There's only one thing Frontier need to do to get the Elite universe bursting with activity and danger; add this forum to the empty middle panel in the cockpit 
Just don't feel like logging in...
- Thread starter Altissimus
- Start date
It's a litter tray
Euurgh.... and I thought that was an asteroid I was mining last night!
if you had quoted me fully, you can clearly see that, where is disagree is on a unquantifiable aspect which is does the game have a soul...
I may well be being too optimistic or even some may say stupid to buy an unfinished game, but as i have said despite some of FD's errors in development and release, and that they have clearly handled some PR issues poorly. In the round I hope and believe that my expectation can be mostly fulfilled over the life cycle of this game.
Tthere have been and are many other AAA games that have promised much delivered little and worst of all abandoned the game once released. Just look at Bungies "Destiny" or Shift 2 unleashed by slightly Mad Studios.
The point i was making in my post was one of completely understanding the point of view of "Altissimus" but that because of how and when I entered the game my expectations are different, and that I hope he can just take a break play some of his other games and then return and be pleased to see the game moving forward, by some steps. And then be proud that his investment in both time and money helped make it possible...
Good thread this, many opinions well stated without excessive amounts of bitterness or trolling.
Myself, i bought into the beta back in october, and if i stopped playing today, i would feel to have gotten good mileage for my money, so no regrets.
I do sympathize with the OP and others, something is amiss, and whatever it is, it's incredibly difficult to articulate.
For me it is anyway.
Perhaps it is because we think in boxes/categories, and perhaps ED just doesn't really fit into any of the established ones.
It's not truly a sandbox, for that there's simply too little direct player impact on the game world, it's all very indirect/subtle/non-obvious.
But it's not a themepark either, for that it lacks satisfying progression and reward mechanics.
It's neitherone, but appears to lack core elements from both...if that makes sense.
Some posters have already touched on it, but i want to highlight it one more time. Find yourselves other games to play alongside ED.
Try to change your approach towards ED from "go to" game to "go back to" game, and don't feel bad about it when you do, you don't owe anyone anything.
I've done it, and it has helped a lot with that "don't even want to log in"-feeling.
I play significantly fewer hours now, but those hours i enjoy again.
I have plenty of time, and perhaps one day ED will have that (for me) undefinable "Oomph", that elusive "bit that's missing"....but i'm also accepting that this might not happen.
Myself, i bought into the beta back in october, and if i stopped playing today, i would feel to have gotten good mileage for my money, so no regrets.
I do sympathize with the OP and others, something is amiss, and whatever it is, it's incredibly difficult to articulate.
For me it is anyway.
Perhaps it is because we think in boxes/categories, and perhaps ED just doesn't really fit into any of the established ones.
It's not truly a sandbox, for that there's simply too little direct player impact on the game world, it's all very indirect/subtle/non-obvious.
But it's not a themepark either, for that it lacks satisfying progression and reward mechanics.
It's neitherone, but appears to lack core elements from both...if that makes sense.
Some posters have already touched on it, but i want to highlight it one more time. Find yourselves other games to play alongside ED.
Try to change your approach towards ED from "go to" game to "go back to" game, and don't feel bad about it when you do, you don't owe anyone anything.
I've done it, and it has helped a lot with that "don't even want to log in"-feeling.
I play significantly fewer hours now, but those hours i enjoy again.
I have plenty of time, and perhaps one day ED will have that (for me) undefinable "Oomph", that elusive "bit that's missing"....but i'm also accepting that this might not happen.
Sadly, the OP has nailed it completely.
I was so excited about this game I bought a PC from scratch and spent about £3k in total. I'm now thinking it's time to ignore ED for a year or so and see what the updates bring.
There are two fundamental problems from my Point of View. I realise that there are people who don't share these points of view and I respect their wishes for a solo game - however, these are my points.
1. Solo/Open share saves. IMO they should be separate games. If you want a solo game, that's absolutely fair enough - but play solo. If you want Open, play Open - there shouldn't be the option to duck out of Open if it's getting too tough.
2. P2P networking. Honestly, this is disastrous. Yes, the 32 player instances and matching to friends is a bit carp - but I could live with that. The problem is that you cannot have a convincing universe with locally generated NPCs. The only persistence in the Universe is in the markets, shipyards and outfitting screens. The NPCs only exist in the bubble around your ship. So you can't disrupt the flow of minerals into the market by killing local miners, you can't protect trade routes by defending NPC traders, you can't wipe out local pirate clans, and your interaction with NPCs is just meaningless in the view of the wider "simulation". Space it totally empty until a player pops in and then there's a bubble of activity around that player.
I'm sure that FD looked at the EVE cluster and said "No way we can afford that" and went P2P. Shame, if they'd stuck to a beta lozenge sized universe and gone client server they could have built out as player numbers increased. That "400bn systems" tag is pure hubris with no meaning in the game.
OK, no more whining from me. There's enough game to justify £30 and a couple of weeks of flying round. It could be worse.
I'm going to use my shiny new PC to run DCS and teach myself to fly an A-10C. Luckily, I chose a Thrustmaster Warthog as my HOTAS for ED and DCS 2.0 should be out this year and will use Oculus Rift.
I've got free access to the upgrades so I'll probably see you around next year. Fly safe!
I was so excited about this game I bought a PC from scratch and spent about £3k in total. I'm now thinking it's time to ignore ED for a year or so and see what the updates bring.
There are two fundamental problems from my Point of View. I realise that there are people who don't share these points of view and I respect their wishes for a solo game - however, these are my points.
1. Solo/Open share saves. IMO they should be separate games. If you want a solo game, that's absolutely fair enough - but play solo. If you want Open, play Open - there shouldn't be the option to duck out of Open if it's getting too tough.
2. P2P networking. Honestly, this is disastrous. Yes, the 32 player instances and matching to friends is a bit carp - but I could live with that. The problem is that you cannot have a convincing universe with locally generated NPCs. The only persistence in the Universe is in the markets, shipyards and outfitting screens. The NPCs only exist in the bubble around your ship. So you can't disrupt the flow of minerals into the market by killing local miners, you can't protect trade routes by defending NPC traders, you can't wipe out local pirate clans, and your interaction with NPCs is just meaningless in the view of the wider "simulation". Space it totally empty until a player pops in and then there's a bubble of activity around that player.
I'm sure that FD looked at the EVE cluster and said "No way we can afford that" and went P2P. Shame, if they'd stuck to a beta lozenge sized universe and gone client server they could have built out as player numbers increased. That "400bn systems" tag is pure hubris with no meaning in the game.
OK, no more whining from me. There's enough game to justify £30 and a couple of weeks of flying round. It could be worse.
I'm going to use my shiny new PC to run DCS and teach myself to fly an A-10C. Luckily, I chose a Thrustmaster Warthog as my HOTAS for ED and DCS 2.0 should be out this year and will use Oculus Rift.
I've got free access to the upgrades so I'll probably see you around next year. Fly safe!
Except in Minecraft you actually can do something with the world and there is persistence.
ED is not a sandbox, but at the same time not a themepark. It's more towards open-world themepark.
I shouldn't have to play "imagination" when playing a game, it does it for me. playing should let me shape the imagination game. Or else why did people spend $$ when they can just dream a sandbox.
Everyone romanced over a modern version of the classic elite, I think we got that. The problem is that we are finding that a 1984 game doesn't satisfy our gaming itch. It did back then because home computers were new, gaming was in its infancy and Elite packed in so much compared to its rivals that it blew us away.
Players demand more content and variation. Gaming has evolved, matured and developed into something that's level of magnitude more immersive, interactive and complex.
The game they delivered is a modern version of the 1984 version. The thing that hasn't stood the test of time is the format. The little they have added isnt implemented in a way that's engaging long term due to the lack of variation. At the moment we can still see the games ribs poking through, it just needs fleshing out.
Players demand more content and variation. Gaming has evolved, matured and developed into something that's level of magnitude more immersive, interactive and complex.
The game they delivered is a modern version of the 1984 version. The thing that hasn't stood the test of time is the format. The little they have added isnt implemented in a way that's engaging long term due to the lack of variation. At the moment we can still see the games ribs poking through, it just needs fleshing out.
Yes. This has been one of the best posts I've read in a while that hasn't degenerated into a flame war. And I agree to an extent that in its current form, Elite isn't a go-to game. But it has the potential to be, like all online multiplayers if it's engaging enough and is truly constantly evolving at a pace that players can see. Right now I'm under the illusion that Frontier are ill equipped to deliver the full promise of the game. We seem to be getting flash over real substance. 1.1 is wallpapering over the cracks to me, I'm really hoping that Wings will deliver a much needed injection of co-op and interaction the game needs from a player perspective but then it could be too late, and on its own without accompanying efforts to add more content and direction it won't fix the problems with lack of longevity. I enjoy reading the books that have come out of the game universe so its sometimes hard to fathom just why the game itself is devoid of that kind of content on the inside. Even a cry for player submitted stories seems to have fallen by the wayside, and perhaps that's a sign that many are losing faith and it's not worth investing their own time for little reward. Like I said previously, I love the game and want it to succeed but I think it's time Frontier recognised their failings.
Right now I'm playing the game, but I don't feel immersed in it. That's a big difference.
Last edited:
Fully agree in terms of the p2p. Part of the problem I find with the first one, though, is that having Open and Solo separate saves would actually require separate Private Group saves as well. Bare minimum, you'd need one save for Open, one save for Solo and Private Groups combined, if not a separate save for all three categories. Reason for that is simply because creating private groups is incredibly easy; my roommate made one so I could give him some palladium without drawing the attention of other players, as the task of dropping/scooping is onerous enough without having someone show up and try to commit robbery. If you could access Private Groups with your Open save file, you can create your own one-man group, or join a very small group of like-minded players, and boom! Solo without technically being Solo.
But even in the instance of having a third separate save file JUST for private groups, you can join a group with a high population, and then create your own private group, and boom, you get to swap between multiplayer and solo again by swapping between groups. The only way to completely and totally lock all players into an 'Alone or Together' setting would be to require separate save files for every individual private group you join, which... seems a TAD extreme, as the player base would be incredibly splintered.
The reason I bring this up is I think that it's one thing to say 'Well, do I only wait to play by myself, or only want to play with others?' In that instance, with a clear cut choice, I think the Open population would certainly decline, but maybe not too badly; I'd certainly face a dilemna. But when the question is more like 'Well, do I only want to play with others forever, or do I sometimes want play by myself, and sometimes want to play with others?' you end up basically offering any fence sitters a way to have their cake and eat it, too, driving them (well, their main characters, anyway,) away from Open. Meaning the only players left in Open will be the ones who specifically want to play with others, all the time, without exception, or people with smaller alt accounts who just pilot Eagles and attack pirates/players when they're bored. Anyone who has even minor Solo tendencies will err on the side of caution and just stick their main character, the one that gets the most love and attention, in the Solo/Private Groups. On top of that, as mentioned, Open players will have no way to join Private Groups, cutting them off from any burgeoning communities with a particular goal or philosophy, like PvE or roleplaying communities.
I do recognize the problems with a shared save system, but seperating them is going to lead to a whole host of issues as well. :/
My view on this is that each will be great in some aspects and poor in others there will be no one game that can hope to be everything to every one, all are though pushing the idea of players influencing the play world, all i suspect will also have the same issues that ED has at the moment that regardless of how finished or unfinished a game is on release once you bring in the element of persistence then all will need time to build a persistence that is rich and meaningful, i have brought into SC and fully expect it will take a year from release to begin to furnish the house...
We are all caught in the trap of wanting "stuff" while struggling to be wait for it. There is a natural fear that the wait will be to long and that it will never be as good as our expectations... Thus it has always been. but at the same time let us not talk ourselves into creating a demise, There are resonable expectations from the player base nut also there is also often a unrealistic expectation of the time frame to deliver!
I agree its a fine balance between wanting and waiting for it to be delivered, I don't necessarily want to see a development plan either because the first missed date will cause a riot, but there was a realistic expectation that there would be more than just a framework in place especially after extensive Beta and Gamma testing, and to claim a multiplayer experience when even the basics aren't implemented (or implemented poorly) is both not excusable in this age and shows a lack of understanding from the studio. Players and backers can only be patient for so long. I'd love ED to be my go-to game and invest a lot of time and effort in how I play and the character I want to build up, but there's not enough incentive and reward, and no real clear vision from Frontier. We'd all like to land/ walk on planets but really, to what end ? I only mention the other games to highlight that ED will no longer be unique as it was in 1984, and I think a lot of older players and Frontier should keep that in mind over the next 12 months because player attrition will happen. Not sure Frontier made that conclusion when they released their forecasts.
Last edited:
Post started nice OP, but you kind of lost it towards the end.
The nub of your problems seems to be that you need an evolving storyline, with you as the star. Which isn't really what this game is trying to achieve. Its not Elder Scrolls. But anyway, give it a rest, check back in a few months or even years, maybe you will like what you see.
TTFN.
The nub of your problems seems to be that you need an evolving storyline, with you as the star. Which isn't really what this game is trying to achieve. Its not Elder Scrolls. But anyway, give it a rest, check back in a few months or even years, maybe you will like what you see.
TTFN.
I think the first time I took up a bounty hunting mission to go and kill a pirate sums up your entire post? So I had a mission to go and kill Pirate Bob, in system X or Y. I wondered how do I find this evil blighter? Do I look though articles to find his usuals haunts? Do I follow another ship he might be attacking? No... I fly around jumping out of SC at the randomly generated USS' until the computer generates the right random number for me to encounter him.
A little bit of the ED bubble burst for me there... And nothing's truly inflated that balloon since...
Fingers crossed the following 5-6 months of development can bring in the true interest and depth that's needed... The news FD are actively developing and hiring more staff is at least a positive sign!
Another way to look at it is people who grind their way up to 200M CR+ over 6 weeks have got good value from the game. I'm an 84'er, I got ED for Christmas and played it pretty much every day since, I've had many hours of fun from it and it cost virtually nothing (£35 iirc?). I admit it's not quite the immersive experience I hoped for though.
I think multiplayer has been an interesting, but failed experiment. It fundamentally constrains the game (instances, non-persistent AI, supercruise). AI need to be smarter and go about their business and do sensible things, supercruise is clumsy, a simple time-shift would be better. All the effort put into an engine where multiple players can influence the galaxy is time wasted, imo. But the architecture choices are now made and that's the end of it.
Re-creating aspects of the real galaxy, with known stars to visit, is a great achievement and adds to the experience, but I think there is too little variety to keep people interested in the long term. Trading should vary wildly in different parts of the galaxy, stations and factions should look different, technology should vary, there should be video interaction with AI characters, and aliens, there should be interesting things to discover, etc.
The original game was a 3D space combat game, with a bit of trading bolted on just so you could equip your ship. Now trading is the heart and soul of the game, and I can't believe there are no trading tools in the game, you can't even copy and paste the data into Excel (which would take 5 mins to code!). It feels buggy and half-finished with strange things happening to supply quantities and the like.
I also think the simplistic flight model makes the game feel slightly dated. WWII dogfights-in-space were fine in 1984 things move on. I think a Newtonian flight model would be more immersive and ultimately more fun. At least give us a flight-assist-off mode without the constraints so we can do BSG-style 180 flips etc. I really like ED for a bit of fun, but I've probably had more enjoyment from Kerbal Space Programme.
It's a good game, but not in the same league as the original. I still love it though
I think multiplayer has been an interesting, but failed experiment. It fundamentally constrains the game (instances, non-persistent AI, supercruise). AI need to be smarter and go about their business and do sensible things, supercruise is clumsy, a simple time-shift would be better. All the effort put into an engine where multiple players can influence the galaxy is time wasted, imo. But the architecture choices are now made and that's the end of it.
Re-creating aspects of the real galaxy, with known stars to visit, is a great achievement and adds to the experience, but I think there is too little variety to keep people interested in the long term. Trading should vary wildly in different parts of the galaxy, stations and factions should look different, technology should vary, there should be video interaction with AI characters, and aliens, there should be interesting things to discover, etc.
The original game was a 3D space combat game, with a bit of trading bolted on just so you could equip your ship. Now trading is the heart and soul of the game, and I can't believe there are no trading tools in the game, you can't even copy and paste the data into Excel (which would take 5 mins to code!). It feels buggy and half-finished with strange things happening to supply quantities and the like.
I also think the simplistic flight model makes the game feel slightly dated. WWII dogfights-in-space were fine in 1984 things move on. I think a Newtonian flight model would be more immersive and ultimately more fun. At least give us a flight-assist-off mode without the constraints so we can do BSG-style 180 flips etc. I really like ED for a bit of fun, but I've probably had more enjoyment from Kerbal Space Programme.
It's a good game, but not in the same league as the original. I still love it though
It's a good game, but not in the same league as the original. I still love it though
Its not in the same league as my memory of the original.
Hit the nail on the head.
Yeah it completely wipes the floor with the original