Gamescom 2018

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

This reminds when EA released Sim City in 2014 and they said the game had to be online only, because of the ammount of data needed to be processed and the cpus couldn't handle.
LOL.
Yeah, what really happens here is a lack of development from Frontier Developments.
We don't need to go as far as planetary landings or walking around, just seeing how the game was developed in this 4 years is enough.

They did unit simulations of several cities by per citizen so yes, they needed online component. Have you played offline version of SimCity 5? It is a nongame. Nothing happens, because sim part was indeed on servers.

Now, why they wanted to create such game and then only reveal that 1 month before release is another question. Just saying your analogy is a bit flawed.

 

[amigacooke]

Gamers are their own worst enemy.

Some gamers are their own worst enemy.

I do not think so, see 2.4 estimated time:

???? is simply no date given. Also, even in the hypothetical case it had been explicitly stated as "Winter" (which it was not), winter would have gone all the way to 21st March 2017 anyways.

As 2.3 missed its date by about 6 months it's a bit of a moot point.

 

[amigacooke]

They did unit simulations of several cities by per citizen so yes, they needed online component. Have you played offline version of SimCity 5? It is a nongame. Nothing happens, because sim part was indeed on servers.

Now, why they wanted to create such game and then only reveal that 1 month before release is another question. Just saying your analogy is a bit flawed.

What they did was create enough of a gap in the market to allow Cities: Skylines to come roaring through.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

What they did was create enough of a gap in the market to allow Cities: Skylines to come roaring through.

Indeed. I think I would read story / book about failed attempt of SimCity 5, because I followed development, and it felt they tried to do some sort of ultra realistic simulation and failed. Visually it wasn't huge upgrade from SimCity 3 / 4 (I think third one was still peak in style, 4 for me decreased fidelity somewhat). It is a bit sad ending for Maxis. I loved that company. They had lot of great ideas. But after they produced insanity of money making Sims, which basically focused their efforts away from interesting simulations, because EA wanted all their money. SimCity was their last effort to return to days when they cared. It failed. A bit sad ending for great studio.

 

[Viajero]

Some gamers are their own worst enemy.



As 2.3 missed its date by about 6 months it's a bit of a moot point.

2.3 was stated as "Fall" (which ends on 21st December) and was released in April, so close to 4 months.

And 2.4 didn´t even have a target date I am afraid. Even if 2.4 had been slated as "Winter" (which it was not) the full season delay would have been of 6 months (end of Winter in March, and release of 2.4 in September). Either way quite far from the "full year" hiperbole.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

In my opinion - as I don't have gathered strong evidence to prove my point - is that FD changed schedule after slow Horizons sales and feedback from players that they want to see base of the game improved instead of new stuff slapped on it. So they increased cycle of each update, and added huge amount of base game improvements. These base game improvements convinced more people to a) buy ED and b) upgrade to ED Horizons. They also moved away from idea pushing updates frequently, instead of doing it slowly and right.

Whatever your opinion might be on LEP / next paid for DLCs / 'promises', they had to build a foundation for game, both financially and development wise, which they did. And spreading out Horizons development and adding more to base game during Horizons played into that.

 

[amigacooke]

2.3 was stated as "Fall" (which ends on 21st December) and was released in April, so close to 4 months.

And 2.4 didn´t even have a target date I am afraid. Even if 2.4 had been slated as "Winter" (which it was not) the full season delay would have been of 6 months (end of Winter in March, and release of 2.4 in September). Either way quite far from the "full year" hiperbole.

Unless of course you choose the first day of the period stated, in which case add another 3 months

Anyway, that must be fake information as what self respecting British company would describe Autumn as fall?

 

[thistle]

In my opinion - as I don't have gathered strong evidence to prove my point - is that FD changed schedule after slow Horizons sales and feedback from players that they want to see base of the game improved instead of new stuff slapped on it. So they increased cycle of each update, and added huge amount of base game improvements. These base game improvements convinced more people to a) buy ED and b) upgrade to ED Horizons. They also moved away from idea pushing updates frequently, instead of doing it slowly and right.

Whatever your opinion might be on LEP / next paid for DLCs / 'promises', they had to build a foundation for game, both financially and development wise, which they did. And spreading out Horizons development and adding more to base game during Horizons played into that.

I also think people forget - or maybe dont know - how much the game changed over the 2.x releases, and I mean after the initial horizons planetary landings. A huge amount changed, QOL and content. It's almost worth someone writing it all down, but I can't be bothered

 

[Riverside]

I also think people forget - or maybe dont know - how much the game changed over the 2.x releases, and I mean after the initial horizons planetary landings. A huge amount changed, QOL and content. It's almost worth someone writing it all down, but I can't be bothered

How does it compare to 1.x, in your opinion?

 

[Viajero]

Anyway, that must be fake information as what self respecting British company would describe Autumn as fall?

Busted

 

[Makaan]

I do not think so, see 2.4 estimated time:



???? is simply no date given. Also, even in the hypothetical case it had been explicitly stated as "Winter" (which it was not), winter would have gone all the way to 21st March 2017 anyways.

Because it was a secret update? You can clearly see from that little roadmap that Horizons was planned for 2016. Using that really is a strawman to try and disprove that it wasn't when 75% of the updates in it were said to release in 2016.

It doesn't matter though because the point is, as we all experienced first hand, there was a delay. Horizons took longer than was planned and expected (2.3 missed its date on that schedule by 6 months). It's logical to then assume that this had an effect on the overall schedule for Elite and is a contributing factor to the feeling of slow development.

 

[Viajero]

Because it was a secret update?

Also an update that did not have an estimated delivery date.

You can clearly see from that little roadmap that Horizons was planned for 2016. Using that really is a strawman to try and disprove that it wasn't when 75% of the updates in it were said to release in 2016.

No, you can not clearly see that at all because even in the case it had been slated as "winter" (which it was not) its target window would have then extended several months beyond 2016 (winter ends in March) etc. Alas, the fact remains that 2.4 had no date, not even "winter".

But please do not let facts get in the way of your gratuitous strawman accusations.

 

[thistle]

How does it compare to 1.x, in your opinion?

Far better. 1.x was Elite 1984 with modern graphics. No planets to land on, the same game effectively. Which is what I wanted.

We then got Horizons, landings, srv, materials gathering, many new ships, engineers, etc etc. But think of the QOL changes over the time from 2.0 to now, things we take for granted that would cause riots if they were taken out, it was quite bare bones initially. Simple things, names, clock(!), varied station interiors, traffic control, a lot more ships since 1.x, many more mission types, and for me as someone who loves landing on planets the 3.0 graphics changes have also lifted the game to another level.

It's easy to take all the things we currently have for granted, forgetting they weren't there.

 

[Makaan]

Also an update that did not have an estimated delivery date.



No, you can not clearly see that at all because even in the case it had been slated as "winter" (which it was not) its target window would have then extended several months beyond 2016 (winter ends in March) etc. Alas, the fact remains that 2.4 had no date, not even "winter".

But please do not let facts get in the way of your gratuitous strawman accusations.

Still, it doesn't distract from the fact that 75% of Horizons was planned for 2016. That is what you can clearly see from the schedule and it's pretty obvious it wasn't meant to take 2 years.

And to just add, you don't know when 2.4 would have released yourself, you're surmising that it would have been many months after 2.3 when they could have released a few weeks/month apart like update 1.5 and Horizons. You don't know. I don't know.

What we do know is that the vast majority of Horizons was planned for 2016 (as you can see from that schedule). So using logic and looking at that, it's safe to say that Frontier didn't plan Horizons to finish near the end of 2017/plan 2.4 to release a year after 2.3's original planned drop. It was delayed. That is the point I'm making.

 

[StuartGT]

Far better. 1.x was Elite 1984 with modern graphics. No planets to land on, the same game effectively. Which is what I wanted.

We then got Horizons, landings, srv, materials gathering, many new ships, engineers, etc etc. But think of the QOL changes over the time from 2.0 to now, things we take for granted that would cause riots if they were taken out, it was quite bare bones initially. Simple things, names, clock(!), varied station interiors, traffic control, a lot more ships since 1.x, many more mission types, and for me as someone who loves landing on planets the 3.0 graphics changes have also lifted the game to another level.

It's easy to take all the things we currently have for granted, forgetting they weren't there.

One wonders how explorers would feel if route-plotting was reduced back to its initial 100LY maximum (was increased to 1kLY in 1.1, and to 20kLY in 2.4), or Neutron Star boosted-jumps were removed, or Colonia was ditched?

Some players forget how much has been added and improved in this game, simply because they can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

One wonders how explorers would feel if route-plotting was reduced back to its initial 100LY maximum (was increased to 1kLY in 1.1, and to 20kLY in 2.4), or Neutron Star boosted-jumps were removed, or Colonia was ditched?

Some players forget how much has been added and improved in this game, simply because they can't see the forest for the trees.

One wonders how one always mistakes travel for exploration.

And one is amused how the Colonia Minor Player Factions Experiment is considered an exploration feature. One suspects one is struggling to list exploration features when one includes that and calls it a tree.

 

[C64Fan]

Two are off topic.


EDIT: Ok not just two, but two was perfect there [hehe].

 

[Riverside]

Far better. 1.x was Elite 1984 with modern graphics. No planets to land on, the same game effectively. Which is what I wanted.

We then got Horizons, landings, srv, materials gathering, many new ships, engineers, etc etc. But think of the QOL changes over the time from 2.0 to now, things we take for granted that would cause riots if they were taken out, it was quite bare bones initially. Simple things, names, clock(!), varied station interiors, traffic control, a lot more ships since 1.x, many more mission types, and for me as someone who loves landing on planets the 3.0 graphics changes have also lifted the game to another level.

It's easy to take all the things we currently have for granted, forgetting they weren't there.

There were QoL changes in all the 1.x updates too, and the series of updates were delivered in a year. In 1.x significant bugs were generally not left in the game for months, minor updates came regularly throughout the point update, in 2.x point updates came in the first few weeks then nothing of any note until a fortnight before the next major update we start to see new mission templates, AI behaviour & other server-side updates added.

In addition, in 2015 we regularly received sneak peeks in the newsletter (ie it actually contained news about the game itself rather than just events happening in the game), and we had monthly Dev updates on this forum to keep us informed with the longer term future development.

I think your opinion that 2.x was tangibly better than 1.x is based on incomplete information.

In addition, the gameplay you wanted arrived in 2.x. I think planetary landings have really added to my gameplay but I am waiting for atmospheric landings and maybe getting out of my seat, which have yet to arrive. I have paid in advance for future content too, so the 2.x delays and 3.x necessary second passes are drawing out an already protracted delay even longer. The relative lack of information (or even acknowledgement to some degree) is about my only continuing source of frustration with Frontier, and I went to Gamescom to discuss specifically this with them (and did).

One wonders how explorers would feel if route-plotting was reduced back to its initial 100LY maximum (was increased to 1kLY in 1.1, and to 20kLY in 2.4), or Neutron Star boosted-jumps were removed, or Colonia was ditched?

Some players forget how much has been added and improved in this game, simply because they can't see the forest for the trees.

Making the game easier & more accessible does not improve the game, it only changes it. There are challenges I have undertaken that are now trivial to complete.

 

[StuartGT]

Still, it doesn't distract from the fact that 75% of Horizons was planned for 2016.

60% of Horizons was publicly scheduled for 2016: 2.1 in Spring, 2.2 in Summer, 2.3 in Fall (Autumn). 2.0 released in 2015 (December). With Fall/Autumn itself ending in December, 2.4 was expected (by people who can read a calendar) to be early 2017,

That is what you can clearly see from the schedule and it's pretty obvious it wasn't meant to take 2 years.

Agreed, Horizons was meant to take somewhere around 16 months (Dec 2015 to Mar 2017), however 2.3 arrived 4 months late and 2.4 was 6 months later than the community's guessed timescale.

And to just add, you don't know when 2.4 would have released yourself, you're surmising that it would have been many months after 2.3 when they could have released a few weeks/month apart like update 1.5 and Horizons. You don't know. I don't know.

Agreed, apart from one correction: 1.5 and Horizons 2.0 were part of the same update released on 15th December, and not separate updates distributed weeks/month apart as you say.

What we do know is that the vast majority of Horizons was planned for 2016 (as you can see from that schedule). So using logic and looking at that, it's safe to say that Frontier didn't plan Horizons to finish near the end of 2017/plan 2.4 to release a year after 2.3's original planned drop. It was delayed. That is the point I'm making.

True, Frontier probably planned for 2.4 to release Q1 2017, not Q3.

 

[Makaan]

60% of Horizons was publicly scheduled for 2016: 2.1 in Spring, 2.2 in Summer, 2.3 in Fall (Autumn). 2.0 released in 2015 (December). With Fall/Autumn itself ending in December, 2.4 was expected (by people who can read a calendar) to be early 2017,

Agreed, Horizons was meant to take somewhere around 16 months (Dec 2015 to Mar 2017), however 2.3 arrived 4 months late and 2.4 was 6 months later than the community's guessed timescale.


Agreed, apart from one correction: 1.5 and Horizons 2.0 were part of the same update released on 15th December, and not separate updates distributed weeks/month apart as you say.


True, Frontier probably planned for 2.4 to release Q1 2017, not Q3.

Thanks for the corrections and yeah, it's pretty obvious that they didn't intend Horizons to take near on two years to wrap up. I'm not entirely sure why people are arguing against that.