It feels like someone is doing their job wrong

[fademist]

Well, grind or not - Elite always was a very time consuming game, in all versions. Since there is nothing to "win" in Elite, the time-consumption "grind"-argument can fairly be ignored until there is something to achieve in all states of the game. A steady/constant progress (curve) is WAY more important than reaching a target to soon.

And - by all Frontier Bashing - please look how things slowly come together - starting with an already finished 3d-ship-interieur at release time 2014, now the commander-editor and so on... the game is clearly designed in a modular way and some of those are coming together hopefully sooner than later.

But I am still confident that we need more guys to run the story, either in a GameMaster-Style or by having some possibilities to inject events into the game. Example: GameMaster is able to put 100 canisters of Gold on a distant planet, or a ship wreckage that has to be searched and so on - of course with decent achievements for the community. And so on - we discussed that years ago already.

and on that we can see the stories other ppl try to make ...

 

[Dbrn47]

Well, grind or not - Elite always was a very time consuming game, in all versions. Since there is nothing to "win" in Elite, the time-consumption "grind"-argument can fairly be ignored until there is something to achieve in all states of the game. A steady/constant progress (curve) is WAY more important than reaching a target to soon.

And - by all Frontier Bashing - please look how things slowly come together - starting with an already finished 3d-ship-interieur at release time 2014, now the commander-editor and so on... the game is clearly designed in a modular way and some of those are coming together hopefully sooner than later.

But I am still confident that we need more guys to run the story, either in a GameMaster-Style or by having some possibilities to inject events into the game. Example: GameMaster is able to put 100 canisters of Gold on a distant planet, or a ship wreckage that has to be searched and so on - of course with decent achievements for the community. And so on - we discussed that years ago already.

The fact that I've finally just accepted it's the way it is, is the only real thing that keeps me around. Patience is just required to stay invested. It doesn't mean I'm going to let up on what I think about it though.

 

[Xzanron]

It also does not open up any further avenues of gameplay. The ship is in that location and that is it. Nothing you can do or say will effect it. There are no more clues, and no more avenues to follow up. Its just there. Like a lump on a log. Maybe one day in the future the ship will do something. Until then its just another pretty set piece in an empty galaxy.

"Elite is Space Engine with some combat and some simple missions". While "it's more complicated than that" (and I can't remember where either quote is from) there is some real truth to it. In some ways the current version of Elite has no more depth than the alpha version that had only 5 systems (and I spent 100s of hours playing the alphas/betas).

I have to agree about the youtube comment as well. In many ways I get more enjoyment out of the youtube videos than the game itself. At least with the videos I don't have to monotonously perform 1000s of virtually identical fuel-scoops and jumps to see it, and the experience in youtube is almost identical to if I'd been there myself.

I still play Elite, I still enjoy it, I came across my first asteroid base today entirely by accident and that was an enjoyable moment. Yet I feel most of the "content" is best enjoyed on youtube, because for me it's all behind a grind wall (in this case, simple distance/time). Spending 24 hours (real life hours!) travelling to see a new 3d model with some voice acting is not really my idea of a good time, or a good use of my time.

Tongue in cheek: Maybe Elite needs to have some built in "casual games" that you can play in your cockpit while you're waiting to get places , pinball maybe, or angry birds.

 

[DCLXVI your God]

All this talk about depth and we forget one important thing. Is it interesting/fun?

PP simply isn't interesting since it is the same actions of the game recycled towards a different purpose. It does not add interesting ways to interact with your ship, faction, and the galaxy. There is nothing to compel you to join one power or another as they are all, basically, the same with different numbers in the spreadsheet.

Did adding PP actually require anyone to learn anything new (other than some basic rules) and master?

To me, Planet landing did more for this game than any update so far, because it actually added new activities that created new scenarios and challenges.

A in-game trade tool that didn't just show you the best trades but actually hid them behind something you had to figure out (rather than just the mostly aimless search w/o off-game tools we have now) would be pretty neat. Perhaps gaining intel on different factions and chasing down leads could reveal things to you...people would have to learn and get good at something like that.

Mining that is more than just point and click resource gathering...perhaps requiring you to learn how to identify the best rocks to mine through visual/audio cues.

Engage my senses and my intellect, please, Frontier!

Yup!

 

[DefiledDragon]

Tongue in cheek: Maybe Elite needs to have some built in "casual games" that you can play in your cockpit while you're waiting to get places , pinball maybe, or angry birds.

I find the built in minigame "angry forum users" to be quite entertaining

 

[sutex]

ED Game play has a little depth , but it's JUST Not deep enough to ensure game play with REAL depth

 

[Rustnsawdust]

Take The Forest - why do I chop down a hundred trees? It take 13 slow shops to do it - about 20 seconds a tree perhaps. At the end of it though I get a log house, or I make defensive walls. I decide where these things go - I plan the base, I have to consider food water and resources which meant having to scout for a good location which meant having to creep around to avoid being spotted which meant I started finding new resources and animals and oh, now I can make lizard leaf camo armour....... See how the gadgets and assets work together to give me a ton of decisions? Do I set up food and water reserves first or do I try and get weapons and armour or do i build? When do I explore? When is night time coming? This immerses you into the game because you're mostly thinking about what your next steps are going to be, you're "into" the game because there's depth for you to stick your head under the surface.

Jumping jeebus... you need to ease off those drugs. Or go play Forest Chopper: Dangerous. Really - do you read this stuff before you post it?

 

[Gabbatek]

loving the sporadic disconnects tonight

 

[sutex]

Been an Ex submariner I crave , for DEPTH !

 

[Mengy]

But I am still confident that we need more guys to run the story, either in a GameMaster-Style or by having some possibilities to inject events into the game. Example: GameMaster is able to put 100 canisters of Gold on a distant planet, or a ship wreckage that has to be searched and so on - of course with decent achievements for the community. And so on - we discussed that years ago already.

See, I'm of the opposite opinion. I want more depth to Elite's core game mechanics because that will allow for so much more emergent gameplay, which in turn enables commanders to make and experience their own stories while playing Elite. It's why I prefer competent open world sandbox games over scripted story games. Game mechanics which are deep, engaging, and interactive permit a huge amount of outcomes from various actions, choices, and situations, making the game experience different and interesting for a much longer time. Without the mechanics to enable that, you end up with repetitive, boring gameplay.

Depth is what allows people to play games like Skyrim for hundreds of hours. The main story can be beaten in under 20 hours, but its the interaction of all the game mechanics that permit everyone's experience playing the game to not only be different from each other but different every time they play the game themselves too. If the Elder Scrolls game's didn't have deep game mechanics to allow complexity like that they would be nowhere near as popular or successful as they are.

Emergent gameplay can be a huge selling point for any video game, and it's what I wish Elite allowed more of, but it simply can't unless Frontier develops the core of the game to better permit it. And no amount of Thargoid cutscenes, nor alien ruin missions can do that, and certainly no amount of devs hand crafting a main story on rails can do it either. Not like well developed and deep game mechanics can, especially in a huge open world procedural galaxy.

 

[V'larr]

I was going to preface this reply by counting all the times the words "emergent", "gameplay", and "depth" came up, but I lost count quickly and instead it inspired my new signature.

As for jobs and stuff, here's what some employees had to say about FDev as a company.
https://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/Frontier-Developments-Reviews-E372218.htm

This again? It's been brought up many times before. That website is anything but impartial, it's basically used by disgruntled fired employees to lash out about their former job. You can go and browse it yourself for other companies, it's not hard to read between the lines. Many other 'company review' services on the web are like that.
_

V’larr, I can’t tell if you are being contrarian for the fun of it or if you honestly don’t know what “depth” means....

It means whatever the hell you want it to mean. Just like the word "gameplay": http://insomnia.ac/commentary/gameplay/
I'm just going to be editing parts of your reply, dropping or changing unecessary or meaningless words...you tell me if it actually changes any of the points you wanted to make:

The term “depth” in the video game industry refers to a combination of gameplay elements and mechanics which players must take into consideration while playing. More choices enable more player decisions, resulting in an engaging yet varied gameplay experience. Most developers strive to design mechanics with enough complexity so that new players can take advantage of the more obvious mechanics while experienced players can consider many mechanics, thereby allowing many choices and paths to “victory” conditions as you master the game. This complexity allows players to develop plans and strategies several steps ahead on how they want to play and what they want to do, hopefully producing unexpected and surprising outcomes thereby keeping the game feeling fresh and varied. This level of design is called “depth”.

Or you can just call it 'decision-making': "The game needs more decision-making." It's not as vague and it carries meaning. It's a better choice of vocabulary.

For example, chess has depth, while tic tac toe does not.

That depends. I wager that would change if you played tic tac toe on a chess board.

Or you can try this:
https://mathwithbaddrawings.com/2013/06/16/ultimate-tic-tac-toe/

Chess is interesting when two people who take it very seriously face each other. Most of the time when two people are playing chess casually, it very quickly can become uninteresting, boring, ""lacking in depth""....(sorry, I may be air-quoting too hard)

With regards to Elite, when people ask for more depth to the game, they usually mean more connected mechanics that not only allow more choices during gameplay but can result in a larger variety of meaningful results and outcomes.

So basically, it's what I've been saying this whole time: depth is used to mean "We Want More Stuff". Anything and everything that people want it to mean.

Exploration is jump, honk, and scan, over and over. It is terribly basic in it’s game mechanics.

Route plotting, fuel scooping, star system type, selection of destination, searching for terraformables or lifebearing planets, use of neutron star boosts...you seem to be forgetting all that "depth" there. (See how easily I can use it to mean whatever the heck I want it to, without actually imparting any real meaning?)

We've talked about this before, of course, and I think your ideas for more things to bring to Exploration are even fairly good. But I wouldn't call exploration, as it stands, shallow.

Trading is buy low, sell high, but there are no tools to utilize, no mechanics to add unpredictability or complexity to the profession.

I've said it often and plainly that the game needs an ingame version of what eddb.io does. It's admittedly thanks to tools like eddb.io that I enjoy trading for what it is at the moment.

Combat by it’s very nature has some complexity and variety simply due to the random nature of the opponents, but the mechanics of combat within the game’s environment are disconnected and predictable. CZ’s are always the same, HRES sites are always the same, except for a little variety in ship opponent types. There isn’t any meaningful bounty hunting mechanic short of “look for a wanted ship and kill it”.

No argument here, combat is easily the grindiest activity I've done in Elite and I don't think it will be better until individual kills are made to be both more difficult and be worth more. (Just no Skynet this time around....)

It’s this disconnected nature of Elite’s design that greatly reduces it’s “depth” fun. The game is comprised of a lot of separate modules that don’t really interact in meaningful ways, thereby preventing any feeling of depth. And this can be attributed straight to the game’s core mechanics, the features which make up the foundation of all other features. This core is basic and very lacking, has been since 1.0, thus the lack of depth and the constant complaints from players that the game is “a mile wide but an inch deep.”

I think you're right but not for what you may be thinking.

The "core" of Elite Dangerous, as I see it, is the act of space travel.

Supercruise is part of that...and supercruise is largely like flying a plane - one you have your altitude and destination set up and the plane trimmed to stay nice and level, you can sit back and take your hands off the controls for up to hours at a time. (Real life airline pilots do just this most of the time, but they won't really tell you about it.)

With space being admittedly less interesting to look at than the passing countryside (and no similar concerns with using the radio or watching for other traffic), the fact that supercruise has a cap on acceleration and deceleration rates winds up making us waste a lot of time doing something that I can understand perfectly as being kinda boring.

Personally I think that cap should be removed or at least raised significantly; I don't think the Hutton Mug's novelty is worth the tradeoff...just the saved time alone would be immense, and it would basically 'unlock' many inhabited star systems where all the stuff is orbiting a secondary star, and it would impact exploration too by reducing the number of times we skip over far-away secondary-systems; I mean, how many times have you been out exploring and seen unmarked stuff just because it was 400k ls away? Too many times, in my view.

And I think it would largely serve to reduce the rate at which people get burnt out on playing the game, since so much of that time is currently dedicated to being in supercruise.


Sorry, that was a bit of a tangent I just went on, so back to the rest of your reply:

Elite needs better core mechanics to allow greater complexity and unpredictability during gameplay, to enable more player choices and responses to stimuli, to permit players to make multi-level plans which might have to be altered along the way due to surprising mechanic interactions.

I mean, what you just described accurately fits the state of my dedicated .txt file I've kept onhand while playing Elite; I wouldn't want to even begin trying to count the number of edits I've made to it....

Without deep interesting mechanics a game feels sterile and predictable, boring, and this is where Elite is today for a lot of people. The core mechanics need to develop or this lack of “depth” will kill player interest over time. Some would argue it’s already begun to kill player interest.

So yeah, the often repeated saying “Elite needs more depth” most certainly has meaning V’larr. Do you understand it now?

Well, like I said, go back and look through your post with my edits, and see for yourself if anything actually changed by dropping the words "emergent", "gameplay", or "depth". In my view, I felt I could understand and comprehend your points perfectly fine without any of those inclusions.

A word that can mean anything we want it to, essentially means nothing at all. Better word choice is a google-search away.

__

Depth doesn't just mean more static meshes on the surface to oogle at. It also means turning the whole base mechanic into something more elaborate than holding a trigger for 10 seconds for 100% system body discovery, pointing your ship somewhere and waiting for a doughnut to dance. And while I have a hunch that exploration mechanics may be a product of lacking time and resources in development, that doesn't explain why more than two years of updates did nothing to expand the base mechanics' depth.

I feel that you could very easily contract your post into the following statement: "I would like more, active ways to scan planets/stars/etc. and find interesting things about them." (The actual ideas you have, as others pointed out, may need some work, but they aren't bad either imo.)

__

Two CG's in the same system doesn't really seem to cut the mustard does it?

It's been quite a lot more than that, you can sorta browse CG history here by scrolling through past entries: https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteCG/

In all the novels the tension between the Feds and the Imps is palpable, and in many border systems seems to almost explode into full blown war on a regular basis.
Where is this?

It's in individual systems going into a war state between Federal and Imperial minor factions, and it's in Powerplay participation wherever an Imperial and Federal power are competing over the same area.

I'll try taking us on a constructive tack here: What would you imagine a tense, almost-war situation to look like, ingame?

There is no real tension, no real issues. If you do one of these "confilct" CG's then it's quite possible to do both sides and earn the benefits from both.

I see that as a very good, interesting, cool thing. Not being railroaded into "Red vs. Blue" and being able to play both sides if you choose offers a lot more interesting choices to make - which fits the definition of that word "depth" according to Mengy.

If you're flying in cargo for the Imperial one, then shouldn't Fed security forces be interdicting you and either trying to drive you off of cripple your ship? There's just no sense of the conflict.

Ever heard of the Berlin Airlift? There's real-world precedents for these situations. Maybe they don't like what you're doing but they still appreciate other services you've provided for the Feds in the past and may still provide in the future.

Here again, I don't object to role-playing our own back story to the game, but there should be more there as well. Galnet used to be a rich source of information to help out with this kind of thing. Content was both player written and came from FDev, but now it seems to be sadly forgotten.
Where are the struggles between the Power Play factions? The propaganda denouncing Halsey throughout Imperial space? Doccing in a Fed station feels no different to an Imperial station, and the Alliance seem to have no advantages whatsoever...

Ahh, the poor Alliance...it feels to me like they *may* finally be getting something soon, but who knows. That's definitely something that needs attention!

Getting more guys like Drew Wagar in on making galnet articles would be cool, too.

I share your hope that a future season will address some of this, but I am slowly losing faith as I watch release after release lurch from one badly implemented idea to another...

As ever, the problem is that of time; it just keeps on slipping into the future, as it were.

__

Stop taking the bait, folks.

Know what, fine. I'm tired of seeing the same posts over and over from you in multiple threads, spreading hate about this game that you *clearly* do not enjoy playing yourself and the people who make it, insulting anyone and telling everyone to ignore anybody who disagrees with you.

I've tried reasoning with you about your attitude a few times before. If you aren't willing to be reasonable by now, you clearly never will be.

♫And another one bites the dust...♫

__

I can't help myself, I have to do my editing again:

Incorrect. Heatmaps would provide players with active feedback, forcing them to make choices during gameplay. Ideally the heatmaps would be accompanied by new search mechanics too, giving players more decisions and actions as they hunt for and eventually find things. These actions and goal choices during gameplay based on feedback due to mechanics – that is by definition “depth” fun.

“FunDepth” is subjective, but “depthfun” is measurable. Also depth is not challengefrustration, it is complexity enabling player interaction and decisions.

Now before you complain I'm misrepresenting what you said, there's a method to my madness!

Fun is, I think, "measurable". It is true that it's up to subjective experience, but collectively you can get a picture of what is and isn't fun. Playing with a ball or riding a bike? Generally, measurably fun. Kicking your shins against a sturdy metal pole? Generally, measurably NOT fun.

In comparison, "depth", as I've tried to go over in length, has no measurable, single, definable meaning when it's used to describe a game: it becomes a meaningless, overly-flexible word that carries any possible meaning we assign to it.

Additionally, you use the word "challenge" like it's a bad thing. I would substitute it with the word "frustration"; for instance, the way World of Tanks force-injects RNG dice-rolls into just about every aspect of playing the game, is not "challenging" to the player, it's just "frustrating" the player's efforts. "Challenge", I would define as what you said: "complexity enabling player interaction and decisions", and is absolutely a great and good thing to bring into a game!

The long and short of all this is I agree with the intent of your post.

__

If you have a problem with lying and wrong facts, stop calling people who disagree with you White Knights.

Amen. I cannot, will not take a hypocrite seriously. Being reasonable and agreeable (which doesn't mean you have to agree with other people all the time) is not that hard.

Playing chess is doing the same thing over and over again too, and yet Mengy described it as the #1 example for depth.

Clearly, you - like me - are rather casual when it comes to chess!

__

He is going on ignore for me, but I feel compelled to reply to these anyway:

Once again: in chess...Say it with me now...YOUR DECISIONS MATTER. YOUR ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUNCES. YOUR EVERY MOVE CAM SHAPE THE GAME- OR LOSE IT.

And apparently it also can make you into a real nuisance on the forums....What is the point of all-caps like this? Does textual shouting really add any significance to something you're saying?

Spoiler

Elite offers NONE of this, outside combat. You just piddle along taking zero consequence actions for zero purpose. None of your decisions are meaningful. Nothing you do matters.
And.dont cite the BGS. That broken, opaque, unreliable technical disaster doesn't matter even.when you DO manage to change a.number or two.

And what changes if you DO stop supporting a power? The name on map? So what.
Chess is deep because your resources are limited, your every move risks losing those resources and the game hinges on every decision you make. Every change that occurs, can make yours or your opponent's resources more scarce, improve or worsen the Tactical situation and even decide the game.
Elite is shallow because nothing has consequences. So you stopped support for a power. Flipped sides in a war. Shot down a secuirty ship. So what?
It doesn't matter. None of it matters. You aren't at risk. The factions you betray, still welcome you into their stations. Outside of.moment to moment combat where your ship.is at risk nothing you do in Elite matters.
Now, contrast that with EVE. Where you can build ships to supply the market, help horde resources to provoke war to drive up the cost of your ships to increase your income...Where everything you do stays with you.
Or to Chess. Where each move can further limit both resources and options.

We get it, you hate the game. No need to keep repeating yourself ad nauseum.

To Poker. Very limited resources. Seven cards, your knowledge of odds and your skill at bluffing. Real stakes.
That's depth. That's what Elite lacks.

Poker? Poker is depth? The penultimate form of gambling on what boils down to a coin toss with a staring contest mixed in for kicks?

Actually, it's close to how interacting with an Engineer works, so it's not even something that Elite lacks! [haha]

__

Exactly.
I like to compare Fantasy Flight card games and magic to games made by small companies like Small Box Games.
FF or MTG can offer you hundreds of cards in a format. Each usually does ONE thing. Boring and predictable but has mass appeal because it's easy to learn.
Small Box has a more limited budget and does not ski.p on Art. So you might buy a game with, say, 90 cards. Total.
But the depth in those 90 cards is amazing. Each card can fight for you over turns. Or provide a single powerful effect once. Or be used as a resource. Every decision matters, and commits you to a strategy that has an effect on the rest of a game.
That's depth.
Elite is an arcade game with Wait Walls and tacked on time sinks.

So far you apparently want Elite to become a card and/or board game. Or to just be playing EVE Online, I can't decide which.

Maybe this is more suited for you: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/edrpg/elite-dangerous-role-playing-game

__

You can do as I did. Babelfisch has no reason to post other than to oppose the last poster. Regardless as to his or her stance. Flip flopping, fighting and derailing the thread is he or she's only goal.
Just put them on ignore as I have. Its very liberating and you wont be missing out on anything. I have as of yet been able to find a post from that person that is of any merit. In this thread or otherwise.

This is ironic as hell. Babel has posted about a variety of things in this thread, yet the only post I've seen from you here is to oppose his post, derailing the thread, and talk about putting people you disagree with on ignore and how everyone else should do that too, because that *clearly* would produce meaningful and interesting discussion, by turning the forums into an echo chamber for people who agree with you and you alone....

Know what, have a two-fer: I'll take your advice, because I don't need to see yet more derailing posts about ignoring people you disagree with and for whatever reason can't seem to meaningfully argue with.

__

All this talk about depth and we forget one important thing. Is it interesting/fun?

PP simply isn't interesting since it is the same actions of the game recycled towards a different purpose. It does not add interesting ways to interact with your ship, faction, and the galaxy. There is nothing to compel you to join one power or another as they are all, basically, the same with different numbers in the spreadsheet.

Did adding PP actually require anyone to learn anything new (other than some basic rules) and master?

To me, Planet landing did more for this game than any update so far, because it actually added new activities that created new scenarios and challenges.

A in-game trade tool that didn't just show you the best trades but actually hid them behind something you had to figure out (rather than just the mostly aimless search w/o off-game tools we have now) would be pretty neat. Perhaps gaining intel on different factions and chasing down leads could reveal things to you...people would have to learn and get good at something like that.

Mining that is more than just point and click resource gathering...perhaps requiring you to learn how to identify the best rocks to mine through visual/audio cues.

Engage my senses and my intellect, please, Frontier!

See, THIS is a wonderful example of how to be suggestive, constructive, and critical, without being insulting, rude, or intimidating anybody who disagrees with you! Shame it's buried in 50 pages of salt. (Might I suggest reposting it into a new suggestion thread?)

__

Maybe if I imagine harder, the game will be magically deep at every corner, it will all come together.

I mean, the meaning of the word 'depth' is purely up to individual imagination too.

__

"Elite is Space Engine with some combat and some simple missions". While "it's more complicated than that" (and I can't remember where either quote is from) there is some real truth to it. In some ways the current version of Elite has no more depth is no different than the alpha version that had only 5 systems (and I spent 100s of hours playing the alphas/betas).

I have to agree about the youtube comment as well. In many ways I get more enjoyment out of the youtube videos than the game itself. At least with the videos I don't have to monotonously perform 1000s of virtually identical fuel-scoops and jumps to see it, and the experience in youtube is almost identical to if I'd been there myself.

I still play Elite, I still enjoy it, I came across my first asteroid base today entirely by accident and that was an enjoyable moment. Yet I feel most of the "content" is best enjoyed on youtube, because for me it's all behind a grind wall (in this case, simple distance/time). Spending 24 hours (real life hours!) travelling to see a new 3d model with some voice acting is not really my idea of a good time, or a good use of my time.

Tongue in cheek: Maybe Elite needs to have some built in "casual games" that you can play in your cockpit while you're waiting to get places , pinball maybe, or angry birds.

Well, what would you personally say to what I mentioned (I think, I'm starting to blur lengthy thread replies here) about changing the cap on supercruise accel/deceleration rates?

__

ED Game play has a little depth , but it's JUST Not deep enough to ensure game play with REAL depth

Such trigger, much wow...have a meme, good sir:

Spoiler

- - - Updated - - -

Forgive me, but one more time....

See, I'm of the opposite opinion. I want more depth to Elite's core game mechanics because that will allow for so much more emergent gameplay, which in turn enables commanders to make and experience their own stories while playing Elite. It's why I prefer competent open world sandbox games over scripted story games. Game mechanics which are deep, engaging, and interactive permit a huge amount of outcomes from various actions, choices, and situations, making the game experience different and interesting for a much longer time. Without the mechanics to enable that, you end up with repetitive, boring gameplay.

DepthPlayer modding is what allows people to play games like Skyrim for hundreds of hours. (Okay, I'm just being cheeky there, I know!) The main story can be beaten in under 20 hours, but its the interaction of all the game mechanics that permit everyone's experience playing the game to not only be different from each other but different every time they play the game themselves too. If the Elder Scrolls game's didn't have deep game mechanics to allow complexity like that they would be nowhere near as popular or successful as they are.

Emergent gameplay Being fun to play can be a huge selling point for any video game, and it's what I wish Elite allowed more of, but it simply can't unless Frontier develops the core of the game to better permit it. And no amount of Thargoid cutscenes, nor alien ruin missions can do that, and certainly no amount of devs hand crafting a main story on rails can do it either. Not like well developed and deep game mechanics can, especially in a huge open world procedural galaxy.

I really earnestly, truely believe your points would be made better if you just dropped the use of those 3 words!

 

[Soopyyy]

See, I'm of the opposite opinion. I want more depth to Elite's core game mechanics because that will allow for so much more emergent gameplay, which in turn enables commanders to make and experience their own stories while playing Elite. It's why I prefer competent open world sandbox games over scripted story games. Game mechanics which are deep, engaging, and interactive permit a huge amount of outcomes from various actions, choices, and situations, making the game experience different and interesting for a much longer time. Without the mechanics to enable that, you end up with repetitive, boring gameplay.

Depth is what allows people to play games like Skyrim for hundreds of hours. The main story can be beaten in under 20 hours, but its the interaction of all the game mechanics that permit everyone's experience playing the game to not only be different from each other but different every time they play the game themselves too. If the Elder Scrolls game's didn't have deep game mechanics to allow complexity like that they would be nowhere near as popular or successful as they are.

Emergent gameplay can be a huge selling point for any video game, and it's what I wish Elite allowed more of, but it simply can't unless Frontier develops the core of the game to better permit it. And no amount of Thargoid cutscenes, nor alien ruin missions can do that, and certainly no amount of devs hand crafting a main story on rails can do it either. Not like well developed and deep game mechanics can, especially in a huge open world procedural galaxy.

Skyrim is actually kinda garbage for deep gameplay. It required enthusiasts to make fairly substantial mods to achieve that. If it wasn't moddable it would be universally scorned.

 

[Thoragon]

I couldn't agree more. Here's a rep OP!

 

[Straha Yeagar]

Skyrim is actually kinda garbage for deep gameplay. It required enthusiasts to make fairly substantial mods to achieve that. If it wasn't moddable it would be universally scorned.

And that has been where Bethesda has really nailed it...create the framework, parts and tools, and allow the players to create the game they want

 

[Soopyyy]

And that has been where Bethesda has really nailed it...create the framework, parts and tools, and allow the players to create the game they want

Bethesda has lost a lot of good will over the past few years. They were forgiven the bugs because the framework and lore they provided were fantastic, but they rested on their laurals with Skyrim and FO4 and people are getting a tad bit sick of it. With that said, I believe they have the ability to turn that around. Frontier... I don't know.

 

[Straha Yeagar]

Bethesda has lost a lot of good will over the past few years. They were forgiven the bugs because the framework and lore they provided were fantastic, but they rested on their laurals with Skyrim and FO4 and people are getting a tad bit sick of it. With that said, I believe they have the ability to turn that around. Frontier... I don't know.

With Skyrim and Fallout 4...they shifted gears towards the consoles with gameplay elements, and the UI...hmmm...

 

[Bladefeather]

They claim iterative design, but I think lots of us would prefer one update a year if it was fully fleshed out and bug free, for the most part at least, to having a few less polished features more often. FDEV, please, give the players, thee consumers, what they want too...
EDIT I can't spell...

 

[CMDR Kantos Kan]

One aspect of F D listening too much and not having the backbone to keep to their guns I feel was the reaction to the Engineers Beta. People whined, cried, threw toys from their prams and just generally created a fuss that all the crazy over-the-top engineering results that showed up in the beta were going to be reverted on release. Result, we have engineering that is way over-powered, unbalancing and completely ubiquitous - if they had stuck to the rarity and offsetting drawbacks to mods that were originally postulated then Engineers could have been an enhancement.


BTW - "Ignore thread" is an option available from the drop-down menu "Thread Tools" you can find in the top right corner.


P.S. Glad to see the balanced (mainly) response to the OP's well-framed points (which I agreed with earlier) and heartened to see so many people actually agree in the main. Hopefully such a well-reasoned thread, with such a strength of support might give some cause for the Braben's consideration.

Coming in late for my reply but I just had to comment on your post. I would have absolutely no problem with the rarity you mention (even though sometimes, it just feels like a waste of time for no good reason except to keep the upgrades out of reach for as long as possible), IF I was not subjected to that stupid Russian roulette that decides if I get a good upgrade or not. Get rid of that stupid random number generator and bring back the micro material (and a special storage area so that my ships that don't have any cargo can participate).

 

[Cargobane]

They might as well port ED to tablet with all the micro-trans and hour sinks. Really, like upgrading a building in another farm game with an 8hr completion could be whatever jump/sc/trade fest happens with the 4yr old Community Goals for another back-filled Lore event.

There is no game. It's all Social Fluff and PR. The features they do have can't stand on their own and never have without some future promise of 'more' to come. But then they change the previous features that did work to get lower denominators, and the Game suffers. But the train continues with paint and bobbles to fill the war chest.

Let the Screenshots and Movies roll though, every week it still looks good. /delete

 

[babelfisch]

Clearly, you - like me - are rather casual when it comes to chess!

Ok, if you don't understand it either it looks like my english just sucks...
I'll try again:

Nobody likes PP because the actions have no depth. Sure I can see where merit grinding is needed. Thats not the problem.

The proem is, PP means doing the same crap over and over. That's the only thing FDev know how to do.

PP should be dynamic. Changing battlegrounds, changing needs and changing Missions based on skirmishes and battles.

Instead we get merit grinding. Nothing deep or engaging about it.

Playing chess is doing the same thing over and over again too, and yet Mengy described it as the #1 example for depth.

PS
Since nobody understands what I meant, just to clarify...
Playing chess is doing the same thing over and over again in terms of what actions the game rules allow you. You can only move your pawn forward, there is not much variety in the movement itself. There are just 6 different piece types and they are all very limited in what you can do with them. And yet there are thousands of different moves that you could make, strategies you can come up with, anticipating your opponents moves, etc. The complexity or depth doesn't come from the actual "gameplay" but from the creativity of your mind (and from memorising a few thousand different situations if you are a good player...).
I think Powerplay isn't very different in that regard (and yes, I still don't like it,).