I certainly wouldn't argue against your point in general, but in the specific case of Frontier, Elite was the CEO & Founder's baby. It's his passion project that began way back when he was a college student. If there had never been an Elite, there may never have been a Frontier. In that light, it seems arguable that making sure the game runs well on David Braben's machine would, rightly or wrongly, be at least somewhat of a priority.
Oddyssey Abandoned In Favor of Colonisation
- Thread starter ozrix84
- Start date
Yes, and then when you stop being a privateer developer with no outside funding or constraints... ya need to stop doing that sort of thing. Arguably Frontier got into the space where they should become a grown-up company because the Kickstarter had public commitments; if it had started purely with some VCs who were happy to fund unplanned genius then that could have lasted a lot longer.
(Just to be clear, I am not saying any funding model is better or worse and nor am I saying FDev 2014 and FDev 2024 have to behave the same way, things change. But NOW it is a corporate with external shareholders and they have already frightened the hell out of the market once, or twice if you count Western Front.)
So any discussion of Odyssey versus "things that are easier than Odyssey was" has to have shareholders priced in as stakeholders, and that is why President is a fine role to have for a passion-driven company but "effectively COO and CFO as well" is not a fine role to have even in a passion-driven company because someone has to actually get stuff done. And Getting Stuff Done requires thinking about what actually matters in QA, otherwise you will distract yourself right into the quicksand.
(Just to be clear, I am not saying any funding model is better or worse and nor am I saying FDev 2014 and FDev 2024 have to behave the same way, things change. But NOW it is a corporate with external shareholders and they have already frightened the hell out of the market once, or twice if you count Western Front.)
So any discussion of Odyssey versus "things that are easier than Odyssey was" has to have shareholders priced in as stakeholders, and that is why President is a fine role to have for a passion-driven company but "effectively COO and CFO as well" is not a fine role to have even in a passion-driven company because someone has to actually get stuff done. And Getting Stuff Done requires thinking about what actually matters in QA, otherwise you will distract yourself right into the quicksand.
Thanks for chiming in, Stelar 7. Always good to see someone coming in hot with their "define your terms or we riot" energy. Let me clear this up so no one feels the need to file a complaint about my comment. Let me translate.
When I say Odyssey missions aren’t meaningful, I mean they’re repetitive to the point where my ship’s autopilot has more personality than the gameplay. Sure, they nudge the BGS (hooray for fractional influence shifts), but where’s the oomph? The missions don’t feel like they matter beyond ticking boxes
Here’s what meaningful could look like:
- Real Impact on the Game World: Take out a reactor? That settlement should be scrambling for resources or vulnerable to attack, not back to business as usual like it’s got AAA roadside assistance.
- Faction Identity: Pirate factions should be asking me to smuggle illegal tech, not run errands like a glorified delivery boy. Give me missions that scream, “This is OUR turf.”
- Discover, Don’t Just Destroy: Let me find derelict settlements or ancient ruins on foot with actual lore and rewards. Not everything has to be "shoot, loot, repeat."
Space-Feet Integration – The Real Missed Opportunity
This one’s a sore spot. Odyssey was hyped as the expansion to bring everything together - space and on-foot gameplay seamlessly united. Instead, they coexist like awkward roommates who barely speak. Here’s what we’re missing:- Ship-to-Settlement Gameplay: Why can’t I launch an airstrike, then land my ship to mop up the survivors? Or escape a firefight on foot by calling my ship for evac? You can hover over a settlement and use ship weapons to soften it up. The problem? There’s no proper targeting system for ground assets, so it’s clunky at best.
- Integrated Missions: How about missions that require both? Disable a settlement’s defenses on foot, then blast their supply ships from orbit. Right now, they’re two separate games duct-taped together.
- ship Evac: Yes, you can recall your ship on foot. It’s a great feature for exploration, but where’s the combat synergy? Why aren’t there missions where you call your ship for emergency evac while it provides covering fire? Or missions that force you to extract under pressure, creating cinematic gameplay moments?
Colonization could’ve been the perfect opportunity to integrate space and ground gameplay - imagine scouting systems on foot, setting up ground colonies, or defending settlements using both ship and boots. But instead, it looks like another isolated mechanic with no real connection to Odyssey or the rest of the game.
Last edited:
Wouldn’t that be the cherry on top? Colonization could be the perfect excuse to introduce new planet types, better terrain, or some atmospheric eye candy. Sadly, like you said, Frontier’s been pretty quiet about that. So while I’m not holding my breath, I wouldn’t say no to a surprise. Imagine finally landing on a planet with actual oceans, or one that doesn’t just look like a beige potato.I understand what you're saying, yes...it makes one wonder, though quite a few players (me included I think at some point), have suggested something like this would be an interesting gameplay feature. There again, other (I won't say promised though it was hinted at) players would also like to experience a more detailed planets feature, clouds, water etc. etc. that sort of thing, which again I've also expressed my hopes that these other features could be expanded upon.
You’re probably right that colonization is less of a technical headache than overhauling planetary atmospheres or terrain. But does easier mean it’s the right move? That’s where I’m skeptical. It feels like Frontier is tackling the fun, new shiny toy instead of polishing what’s already here. Colonization could be awesome, but if it’s built on a shaky foundation..I'm wondering whether, for example that the concept of Colonisation is / was easier to apply to the game than more detailed atmospherics or planet topography, or even the other items you mention....I wouldn't have the foggiest, I just try and play the damn thing!
I'm with you: dropping colonization on top of the current mess feels like Frontier’s version of “hold my beer.” Fixing Odyssey’s bugs before introducing even more potential glitches? Nah, too mainstream. Could Frontier just... tidy up first? Just a bit? You know, get rid of the metaphorical gators, patch up the holes, and make the game feel a little less like an extended beta? It’s not rocket science. But no, let’s build another feature right on top of the chaos. Dinner party while the kitchen’s on fire? Check. Gators invited too? Double check.It just stands to reason that....(just trying to think of a good description) Ah! got it!..."it's no good thinking that you should have drained the swamp when you're up to your A*** in alligator's"
That's it really, I'm under no illusions that Colonisation is going to be bug free on launch, so any other outstanding bugs is just going to compound the situation, it's not needed, so correct the game as much as possible before introducing a plethora of other 'programming glitches'.
Where's the fun in that?
The part where the vectoring on the new ships points the wrong way is definitely rocket science.
In particular, Expansion is not working. So it's gonna be hard for a faction to expand into any colonised system.
Of course this might mean FDev did some sort of behind-the-scenes prep for Colonisation and deployed that change in order to be ready... but the change accidentally broke the status quo. In which case deploying the Colonisation feature will appear to magically fix BGS too.
Did they change the tutorial from a full-up combat scenario? IIRC, the very first Odyssey mission I tried lo those many years ago was "Go here and bring back something." As soon as I landed, everybody started shooting at me.
I reiterate, how am I "supposed" to play it then?
Be advised, I don't consider First Person Sneaker or First Person Sniper to be fundamentally different than a First Person Shooter. You say I'm doing it wrong, but don't say how you do it differently.
After literally hundreds of on-foot missions it is hardly possible to disagree with original post in general. But I would never blame whole Odyssey feature only due to flocks of bugs in game-play logic / scenarios. From my personal point of view:
Perhaps, it has to be carefully learned, what exactly makes Player bases loyal to ED for decade+ before some naive experiments with "guidance" of that Player base?
In short words: Personally, I believe that some "overhaul" of "scenario" department/direction would really fix significant part of current and future bugs / problems / inconsistencies just by itself.
- we have excellent engine / core / platform for in-ship.
- we have pretty much OK-ish engine for on-foot.
- we have bunch of complains regarding on-foot mission logic / scenarios.
- we have now bunch of impossible to complete weeklies of PP2.0.
Perhaps, it has to be carefully learned, what exactly makes Player bases loyal to ED for decade+ before some naive experiments with "guidance" of that Player base?
In short words: Personally, I believe that some "overhaul" of "scenario" department/direction would really fix significant part of current and future bugs / problems / inconsistencies just by itself.
That's because FD bolted on a FPS minigame onto a spacesim and the seams are still showing.
Great analysis, and I do hope this gets addressed soon.
Good luck convincing a gamer that Thief, Unreal, and Doom are all the same game, which is what you've said there...
They all involve walking / running around and using weapons, don't they?
See? All exactly the same thing, which is why there are quite so many of them, and quite so loved by gamers...
The problem with EDO is that it isn't exactly the same as the others, isn't it?
This is exactly what disappoints me the most. The are no logical, tech nor engineering explanation on, for example, why ships' sensors can detect and target canister of bio-waste, any kind of (completely passive) raw material in temperature range of at least +-250C, but not allowed to detect scavenger with shields active, who runs and shoots my ship causing significant damage while completely invisible to my ship. Is it really something that requires changes to game core to be
Last edited:
They all involve walking / running around and using weapons, don't they?
See? All exactly the same thing, which is why there are quite so many of them, and quite so loved by gamers...
The problem with EDO is that it isn't exactly the same as the others, isn't it?
They forgot to add the part where it's not an option to shoot people to get things done
I would say it's a game decision to prevent ships with long range sensors from being outside of the radius of an onfoot CMDR and just sniping. That's not to necessarily justify it, but what's the better solution to balance that?
Same guns (and range) as the orbital station defenses. And if it's a smaller settlement (which can't afford it) and the commander decimates it and massacres everyone then you're persona non grata on every orbital station run by any faction friendly to or allied to the minor faction running that settlement.
Speak for yourself...
The secret is we're not talking about 'small quantities' though a lot don't seem to like landing at planetary ports for some reason.
It is not like that, unfortunately. Scavs are not detected nor targeted at any distance. And 3-5 baddies with lousy SMGs like Karma C-44 are able to rip 3A shields in iCourier in literally seconds from 30-50 meters. And causing sensible damage from up to 100m.
I was referring to the EDO Settlements, in particular, as trade there can be very profitable, but not in vast quantities. (and are excellent if one is supporting the particular faction that controls the settlement, as all offerings on the missions board are from a single faction)
As you say, ports, they are a different story altogether! With the advent of the SCO drive, getting away from the bodies is much less time consuming,
I'm going to riff on Tifu's ideas about the terms of engagement.
if we’re talking PvP, then yeah, letting ships snipe ground players from long range would be unbalanced. But is making on-foot targets invisible the best solution? It feels like a quick fix that sacrifices immersion.
Why not add mechanics that balance things more naturally? For example:
- Dynamic visibility: Ships should only detect on-foot players if they’re exposed (e.g., not in cover) or actively engaging (firing weapons, sprinting). This mimics real-world mechanics, where movement and noise increase detectability.
- Limited sensor range: Ships could detect on-foot players but only within a reasonable radius, so sniping from extreme distances isn’t an option.
For PvE settlement sniping scenarios:
- Default engagement radius:
- By default, settlements should engage targets within a moderate range - say 1-2 km. This keeps the battlefield focused and prevents players from cheesing settlements from too far out.
- Long-range retaliation:
- If a player attacks from beyond the default radius, the settlement deploys specialized responses, like:
- Artillery strikes: Heavy, slow-firing countermeasures to push attackers closer.
- Missile barrages: Limited-use, long-range weapons that punish sniping but don’t make it impossible to engage from a distance.
- If a player attacks from beyond the default radius, the settlement deploys specialized responses, like:
- Jamming fields
- Prevent ships from locking onto ground assets within settlement zones unless within a specific range (say 500m-1 km). This ensures attackers must commit to entering the settlement’s effective range for precise strikes.
- Anti-aircraft weapons:
- Larger settlements could deploy anti-air turrets with a cone of fire to deny safe hover zones directly overhead. These turrets wouldn’t reach orbit or extreme heights, so tactical maneuvering would still be viable.
Unfortunately this has been an issue with all the game systems they've created. Been singing that song for almost as long as the game been going. ED is like a space theme park with lots of different rides and the only thing they have in common is they're in the same park.