has been added for me has been basiclly shallow bolt ons. Now a shallow/simple bolt on in itself isn't a problem. But when most of them are shallow bolts ons, or worse still, half baked clunky bolt ons...? Hmmm....

If we get space legs end of next year, given the past few years of design choices and quality, I think it will most likely be pretty shallow, clunky, vapid stuff.

I hope to be proven wrong! Honestly!
Everything in every game ever is shallow, depending on at what level you look at it. However, when you show ED to a new player, and explain how combat (all different weapons and defences, different engineering options and ships) mining (the different types, scanners, limpets, ship outfitting choices, combined with RES types, hotspots) etc it is very obvious that 'shallow and half-baked' is just an indication of your wild imagination. Outfitting a mining ship, mining it and selling it at an appropriate place is infinitely deeper than mining is in NMS, SC or X4. You are just saying "everything that exists is shallow and half-baked because I can imagine awesomer. ;)
 
Understood... But does this 18-24month development have more time and people than 5yrs of the previous development we've seen? Does it have different designers? If not, why would it show a radically different outcome in depth of gameplay and/or quality of mechanics design?

I'll be frank. The last development that I actually thought raised the bar in ED, was surface landings. Most of what else has been added for me has been basiclly shallow bolt ons. Now a shallow/simple bolt on in itself isn't a problem. But when most of them are shallow bolts ons, or worse still, half baked clunky bolt ons...? Hmmm....

If we get space legs end of next year, given the past few years of design choices and quality, I think it will most likely be pretty shallow, clunky, vapid stuff.

I hope to be proven wrong! Honestly!
I think a more interesting question is: What would Horizons have looked like if delivered as one unified product? I think it's probable that there would have been less half-baked aspects, and more unified game design (overlap between the additions etc). Being tied to periodic 'flagship' mini-deliveries clearly impacted those areas.

On 'the same staff' though, I think it's worth remembering the bits of ED you do like ;). I like to use Mike 'flight model' Evans as an example. I appreciate the work he (& doubtless many others) did on the flight model & the SRV. He's still there as a Senior Designer. I'm interested to see what guys like that could do with the game mechanics of Legs or Atmospherics. I've got an inkling that they could make something pretty fun ;)
 
Everything in every game ever is shallow, depending on at what level you look at it. However, when you show ED to a new player, and explain how combat (all different weapons and defences, different engineering options and ships) mining (the different types, scanners, limpets, ship outfitting choices, combined with RES types, hotspots) etc it is very obvious that 'shallow and half-baked' is just an indication of your wild imagination. Outfitting a mining ship, mining it and selling it at an appropriate place is infinitely deeper than mining is in NMS, SC or X4. You are just saying "everything that exists is shallow and half-baked because I can imagine awesomer. ;)
Well for ppl like you all depth is in amount of available weapons and ship upgrades.
All that become pointless at the end since stock ship vs stock ship is same to engineered ship vs. engineered ship.

For others depth is amount of interaction mechanics in game; pve/pvp, landing on planets (atmos with it's challenging reentry mechanics), walking around, FPS, exploring and finding intersting things.

Take for example Arma, you can drive cars and boats, dive, fly planes, walk and FPS and all those can interact between themself.
 
Well for ppl like you all depth is in amount of available weapons and ship upgrades.
All that become pointless at the end since stock ship vs stock ship is same to engineered ship vs. engineered ship.

For others depth is amount of interaction mechanics in game; pve/pvp, landing on planets (atmos with it's challenging reentry mechanics), walking around, FPS, exploring and finding intersting things.

Take for example Arma, you can drive cars and boats, dive, fly planes, walk and FPS and all those can interact between themself.
Nope, but I guess 'people like you' are more interested in strawmen. (y) And your arma example proves my point perfectly: all those activities (driving cars, flying planes) are all 'shallow and half-baked' when you look at them. I am sure I can find the equivalent on other forums, complaining the helicopter controls are shallow, lack depth and that the devs should have done more, they are probably lazy or stupid, there is no hope for the future of Arma and they are only playing 'because arma has no real competition'.
 
Nope, but I guess 'people like you' are more interested in strawmen. (y) And your arma example proves my point perfectly: all those activities (driving cars, flying planes) are all 'shallow and half-baked' when you look at them. I am sure I can find the equivalent on other forums, complaining the helicopter controls are shallow, lack depth and that the devs should have done more, they are probably lazy or stupid, there is no hope for the future of Arma and they are only playing 'because arma has no real competition'.
I expected more intelligent answer from you, seems you don't get it.
I'll explain; stabbing something with a needle or with big sword is still same stabbing mechanic.
While flying and walking are different mehanics in different enviroment.

Well, enjoy in your depth of dressing up your avatar and boosting ship.

Btw for Arma you wont find any thread about being halfbaked and shallow despite having other problems!
For ED every second review and thread states it is shallow and halfbaked.
 
I expected more intelligent answer from you, seems you don't get it.
I'll explain; stabbing something with a needle or with big sword is still same stabbing mechanic.
Thanks for the insult, makes you look awesome. Anyway, the whole point of my example is that it illustrates that it is not the same stabbing mechanic. It is weird that I have to exlain that. The combat mechanics consist of fixed, gimballed, turreted, kinetic, hitscan, laser, and (un)guided missiles. You have counters such chaff, ECM, SCB, and these can also be countered with special mods (SCB -> feedback cascade). The choices you make further interact with the game mechanics: using lasers instead of kinetics put more demands on your weapon energy via the power distributor, which means you have less to spend on your agility. To which extent that is important depends on the ship, as each ship has a different curve connecting engine power distribution with thruster performance. And all of this is just part of the combat system, which is just part of the game.

You presenting it as 'same mechanic, only different damage' means you are either willfully misrepresenting the facts or you dont grasp the basics of this shallow and half-baked game.

https://www.wargamer.com/articles/arma-3-dlc-buying-guide/
Note how they call the jets 'incredibly shallow'. Which is exactly my point; if you focus on any element in any game, you can frame it as shallow depending on what you compare it with. I found other such statements as well, feel free to use this experimental site called 'google'. This topic is about ED though, so I'll just stop here considering your 'nobody calls it shallow' is already demonstrably false and I am not really interested in some goalpost shifting.
 
Thanks for the insult, makes you look awesome. Anyway, the whole point of my example is that it illustrates that it is not the same stabbing mechanic. It is weird that I have to exlain that. The combat mechanics consist of fixed, gimballed, turreted, kinetic, hitscan, laser, and (un)guided missiles. You have counters such chaff, ECM, SCB, and these can also be countered with special mods (SCB -> feedback cascade). The choices you make further interact with the game mechanics: using lasers instead of kinetics put more demands on your weapon energy via the power distributor, which means you have less to spend on your agility. To which extent that is important depends on the ship, as each ship has a different curve connecting engine power distribution with thruster performance. And all of this is just part of the combat system, which is just part of the game.

You presenting it as 'same mechanic, only different damage' means you are either willfully misrepresenting the facts or you dont grasp the basics of this shallow and half-baked game.

https://www.wargamer.com/articles/arma-3-dlc-buying-guide/
Note how they call the jets 'incredibly shallow'. Which is exactly my point; if you focus on any element in any game, you can frame it as shallow depending on what you compare it with. I found other such statements as well, feel free to use this experimental site called 'google'. This topic is about ED though, so I'll just stop here considering your 'nobody calls it shallow' is already demonstrably false and I am not really interested in some goalpost shifting.
It wasn't insult, more like i thought of you as intelligent person as seen from other your posts so this answer suprised me.

Where you see different weapons as differend mechanics and game depth, to me they just another thing to shot on another ship.
Shoting=game mechanic , walking=game mechanic, flying= game mechanic
Shoting from gun or rifle are not different mechanics, it's still shooting!

Regarding Arma you did pretty bland argument, you found single word described jets as shallow (they are 3rd party dlc/mod), jets are 0.1% of the game.
While article describing Arma as a game with depth and lot of content and mechanics.
Thing is reviews for arma are positive and you won't see it as a game described being shallow, only for poor performance utilization.
While "Wide as a ocean and deep an inch" aka shallow is synonym for ED and internet is full of it.
 
It wasn't insult, more like i thought of you as intelligent person as seen from other your posts so this answer suprised me.

Where you see different weapons as differend mechanics and game depth, to me they just another thing to shot on another ship.
Shoting=game mechanic , walking=game mechanic, flying= game mechanic
Shoting from gun or rifle are not different mechanics, it's still shooting!
Shooting a railgun, getting a torp lock, countering missiles with ECM and moving your ship in a way your PDT can intercept missing are all 'just shooting'? Weird, from a game design perspective these are very much different but interlocking mechanics, but okay. Lets take your perspective: 'shooting, walking and flying' are different mechanics. That means ED has shooting, flying, driving, mining, scanning, repairing, healing and so on. Can you explain why ED is so often called 'shallow' whereas games like F1 racing, FIFA, any random FPS, Lemmings and so on are not? It isn't because these games have more mechanics.

I suspect it partly is because ED is a space game, which means people let their imagination run wild and compare the game with that, combined with the fact many people dont know how the game developed since 2014. I am betting the overwhelming majority of Steam reviewers never entered a thargoid base, or even know it is possible. They never drove around in an SRV to gather mats to generate oxygen for your spaceship with a broken canopy. They never used an outpost to fill up their life support because it didn't have a repair facility. They never disabled a ship's thruster so a wingmate could break the hatch and steal specific canisters with limpets. Compared with your average game, ED is simply far deeper. Is it as deep as I want it to be? No. Does that make the game shallow? No.
 
Yeah, ship theft is going to go like this:

1) Steal player ship.
2) Fly stolen ship to chopshop.
3) Sell ship for scrap.
4) Insurance covers loss.

Oh, that's scintillating gameplay. Be stll my heart.
 
Shooting a railgun, getting a torp lock, countering missiles with ECM and moving your ship in a way your PDT can intercept missing are all 'just shooting'? Weird, from a game design perspective these are very much different but interlocking mechanics, but okay. Lets take your perspective: 'shooting, walking and flying' are different mechanics. That means ED has shooting, flying, driving, mining, scanning, repairing, healing and so on. Can you explain why ED is so often called 'shallow' whereas games like F1 racing, FIFA, any random FPS, Lemmings and so on are not? It isn't because these games have more mechanics.

I suspect it partly is because ED is a space game, which means people let their imagination run wild and compare the game with that, combined with the fact many people dont know how the game developed since 2014. I am betting the overwhelming majority of Steam reviewers never entered a thargoid base, or even know it is possible. They never drove around in an SRV to gather mats to generate oxygen for your spaceship with a broken canopy. They never used an outpost to fill up their life support because it didn't have a repair facility. They never disabled a ship's thruster so a wingmate could break the hatch and steal specific canisters with limpets. Compared with your average game, ED is simply far deeper. Is it as deep as I want it to be? No. Does that make the game shallow? No.
ED has a pretty fleshed out ship combat (pew pew) and that's it, scanning is some cheap popup screen minigame, mining is again SHOOTING at rocks, driving has no sense (you drive on almost flat empty surface shooting at rocks, where it would make more sense do it with ship).
Healing and repairing is same as trading= go from point A to point B with only text and mission menu is different.
You forgot Multicrew (anot6her halfbaked arcade feature and failure that don't work).
About players imagination and expetations ask mr.Braben and his KS promises, interviews and later ones, soo far Elite is biggest kickstarter fraud.
When they needed money you couldn't stop him talking, once they made other games and gain financial stability they went silent and charging even Beta access while delivering poor updates and amount of bugs i never seen in any game.

Now i don't think ED is so shallow as some describe it i just made an example where some features could bring depth like Arma has (perfect example of sandbox), ED is simply limited by you being a spaceship and games like that cant have true sandbox depth on Arma level, legs and atmo planets will for sure change that if they ever deliver it.
 
Top Bottom