Polygon and Twinfinite interviews - more Odyssey details, unknowns, and Walking-In-Ships not at launch

[Mr_Foxhound]

In Elite you can find all the loops you mentioned and then some. Same of those offered directly by the game, others set by players directly thanks to its sandbox nature and emergent gameplay possibilities.

no... you can not physical change the loop the loop dose not change, doing sandbox things that deviate from the loop break the loop

 

[Sysmon]

no... you can not physical change the loop the loop dose not change, doing sandbox things that deviate from the loop break the loop

That's actually a huge part of what the introduction of the carriers did to ruin the game: Took a lot of activities away from loops in common to everybody. Effectively, carrier owners stopped playing the same game as everybody else, and even each other (unless they choose to). Basically, what used to be an open world game had sandbox elements introduced.

One of the biggest no-nos introduced was the reduction of supercruise time to near-insignificance, made even worse by almost removing the warmup and cooldown cycles. Another one was adding UC to the carriers - a major part of the exploration process was then largely removed.

Luckily, carriers were added without really removing those game play loops. However, players will largely need to ignore the fact that carrier owners don't face the same game as everybody else.

Carriers should be a part of the game, they obviously are great sources of emergent game play and new play styles. However, taking large lumps of the existing game play loops out of the game for those owning them should have been rebalanced by adding other challenges. Those challenges (upkeep, for example), have largely been reduced to near insignificance, however.

S

 

[Stigbob]

no... you can not physical change the loop the loop dose not change, doing sandbox things that deviate from the loop break the loop

Nope, a sandbox means you constantly have multiple loops on the go at once and can drop in and out of them at will. The loops in a sandbox stretch and overlap they don't break.

 

[Mr_Foxhound]

You've used the word No at the beginning of seven of your posts.

Waits for Mr_Foxhound to say no again.

Yes i have

 

[Sysmon]

I feel I should say no too...

S

 

[Mr_Foxhound]

That's actually a huge part of what the introduction of the carriers did to ruin the game: Took a lot of activities away from loops in common to everybody. Effectively, carrier owners stopped playing the same game as everybody else, and even each other (unless they choose to). Basically, what used to be an open world game had sandbox elements introduced.

One of the biggest no-nos introduced was the reduction of supercruise time to near-insignificance, made even worse by almost removing the warmup and cooldown cycles. Another one was adding UC to the carriers - a major part of the exploration process was then largely removed.

Luckily, carriers were added without really removing those game play loops. However, players will largely need to ignore the fact that carrier owners don't face the same game as everybody else.

Carriers should be a part of the game, they obviously are great sources of emergent game play and new play styles. However, taking large lumps of the existing game play loops out of the game for those owning them should have been rebalanced by adding other challenges. Those challenges (upkeep, for example), have largely been reduced to near insignificance, however.

S

i have no solid opinion on FC

 

[Sysmon]

i have no solid opinion on FC

I feel they should be removed again and tested properly before reintroducing. There, haven't written that in a while. It has lost its signifcance for me somewhat. Thank you, time. And thank you, Nav Panel filter.

S

 

[Mr_Foxhound]

Nope, a sandbox means you constantly have multiple loops on the go at once and can drop in and out of them at will. The loops in a sandbox stretch and overlap they don't break.

no... you are setting your own objectives and choose what you do and when you do it. can you build a sand castle in ED? ...no

 

[Rat Catcher]

This thread is hilarious - one troll accusing another poster of being a troll... It could only happen here

Me, I'm looking forward to further Dev Diaries and "Deep Dives" to decide if Odyssey will pry my pounds from my wallet... But while waiting can certainly enjoy some more

 

[Stigbob]

no... you are setting your own objectives and choose what you do and when you do it. can you build a sand castle in ED? ...no

Yep, I constantly do my own thing in ED which doesn't involve sandcastles since it's a spaceship game.

Try a skyrim example.

You take a dragon killing loop, stop to sell the trash you collected heading towards the objective, get given a rescue the villager sub loop in the shop, detour into a random cave on the way and return to sell trash, rescue the villager on the second attempt and then eventually get around to killing the dragon unless you wander off.

Multiple loops, the sub-loops don't break the dragon loop they all operate alongside it.

Or a castle building example,

7daystodie. Building a castle. Dig ditch>craft blocks for walls>pop off to loot the hardware store for a better shovel>don't find one but get an autoturret>alter defence plan to utilise turret do a spot of remodelling>go sell other trash you got instead of shovel>take zombie killing mission at shop>buy better shovel with reward.

Loops within loops.

 

[Mr_Foxhound]

Yep, I constantly do my own thing in ED which doesn't involve sandcastles since it's a spaceship game.

Try a skyrim example.

You take a dragon killing loop, stop to sell the trash you collected heading towards the objective, get given a rescue the villager sub loop in the shop, detour into a random cave on the way and return to sell trash, rescue the villager on the second attempt and then eventually get around to killing the dragon unless you wander off.

Multiple loops, the sub-loops don't break the dragon loop they all operate alongside it.

Or a castle building example,

7daystodie. Building a castle. Dig ditch>craft blocks for walls>pop off to loot the hardware store for a better shovel>don't find one but get an autoturret>alter defence plan to utilise turret do a spot of remodelling>go sell other trash you got instead of shovel>take zombie killing mission at shop>buy better shovel with reward.

Loops within loops.

nothing you have listed is a loop

skyrim has basic loops, but follows a main quest line.

 

[StuartGT]

This thread is stuck in a loop.

Troll: "where's the gameplay?"
CMDR: "here you go."
Troll: "no"
repeat

 

[Mr_Foxhound]

This thread is stuck in a loop.

Troll: "where's the gameplay?"
CMDR: "here you go."
Troll: "no"
repeat

not talking about gameplay , gameplay loops are different . i am not a troll but keep with personal attacks

 

[StuartGT]

not talking about gameplay , gameplay loops are different . i am not a troll but keep with personal attacks

So... no?

 

[Factabulous]

This thread is stuck in a loop.

Troll: "where's the gameplay?"
CMDR: "here you go."
Troll: "no"
repeat

It's one of the classic forum gameplay loops* - I call it 'The Stigbob' in honour of one of its finest proponents. I guess the more general case is the 'someone on the internet is wrong'. In this case Foxy, but as always they won't see it for several pages yet

(I was going to make a pic of all the forum gameplay loops, as apparently that is the only way to list legitimate gameplay loops, but ... nah)

* I wouldn't say the poster is trolling, just has tunnel vision

 

[Stigbob]

nothing you have listed is a loop

skyrim has basic loops, but follows a main quest line.
View attachment 185589

The main quest is just one loop, all the other loops operate inside and alongside it without relying on it. You can ignore the main loop or finish it and carry on with the others.

Maybe sandboxes are just not your thing.

 

[StuartGT]

It's one of the classic forum gameplay loops* - I call it 'The Stigbob' in honour of one of its finest proponents. I guess the more general case is the 'someone on the internet is wrong'. In this case Foxy, but as always they won't see it for several pages yet

(I was going to make a pic of all the forum gameplay loops, as apparently that is the only way to list legitimate gameplay loops, but ... nah)

* I wouldn't say the poster is trolling, just has tunnel vision

No. Where's the forum gameplay loop?

 

[Linnunrata]

Please people, lets calm down - could we discuss open-only and gankers for a while, let cooler heads prevail.

 

[babelfisch]

* I wouldn't say the poster is trolling, just has tunnel vision

It's called loop vision.

 

[Boff'in]

I've been screaming (internally) for more planet types (how the game should have gone*):
Foundation: Galaxy, BGS, life (economy, missions etc)
Content: Lore and stuff to find, storylines (Thargoid invasion for eg)
Building the universe: Dead planets, tenuous atmos, gas giants, lava / water / ammonia then finally populated worlds
Addins: Getting up from seat, exploring ship, exploring stations, exploring planets
The fact they've gone for the last step proves the game is doomed - DOOMED I TELL'S YA!

* Do not abandon VR - like, ever; I don't like it and I won't accept it...

I'm seriously thinking of reinstalling ED - it's been nearly a year and my HOTAS is winking suggestively at me. Did they ever fix the Mamba?

Okay, first off, VR isn't expected "at launch" -> which is a radically different spin than "VR SUPPORT HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY DROPPED".
It's not present at launch is a bit of a kick in the knackers but from a dev-perspective, it's an understandable "how-the-eff-do-we-fix-this".
Elite Dangerous is sit-down vehicle-based VR, correct?
FPS VR has two main issues that Vehicle-Based VR does not.

1. movement in the game world
2. Detail issue

With Elite Dangerous to date, the player has been "bolted" to a seat of a vehicle, it's vehicle-based VR which solves both of those issues.

1. Sitting down covers the entirety of the HMD owning demographic, as all VR peripherals systems can do "sitting down", were not all of them can do standing up and moving around, thus if Fdev goes the route of "room-scale", they risk alienating their "some" VR users.
2. VR design for movement in the game world, matching the vehicle's movement (HOTAS, etc etc) is easier than trying to match 1:1, the human expectation of how it is to stand and walk-around in real-life (after a lifetime of perceiving First Person-Environment) giving more rise to motion-sickness when we don't have 1:1 head-movement when we walk around (aka room-scale).
3. The hands, screens, panels, objects are "far" away, and aren't needed to be mirrored in your Game World in insane detail like a First-Person VR experience.

Valve's Half-life: Alyx set a benchmark for how first-person combat in VR could work and it works very well indeed, and Elite Dangerous, is far behind on that front as it's has been vehicle-based to date.
There is so much to get right, with just rendering and keeping the FPS's smooth for "screen-users", let alone having those visuals that stretch to the horizon in stereo and in crazy detail so you can hold your hand up to your face and see the text on the circuit board.
How does sitting down in a cockpit translate to walking, and jetpacking around, Planets, station interiors and moving on into the future, zero-gee combat in the space-ship interiors?

Sorry kiddies, it's getting the nuts and bolts of the UNDERLYING Frameworks that support gameplay and game loops which is the priority, rather than the other way around, hence working inwards (from the Galaxy down through stations and planets to the ship interiors). Building outwards from the cockpit, punts a whole lot of issues to a later date that could blow up in the entire communities faces irrecoverably changing the game we love as certain gameplay can't be supported by a future framework to address a different segment of the game.