Is ED cursed? 'Cursed Problems in Game Design'
- Thread starter Rocky-451
- Start date
There you go, I completed the sentence on your behalf
I agree because I love the game and its developers and would never, ever, criticise them for my perception of their failings?
Member NMS launch?
How many exec's left/reassigned during the last 7 years at FD?
I love the question mark at the endThere you go, I completed the sentence on your behalf
I agree because I love the game and its developers and would never, ever, criticise them for my perception of their failings?
Had to be a question mark as it was being written as a suggestion to your request... Otherwise I'd have used and exclamation mark, obviouslyI love the question mark at the end
I know, but an exclamation mark would have not been believable from a quote of mine. The question mark is more realisticHad to be a question mark as it was being written as a suggestion to your request... Otherwise I'd have used and exclamation mark, obviously
Elites biggest "game design" problem is the hybrid sp/mp setup, they tried to make the hybrid work initially, but the two playstyles are fundamentally different and addons have made things worse (engineers/PP etc) IMO.
It's mainly bad in the confrontational PvP area, a lot of MMO's have gates to confrontational PvP combat, Elite does not (unless you pick a completely different mode, then we get the PP problems). Other games focus more on Co-op PvE (which is the area I think FD should have concentrated on).
COD in space Elite is not and should never be.
It's mainly bad in the confrontational PvP area, a lot of MMO's have gates to confrontational PvP combat, Elite does not (unless you pick a completely different mode, then we get the PP problems). Other games focus more on Co-op PvE (which is the area I think FD should have concentrated on).
COD in space Elite is not and should never be.
I don't think so, to be a believable quote of yours I would have had to lower my standards of polite intercourse, but I consider it a reasonable compromiseI know, but an exclamation mark would have not been believable from a quote of mine. The question mark is more realistic
I'm completely with you on this. On the other hand, I think there are ways to give players access to game content without locking it behind "real life economic realism". For example, I would much rather Fleet Carriers be owned by someone besides me, but I'm "given" one to operate like a local franchise, perhaps by reaching a top rank with a superpower (wouldn't it be cool if there were separate Federation vs Empire vs Alliance carriers?) or hitting Elite or even triple Elite. Gameplay-wise, this would give me more latitude in how I can unlock cool content without having to work in ED like I work IRL. In other words, I can do FUN things to unlock the content I want, while still allowing for the game to feel realistic. Compare and contrast this to "everybody gets a free freighter after playing 5 hours of NMS" gamey-gameness, which is one of the things that actually makes NMS dull IMO.
The key to all of this is balance, the balance between realism and fun, and I don't envy those responsible to find that balance; it's an incredibly fine line that not everyone will agree on regardless how right the developer gets it.
It's not just PvP - PvE. It's SP - MP in general. To make it MP ED had to make lots of concessions. You can't have ppl have different time accelerations in the game -> Supercruise. No save game. No modding. Etc.
Playing ED and how it evolved made me realise I didn't really want a MP pew game for space adventure. It's shiny and OK with the pew, though I can't say after 2.1 since it got so grindy and effectively locked me out of the pew. I feel the X game fulfills that need better. It's not as nice with the flying (at least they got the flight assistless mode quite right), but it's got better economy, more variety, storylines, accessible lore and all the shebubs about building and even crafting now. And I get all that without some rando possibly living out their crappy power fantasies on others.
Nonsense. There is number of MMOs which brilliantly combined very rich and engaging narratives, literally "single-player" long and interesting storylines, with the classic MMO design - SWTOR, Guild Wars 2, where the total amount of hours to go through all storylines is >100 hours! And it's without any grind/leveling at all, just doing quests/missions all the time.
Having such clear and obvious examples, total failure with any kind of narratives/storylines in ED is... FDev style, yes
By "mp" I meant COD kill everthing moving. Co-op storylines are a different beasty and I covered that in the next paragraph of my post that you didn't quote "Other games focus more on Co-op PvE (which is the area I think FD should have concentrated on). "
Lol, if you say so mate. ED has far more depth to it then NMS. It always has done and probably always will.
Lol. There's not 100 people working on the starter areas, bug fixes and Fleet Carriers. There were around 15. The rest are working on the next era.
Lol. You must have missed all the updates that have come to ED then in the last four years. I suggest looking at the official updates part of the forum to educate yourself.
I know you're just trying to justify liking that pile of turd that is called NMS, but don't worry, nobody will hold it against you.
I know you've said similar stuff before, but I still find it funny.Which is why I said what I said, it's a "hybrid" of the two systems and a design flaw (IMO). Financially it makes sense becuase it means the game has a broader appeal, but once people play it for a while and get past the awe, they notice the flaws.
I believe they chose P2P because if it was server run like WOW then that open up the can of worms that is monthly subscriptions to maintain the infrastructure. I wouldn't have touched the game if it was like that. Then again how does Elder Scrolls Online or Destiny do it? Loads of concurrent players in one place in those games and no monthly subs.
You know how it is: Server - client -> P2P is the holy grail. P2P -> it's the devil and the only redemption is server - client.
![[VR] Zakk](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/64/64104.jpg?1587234982){kind=avatar}
Elite may be shallow in some aspects, but not at all in others.
From a simulation point of view, the game is more brilliant than anything I have ever seen. There are so many small details that, after having played the game for a long time, you don't even notice anymore. You take them for granted. But they are not. They are all results from conscious decisions in the game design process. And you cannot possibly give FDev enough credit for that.
However, from a more "traditional game design" point of view (in lack of a better term), the game can indeed be regarded as shallow. Storytelling is poor to non-existent, lore integration often seems half-hearted, and many game mechanics are simple grind cycles that are thinly veiled at best.
Pretty much all updates we have seen so far were aimed at making the simulation part more complex, but did not offer any groundbreaking new game design ideas that would have improved the in-game athmosphere.
In my humble opinion, the reason why the game receives so much criticism even from its core community members is a certain frustration, stemming from the realization that Elite could be so much more.
You wouldn't have to go overboard like Cloud Imperium Games does with Star Citizen. It would not require groundbreaking new core mechanics to create a more emergent gameplay. The existing mechanics offer enough possibilities to interact with the gaming world. All it would need are better purposes to use them, aside from going through the aforementioned grind cycles.
Take a relatively small team involving a capable writer / storyteller, a few backend coders to enable creating in-game events within defined parameters, and community managers that would tap the creative potential within the online community and channel ideas back into the game.
Add improved mechanics to avoid griefers / gankers and even better tutorial mechanics, and the game would open up to a much broader audience that you will not reach with the hardcore simulation aspects alone. And all that without losing the current simulation-driven fanbase, as nothing needs to be removed or dumbed down.
At the end of the day, the future of Elite will depend on how many players the game can reach on a long-term basis. It sometimes seems to me as if FDev are too focused on the core community. While it's certainly good to listen to your most faithful players, it also carries the risk of an increasingly narrowing tunnel vision.
At the end of the day, it's up to David Braben and the FDev team to decide what kind of game they want Elite Dangerous to be.
Do they want to focus on the simulation part, making the mechanics increasingly more complex?
Do they want to add entirely new game mechanics, like Space Legs or athmospheric landings (potentially with added wildlife, allowing them to use assets from Planet Zoo)?
Or do they want to focus on offering more options to utilize the existing mechanics and create a more immersive and less sterile / generic game world?
None of these aspects are mutually exclusive. You can focus on any two, or even all three of these aspects at the same time. Trying all three would require a lot of manpower, though, and may lead to significant delays in the development process.
From both an entrepreneur and from a gamer point of view, I think the third aspect offers the best "invested manpower" to "increased player base" ratio.
I don't think it would take that much to bring Elite Dangerous pretty close to the promise that Star Citizen still hasn't delivered - if you focus on what makes a good game.
Here's hoping that David Braben and FDev have a great vision of what's ahead, and the right ideas how to turn it into new content. This CMDR certainly isn't ready to lose hope yet.
From a simulation point of view, the game is more brilliant than anything I have ever seen. There are so many small details that, after having played the game for a long time, you don't even notice anymore. You take them for granted. But they are not. They are all results from conscious decisions in the game design process. And you cannot possibly give FDev enough credit for that.
However, from a more "traditional game design" point of view (in lack of a better term), the game can indeed be regarded as shallow. Storytelling is poor to non-existent, lore integration often seems half-hearted, and many game mechanics are simple grind cycles that are thinly veiled at best.
Pretty much all updates we have seen so far were aimed at making the simulation part more complex, but did not offer any groundbreaking new game design ideas that would have improved the in-game athmosphere.
In my humble opinion, the reason why the game receives so much criticism even from its core community members is a certain frustration, stemming from the realization that Elite could be so much more.
You wouldn't have to go overboard like Cloud Imperium Games does with Star Citizen. It would not require groundbreaking new core mechanics to create a more emergent gameplay. The existing mechanics offer enough possibilities to interact with the gaming world. All it would need are better purposes to use them, aside from going through the aforementioned grind cycles.
Take a relatively small team involving a capable writer / storyteller, a few backend coders to enable creating in-game events within defined parameters, and community managers that would tap the creative potential within the online community and channel ideas back into the game.
Add improved mechanics to avoid griefers / gankers and even better tutorial mechanics, and the game would open up to a much broader audience that you will not reach with the hardcore simulation aspects alone. And all that without losing the current simulation-driven fanbase, as nothing needs to be removed or dumbed down.
At the end of the day, the future of Elite will depend on how many players the game can reach on a long-term basis. It sometimes seems to me as if FDev are too focused on the core community. While it's certainly good to listen to your most faithful players, it also carries the risk of an increasingly narrowing tunnel vision.
At the end of the day, it's up to David Braben and the FDev team to decide what kind of game they want Elite Dangerous to be.
Do they want to focus on the simulation part, making the mechanics increasingly more complex?
Do they want to add entirely new game mechanics, like Space Legs or athmospheric landings (potentially with added wildlife, allowing them to use assets from Planet Zoo)?
Or do they want to focus on offering more options to utilize the existing mechanics and create a more immersive and less sterile / generic game world?
None of these aspects are mutually exclusive. You can focus on any two, or even all three of these aspects at the same time. Trying all three would require a lot of manpower, though, and may lead to significant delays in the development process.
From both an entrepreneur and from a gamer point of view, I think the third aspect offers the best "invested manpower" to "increased player base" ratio.
I don't think it would take that much to bring Elite Dangerous pretty close to the promise that Star Citizen still hasn't delivered - if you focus on what makes a good game.
Here's hoping that David Braben and FDev have a great vision of what's ahead, and the right ideas how to turn it into new content. This CMDR certainly isn't ready to lose hope yet.
Last edited:
I think that FD have suffered from this model of delivering content in small patches. A large patch is likely to have at least some content that will suit all players. In addition I think FD are pretty good at development planning. ie I think they know what they can do in a period of time. This is good from a cost control perspective, but tends to result in designs being abridged and is particularly noticeable in short length development cycles. If you look at everything since the initial release of Horizons, it's felt like each piece is incomplete. The other big issues is that Engineers has created too big a combat gap between the haves and have not's.
The game would benefit from creating a clear structure of player-squadron-faction-power-super power with Thargoids as a super power. A player joins a squadron or a faction. When a player belongs to a faction/squadron they only see missions for that faction and they are automatically in Powerplay. Powerplay activities become mission types. All mission types confer merits, but Powerplay specific mission types confer more merits and are only available when in open, moving out of open fails the open mission. Players not belonging to a squadron or faction can do none PP missions, but their actions have zero impact on the faction/power it's merely a cash/material transaction and confers no PP merits. I also believe a subset of open missions should be available to be done in stock ships or with free insurance to encourage players into open.
The game would benefit from creating a clear structure of player-squadron-faction-power-super power with Thargoids as a super power. A player joins a squadron or a faction. When a player belongs to a faction/squadron they only see missions for that faction and they are automatically in Powerplay. Powerplay activities become mission types. All mission types confer merits, but Powerplay specific mission types confer more merits and are only available when in open, moving out of open fails the open mission. Players not belonging to a squadron or faction can do none PP missions, but their actions have zero impact on the faction/power it's merely a cash/material transaction and confers no PP merits. I also believe a subset of open missions should be available to be done in stock ships or with free insurance to encourage players into open.
Yes, I don't really get the groundbreaking thing. I don't find it funny clipping through geometry. Not even for that fictitious imuhgent gameplay.