Gamescom 2018

[StuartGT]

Making the game easier & more accessible does not improve the game, it only changes it.

That's your subjective opinion on the changes.

Adding optional QOL features IS improving the game, as it is making the game easier and more accessible for those that choose to use those optional changes.

Prior to changes: fewer choices. Post-changes: more choices. More choices are an objective improvement.

There are challenges I have undertaken that are now trivial to complete.

Those challenges still exist, for those that want to do them without the optional QOL additions.

 

[Riverside]

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

With the benefit of hindsight it's now clear the Thargoid content was planned to be released over time, so Q416 rolling into Q1/Q217.

I actually thought 2.4 would be a superpower war, and that Thargoid content would be a premium addition (I also thought what's now being called squadrons would be a premium addition).

 

[babelfisch]

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.

I think that most people (including FDEV) expected Horizons to roughly take one year. It just gets silly when people start to throw random accusations around like FDEV has broken their promises or clearly abandoned development. As a matter of fact the delay was already communicated prior to 2.1 and the complete Horizons Season ended up with way more features and improvements than initially pitched during preorder (which according to FDEV was the reason for the delay). That said, I do think that some features (Engineers and Multicrew) were badly implemented. Landing on planets, SLF, passengers, the avatar creator and the countless QOL improvements and minor features on the other hand are pretty good. Maybe they would've developed Horizons faster without Planet Coaster and the Dino game but maybe they would've gone bankrupt without additional funds. The money they spend for Beyond and the features after it (Atmospheric Planets, Space Legs) was probably earned with these games.

 

[Riverside]

Those challenges still exist, for those that want to do them without the optional QOL additions.

They don't. Crossing the void to Beagle Point is a good example. It's a piece of cake now with the 20kLy plotter, before it was a daunting challenge. My point is that it is subjective and not necessarily better in every way.

 

[Makaan]

I think that most people (including FDEV) expected Horizons to roughly take one year. It just gets silly when people start to throw random accusations around like FDEV has broken their promises or clearly abandoned development. As a matter of fact the delay was already communicated prior to 2.1 and the complete Horizons Season ended up with way more features and improvements than initially pitched during preorder (which according to FDEV was the reason for the delay). That said, I do think that some features (Engineers and Multicrew) were badly implemented. Landing on planets, SLF, passengers, the avatar creator and the countless QOL improvements and minor features on the other hand are pretty good. Maybe they would've developed Horizons faster without Planet Coaster and the Dino game but maybe they would've gone bankrupt without additional funds. The money they spend for Beyond and the features after it (Atmospheric Planets, Space Legs) was probably earned with these games.

Yeah, I'm not saying they broke promises or anything, I know there are unforeseen walls that can hit development. My original point was that the delay with Horizons is probably a contributing factor to the feeling of slow development and that people should take that into account, and it likely affected Elites overall schedule, I imagine.

 

[amigacooke]

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,

People who can read a calendar know that if you give a 3 months spread, there is an implication that it could be in any of those 3 months. If that isn't the case, you shouldn't give a 3 month spread.

 

[StuartGT]

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.

My theory? The Playstation 4 port was the major cause of the delays, first 2.2 (1 month), then 2.3 (4 months) and consequently 2.4 (6 months). Why I think this:

• Cobra was already ported to Xbox, which itself is practically a spec-locked Windows PC anyway.
• Elite Dangerous was FDev's first Playstation game.
• The PS4 uses a custom OS based on FreeBSD, radically different to Windows.
• The PS4 uses a custom graphics API named GNM/X, differing to DirectX11 on a similar scale to OpenGL 4.5 (while all three APIs have similar functionality, their implementations of features are different).
• With the PS4 port launching June 2017, it's likely that the bulk of its beta testing was done using the 2.2 branch of Elite, released Oct 2016.
• Following this train of thought, 2.2 was probably the first Elite version to be "Playstation compatible".
• Here's an interesting tidbit: 2.2 was the update that brought us the beige planets plague, which then took FDev sixteen months to fix (3.0).
• Note that during this time, FDev's Cobra team were working hard to keep Elite compatible with 4 graphics APIs: DirectX10 (PC), DirectX11 (PC/Xbox), OpenGL 4.2 (OS X), and GNM/X (PS4). That's a large range of supported features and implementations.
• Not only that, but the Cobra team (around 30 staff according to FDev's games' credits; see Shared Tech Group and Tools Development) were simultaneously tasked with creating devtools for Planet Coaster's game and content creation, thereby preventing the full-strength engine team from combating the unexpected PS4 port difficulties.
• FDev want to maintain platform parity wherever possible, and Sony's certification process won't allow a bug as prevalent as beige planets to be released on their console, so FDev made the hard business choice: make all platforms have beige planets, until they can fix them on PS4.

Now that the PS4 Elite release was successful, Beyond 3.0 fixed beige planets, Jurassic World Evo release was successful (PC/Xbox/PS4), and Elite's DirectX10 and OS X's OpenGL support are both killed with 3.3 in Q4, I think the cross-platform/API development issues are now behind them.

Here's hoping we receive the Exploration Focused Feedback, new roadmap for Premium Content and 2019's updates, and Soon™.

 

[StuartGT]

People who can read a calendar know that if you give a 3 months spread, there is an implication that it could be in any of those 3 months. If that isn't the case, you shouldn't give a 3 month spread.

Indeed: in ANY of those 3 months. Arriving within (or before) the quarter window is classed as on-time; after that window it is late. Any expectation that it would be the first month is naive.

A window is given because precise month cannot be determined many, many months in advance - anything could happen to disrupt development. It's correctly managing expectations. If your planned release expects to be ready sometime around January, February or March, you say Q1 - if it arrives 31st March then you've met your published target window, and any earlier arrival is a welcome bonus.

3.0 was Q1 and arrived February. 3.2 is Q3, and arriving next week (August).

Now, what isn't correctly managing expectations is the delay of Exploration Focused Feedback, news of Premium Content, and roadmap for after Beyond.

 

[amigacooke]

Indeed: in ANY of those 3 months. Arriving within (or before) the quarter window is classed as on-time; after that window it is late. Any expectation that it would be the first month is naive.

Well it would be if the updates had turned up in the 3 months allowed to them. Another thing is that release dates are always optimistic, they never arrive before the target and quite frequently after.

 

[Sylveria]

I'm betting on Q4 in late November- as well as an announcement for some sort of paid expansion DLC before Xmas. (because... sales!)

 

[Shinji Ikari]

No, I really don't. I told you specifically where C3 missiles would be a beneficial choice in fitting and we all know you shoot missiles at things to make them explode.

Spoiler

 

[Shinji Ikari]

That's your subjective opinion on the changes.

Adding optional QOL features IS improving the game, as it is making the game easier and more accessible for those that choose to use those optional changes.

Prior to changes: fewer choices. Post-changes: more choices. More choices are an objective improvement.

Those challenges still exist, for those that want to do them without the optional QOL additions.

May I say that neutron star travelling was a bug that FD wanted to remove? More preciesly, they were planned to just boost jump range by 50% if I recall.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

i really start to wonder
what do you want to read?

missiles are a weapon system in elite dangerous... up to now only in small and medium hardpoints, (except AX dumbfires which come in medium and large)
they are there to shoot at targets.

seeker are not that usefull in PVE grind situations - unless you got a large high capacity magazine... wait, thats what we will eventually get.
seeker are great in multicrew, but run out of ammo so fast... unless we get large high capacity magazines...

unless they release those without direct engineering support, large missile hardpoints are a direct quality of life addon.
especially for those in large mining ships (corvette/type10 that get an abundance of missile synthesis materials)

 

[Shinji Ikari]

i really start to wonder
what do you want to read?

missiles are a weapon system in elite dangerous... up to now only in small and medium hardpoints, (except AX dumbfires which come in medium and large)
they are there to shoot at targets.

seeker are not that usefull in PVE grind situations - unless you got a large high capacity magazine... wait, thats what we will eventually get.
seeker are great in multicrew, but run out of ammo so fast... unless we get large high capacity magazines...

unless they release those without direct engineering support, large missile hardpoints are a direct quality of life addon.
especially for those in large mining ships (corvette/type10 that get an abundance of missile synthesis materials)

Why missiles? That's the question.

 

[Viajero]

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.

No one is arguing there were delays, it is just that it was not delayed a full year as you stated. I am not entirely sure either why people keep arguing something as obviously false as that but there you go.

Even in the case 2.4 had been stated as "winter" (which it was not) the delay overall would have been at most 6 months (March to September). Not one year. As things and delays go in the games industry, specially considering other space sim genre products, this is probably among best in class delivery actually.

 

[thistle]

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

No, you are just making different points.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

Why missiles? That's the question.

why not?

all this time i wonder why you don't complain about the C3 Turreted Multicannon - who needs that crap?
the only multicannon i have on my ships, is a turreted c1 to apply a debuff on my targets.
i see no reason why anyone would need a turreted large multicannon.

 

[C64Fan]

why not?

all this time i wonder why you don't complain about the C3 Turreted Multicannon - who needs that crap?
the only multicannon i have on my ships, is a turreted c1 to apply a debuff on my targets.
i see no reason why anyone would need a turreted large multicannon.

Variation.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

why not?

all this time i wonder why you don't complain about the C3 Turreted Multicannon - who needs that crap?
the only multicannon i have on my ships, is a turreted c1 to apply a debuff on my targets.
i see no reason why anyone would need a turreted large multicannon.

You are right, that is also a silly weapon. Now you are ready to answer the question.

 

[Bunkerkind Anni]

Variation.

right, thats it.

i like variation...
even if it wouldn't add something to the game,
i would love if they would release a corvette variant that has one huge hardpoint infront of the cockpit, and replaces the other huge one with a large and a medium one.
(in theory still less dps then the conda)

but after that, i would want to get a huge turret... because THEN i would feel like sitting in a battleship for some broadside battles