This is the one thing ED has on EVE. You can switch to a first person view in EVE, but nobody does, because the game plays far better when viewed isometrically. I can't rock a flight stick over there. Ships don't have cockpits. And everything from combat to mining often involves multiple participants - something that wouldn't benefit at all from first person. In fact, when you have more than 100 people on the field simultaneously, being locked into a cockpit view would be crippling.
Lower your Expectations for ED
- Thread starter Cosmo
- Start date
There were large battles in Jumpgate (upwards of 300 participants in a single instance was not uncommon during peak times), which generally provided even less sensor information (though sensor ranges were 5-10 fold greater) than ED does.
Everyone operated under the limitations of the cockpit view. The chaos of battle was real (well, real chaos, fantasy battle), and a big part of success was being able to coordinate and act through it. You either knew what you were doing and could intuit the flow yourself (with the assistance of good scouts and spotters), hung back and took orders from those who did, or went in blind and almost invariably found yourself alone against dozens of hostiles and were immediately deleted.
In larger engagements I typically flew a ranger (a fragile class of vessels that were also the fastest with the longest range sensors), providing early warning and target designation (the community was small enough that all the regulars knew all the faction leaders and top pilots by name) as fleets closed on each other. Once ranges became too close and that broke down, I then used the speed of the vessel to zoom in and out of enemy groups, baiting them into wasting consumables on counter attacks I'd (usually) survive. If someone needed to disengage (consequences to ship loss were real, so there was powerful incentive both to shoot down foes and not get shot down one's self), I'd do my best (and expend my own very limited munitions) to screen their retreat, then speed dock (probably lost more ships due to collisions with the docking tube while facing away from it to use the main thrusters to slow down than from enemy action) at the nearest friendly station to rearm before racing back to the fight.
Anyway, the first person constraints, as well as the immersion, are things that appeal to me. The increased situational awareness of a third person view is advantageous, but not always more fun.
In Elite's defense (imagine that), it has more than just one thing over Eve, including the much beloved (and missed in every other space game I play except SE) Stellar Forge. I'd even argue that they really are two different types of games, with MMO being the one thing they probably have most in common. Well that and they take place in space.
Don't get me wrong, I love that there's 400 billion systems in ED and that for some players, those systems represent endless possibilities. That said, I genuinely believe that - in practice - this is little more than a novelty for most of this game's players who will spend the vast majority of their lives in hubs like the bubble and Colonia. And yeah, apart from both of them being set in space, there isn't all that much between the two that's similar.
Except for the space trucking and the mining. But then again, every spaceship game has the trucking and the mining. That's pretty standard.
While i've yet to see ships go out of stock, modules do. (cargo too)
Just like selling enough raw material will eventually up the selection in outfitting.
EVE battles are hard to explain, although they work more like Total War battles than visceral dogfighting contests.
Logistics ships and command ships need to maintain specific ranges to other ships and one another in order to repair and boost their fleets. Capital ships need to be deployed to specific areas in order to effectively counter other caps. Ships can get interdiction bubbled and moved around by ships specifically assigned to those tasks. And people are actually commanding all of this in real time, only when they move EVE's equivalent of an infantry or cavalry regiment, all those individual units are actual human beings following their orders.
This simply can't be done if you are playing the game from your cockpit. My logistics targeting lists were pages long, and because you target enemies from another list, you need to be looking at that while also moving your ship and activating your modules. It isn't a dogfighting game. It's an isometric strategy game where ranges and coordination mean everything.
And since we're talking about EVE, if ED's insurance system was the same, the payout would only cover up to 100% of the raw material cost of the hull and wouldn't cover any modules. So, the rebuy cost of a 1 billion credit fully a-rated and fully outfitted Anaconda with a-rated fuel scoop and everything would be just north of 900 million credits. A 100 million credit meta FDL would cost you about 60-70 mil to rebuy because it wouldn't have its value weighted into modules.
That's why I didn't stick with it very long. I was looking for at least the potential for action on the individual scale, from a pilot's perspective.
Absolutely. That's what I get from ED that EVE can't provide. Everything there is turreted. Here, gimballed and fixed are kings for a reason. The atmosphere in the cockpit, the screens and the view, the fantasy of experiencing it yourself, essentially, is something that ED does extremely well when you're in the chair.
Yes, a few times. First with some smaller tweaks and then with a complete overhaul - which led to the system we have now - and then a few smaller tweaks again. The current C&P system is a direct result of veterans complaining about their expectations not being met.
Of course people are going to say "it's not what we meant, you got it completely wrong" but that's what you get when a bunch of random people complain on an internet forum and a company makes the mistake of listening to them.
This you might need to go into more detail about. Because the current crime and punishment system is essentially nonexistent.
And yet, when a different company listened to player feedback, we got the remarkable turnaround with NMS. I guess it has to do with how well the developer interprets what is wanted, and how capable they are of turning it into something that works.
I think the player base, at least as it's represented in these forums and elsewhere, is highly consequence adverse. There are exceptions, but most of those who want stronger, more rational, C&P don't seem to want to be on the receiving end of it.
The system we have is about the best it could be (which is ,of course, terrible), under these circumstances. Frontier likely came to the conclusion that it was easier for players who found the system lacking to ignore it and make up their own consequences than it was to impose more meaningful consequences on those who wouldn't appreciate it. At least that's my theory.
The system we have is about the best it could be (which is ,of course, terrible), under these circumstances. Frontier likely came to the conclusion that it was easier for players who found the system lacking to ignore it and make up their own consequences than it was to impose more meaningful consequences on those who wouldn't appreciate it. At least that's my theory.
If I want to play an MMO, I play Foxhole. There yoz'd actually have a chance to see 100 people.
Pretty sure they do.
I made a suggestion in the suggestions section of this forum, for the Elite Dangerous website for the paintjobs, ship kits etc.
After a few weeks, I then suggested it in the chat of a Frameshift live stream, and Bruce suggested I post that in the suggestions section on the forum.
They don't read this forum apart from when they get positive feedback, THAT they do read.
EDIT: Here is the thread in question https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/store-suggestion-improve-filter-and-search-options.549295/
Last edited:
Hence it's a nerdy niche space game, not a mainstream one.
But indeed, the Starforge makes it unique, the BGS too - both add plenty of depth for the nerds that can deal with such depths.
Everyone else complains about how shallow is the game because they dont know better
Wrong. I never stuck to one place. It's simply ED's design philosophy: Pile grind on grind, ridiculous requirements on top of others and once most players done them, someone takes a zero down on a number in a table to allow you to argue that it isnt a stupid grind fit for automata.
We know Frontier (or at least Sally) do read the forum as a couple of posts were used as justification for an irregular Discovery Scanner.
I hear thousands of people are involved in that game's fights. The developer is headquartered in Toronto like 15 minutes from my home.
EVE currently holds 2 Guinness World Records for the Massacre at M2-XFE. 5,000+ players involved in one battle. Estimated total damage when asset losses were converted into standard currency was $380,000 US, which is both absurd and amazing.
Last edited:
I'm not sure i find it terribad tbh. Could do with some tweaking sure.
I've also yet to see a really good suggestion that could supplant it.
Why does it? we've been down this road before, tell me what 3rd party tools provide that's not in game?
O7