I would really like to terraform some of the ELW or THMC I’ve discovered. I’d have to routinely deliver certain materials to keep the colony alive and it would generate credits for me in return. Perhaps even have wars w other commanders over who gets to terraform what body, or destroy another commanders colony. Could be some interesting gameplay there?
The Leaked Thargoid concept art looks good except the head. The body looks cool. Please give it more distinct facial features. Now it looks too dull. I think they should be a bit scary. Check the Arthropoid designs of Stellars.
Th
These are probably drones, devoid of any facial features and very limited individuality, i suspect princesses and Queens wilk have more peculiar facial structures.
As the codex says: a queen loses a drone as a human would lose a eyelash.
These are probably drones, devoid of any facial features and very limited individuality, i suspect princesses and Queens wilk have more peculiar facial structures.
As the codex says: a queen loses a drone as a human would lose a eyelash.
Caustic thargoid weaponry to bypass your commander battle suit shields.
Gotta get those caustic resistant guardian power armor modules.
Haha JK.
Now, I believe this leak is real and all, but...
Does anyone else think it's a bit strange that these Roadmap leaks make no mention of the smaller quarterly updates?
We've had the "April Update" and FDEV did say that there'd be smaller QoL focused updates every 3 months or so, so if the 2020 update is slated for Q4 2020, we've got 5 or 6 small updates in between now and then. Why does the leak not mention any of these?
Does anyone else think it's a bit strange that these Roadmap leaks make no mention of the smaller quarterly updates?
We've had the "April Update" and FDEV did say that there'd be smaller QoL focused updates every 3 months or so, so if the 2020 update is slated for Q4 2020, we've got 5 or 6 small updates in between now and then. Why does the leak not mention any of these?
Deleted member 38366
D
Honestly curious, such as?
Regarding networking the differences between twitch and point and click I would imagine are substantial. The more clear and dramatic example I can offer is EVE and how the population in instances compare to Elite. I would imagine the amount of information that is transmitted and required in real time (or as close to it as current technology allows) for twitch cockpit based games (as opposed to allow things like time dilation like EVE) is huge compared to point and click. Even in arena / map type cockpit based games (i.e. not even MMOs) like DCS you rarely see more than 20-30 (some upper limits go to 60+) players in a single scenario because the server starts to cough its lungs.
Well, that is a bit jumping to personal conclusions me thinks. Pretty sure that at the very least some of the learning curve and lessons there are very much still with the company and applicable today. Also if they did it once there is a good precedent to see them do it again.
Now, now, that seems a bit of a gratuitous speculation againDo you have any source on that?
Segmented Quotes are usually a very bad sign in any Discussion.
I don't feel like competitive re-quoting and answering of any statement, it always turns out into meaningless hair splitting in less than 3 iterations.
If you're an experienced Forum Mod, you should know
The Game I talked about was AirWarrior, back in the days a surprisingly massive Game spanning over a huge Playground for its time.
Air Warrior - Wikipedia
Notably, despite being a super old Air Campaign Simulator, it offered
- Player-based Squadrons (with private Briefing rooms and Squadron chat !)
- fully functional and quite stable MultiCrew (not kidding, you could properly fill up a B-17 with Gunners and a Bombing officer/navigator)
- Ground-based Vehicles (you could drive Tanks, Jeeps and even AAA Vehicles... inattentive enemy Pilots didn't even realize when a hostile AAA Vehicle made the 30+ min Drive and parked near their Airstrip )
- a fully dynamic and realtime (!) Background Simulation (not kidding... based on the Red vs. Green Campaign, Airfields and Refineries could be gained/lost, depending on remaining Refneries Fuel Supply and Oil Quality varied - resulting in limited Fuel and restricted Engine power; lost Airfields instantly meant longer flights through hostile territory towards Targets)
On the networking limitations, the FDev P2P will always be the limiting factor. Again, no difference if Cockpits are used or the environment is an FPS.
If anything, latency and quality of service will become even more paramount. Competitive FPS and latency/P2P/Packet loss don't go hand in hand very well.
On the lost Experience, you can read it on Wikipedia yourself. Some 30 staff was laid off after the project was scrapped and it all is nearly a decade ago.
Doesn't take more than common sense and a bit or combination to assess how much experience is left and how much a decade old IP and its abandoned code is still worth these days.
And with that I intentionally leave the discussion (this is Iteration 1 of "competitive line quoting" and I don't plan to participate in Iteration 2
)
Last edited by a moderator:
Debatable, details on what "not much" means broadly would have been nice. I mean, the April update wasn't insignificant, despite being a "small" update.
Ace Combat 7 for the PS4 did incredible weather effects, as seen in this video. Flying through clouds left moisture on the canopy. This is what it should be like.
1:21 to 1:35 was incredible. See how the player flies into and out of the clouds. Holy crap.
Looking at what FDev did for the Outsider, I'm pretty sure that if they got their stuff together, they could roll out Space Legs nicely.
I say, priorities, FDev.
Start focusing on the environment. Atmo planets, space legs, whatever.
And stop focusing on spreadsheet stuff like powerplay, engineers, and silly grindy sidequests like collecting Guardian bits and bobs just to build weapons or modules with what? 5%, 10% increases in stats?
I wouldn't mind grinding if you provided me a Guardian weapon that works like the Wave Motion Gun in Space Battleship Yamato. One blast kills a fleet of 'Goids... but 10%, 15%? I'd rather have atmo planets and space legs.
It would be interesting to go back in time and see what it's like. Our memories can play tricks on us.Segmented Quotes are usually a very bad sign in any Discussion.
I don't feel like competitive re-quoting and answering of any statement, it always turns out into meaningless hair splitting in less than 3 iterations.
If you're an experienced Forum Mod, you should know
The Game I talked about was AirWarrior, back in the days a surprisingly massive Game spanning over a huge Playground for its time.
Air Warrior - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Notably, despite being a super old Air Campaign Simulator, it offered
That was what... over two decades ago, using 80486 and Pentiums , connected via 14.4 or 28.8 Modems - and it worked exceedingly well considering these tech limitations.
- Player-based Squadrons (with private Briefing rooms and Squadron chat !)
- fully functional and quite stable MultiCrew (not kidding, you could properly fill up a B-17 with Gunners and a Bombing officer/navigator)
- Ground-based Vehicles (you could drive Tanks, Jeeps and even AAA Vehicles... inattentive enemy Pilots didn't even realize when a hostile AAA Vehicle made the 30+ min Drive and parked near their Airstrip
- a fully dynamic and realtime (!) Background Simulation (not kidding... based on the Red vs. Green Campaign, Airfields and Refineries could be gained/lost, depending on remaining Refneries Fuel Supply and Oil Quality varied - resulting in limited Fuel and restricted Engine power; lost Airfields instantly meant longer flights through hostile territory towards Targets)
On the networking limitations, the FDev P2P will always be the limiting factor. Again, no difference if Cockpits are used or the environment is an FPS.
If anything, latency and quality of service will become even more paramount. Competitive FPS and latency/P2P/Packet loss don't go hand in hand very well.
On the lost Experience, you can read it on Wikipedia yourself. Some 30 staff was laid off after the project was scrapped and it all is nearly a decade ago.
Doesn't take more than common sense and a bit or combination to assess how much experience is left and how much a decade old IP and its abandoned code is still worth these days.
And with that I intentionally leave the discussion (this is Iteration 1 of "competitive line quoting" and I don't plan to participate in Iteration 2
No difference remembering a TV series/movie when young and when you rewatch it later in life, you realise it's not as good as you thought it was.
You need reasons to do activities in a game. That is what engineer's, factions, poorly implemented powerplay, poorly implemented Thargoid side quests do. Whether you like those reasons and whether you grind to do them (powerplay there is not much choice) is down to the user.
Ace combat 7 has nice weather effects, but you have a reason to fly through those clouds. You would be on mission.
Remove those reasons, and see how long you will play a game for.
Fdev need to add environments, I agree with, but they have to add game with those environments too otherwise they just won't be used.
Atmospheric planets, what's the point in landing on one to get materials when you can land on a non-atmospheric planet which would probably be faster and safer.
There needs to be good gameplay reasons to add them, just like space legs will need good gameplay reasons to add them.
Any kind of mission done on Atmo worlds, be it landing on the surface or attacking a surface installation will bring about more complexities, challenge and danger to the player, compared to airless ones. And it will be a skill based challenge, and not just a statistical one.
That is how they will build upon existing missions and things to do.
After all missions in Elite now are what?
A) - Mine/Transport/Buy stuff and bring them over another place.
B) - Scan stuff on land/space
C) - Kill people
Guardian grind > A
Engineer grind > A
Powerplay > Mostly As, with and Cs
Factions > Same as powerplay
What else new can you implement that isn't A, B or C?
Now add atmo world to it. Imagine a "Scan the surface settlement" mission, but in an atmo world, in a storm, with low clouds.
You already have a challenge entering the atmosphere, because, presumably and logically, you should not be able to enter the atmosphere like you do an airless planet. You would have an optimum re-entry angle and a certain speed range, or you either bounce off the atmo and back into space, or you take heat damage or burn up and explode on the way down.
Now you're faced with flying through a storm, with lightning and crap, and your ship is being tossed about. On top of that, you have atmospheric physics, which means you can't simply boost, and go FA-off and fly sideways. If you do that, your ship will break up due to being subjected to aerodynamic stresses.
Next, as you approach the site, a turret starts firing at you, Guess what? You're in an Anaconda, not a nimble Vulture, because you need an SRV for the mission. It's gonna be a tough call trying to take out that turret in poor visibility, and subjected to an aerodynamic flight regime. You turn like a pig, can't really get a proper shot off, and are getting pelted heavily in return. You're gonna have to land somewhere far away and deploy the SRV.
Ah, next, landing in high wind (storm, remember?), your ship is tossed about and you're having a hell of a time keeping it level to the ground after finding a small spot just flat enough to accomodate your Conda. A bit to the left, and it's too angled.
After you've deployed your SRV, it is also subjected to poor visibility and high winds. And oh yes.... it's a storm. Raining 'Goids and Guardians. Poor traction. You find yourself slipping and sliding all over the place, which makes things hairier when avoiding the turret fire as you approach the installation. Using your jets in high winds is hell too, because the moment you're airborne, hurricane force winds will toss you wherever it deigns fit.
Now, contrast that to a surface scan mission on an airless rock.
Sure it will add complexity. But if you are doing powerplay or faction work you will do it the most efficient way.
Not much and I don't expect that to change. But the reasons to do those need to be in too, and they need to be compelling reasons. A challange is not a compelling reason for many people.
That sounds great, but when time is not on our side, the easier l, more efficient way will be done, not the more complex way.
As I said, they need to add good reasons to do that gameplay.
Look at engineer's which you call a grind. People grind out the easiest and most efficient way to do it, and then complain it's a grind.
I have never done any grind for my engineered modules. But many people will just grind stuff out and the same goes for the BGS. Give compelling reasons go to an atmospheric planet, take that risk and challange and it will be used. The same goes for space legs.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Hey you are preaching to the choir in my case! I don’t mind space legs either but I personally much rather see gas giants and atmos in general with some weather effects etc first.
Now, having said that I reckon that space legs is prolly a much more complex and difficult challenge than atmo effects and therefore can totally understand if FDEV decides to prioritise tackling legs first.
But, as someone wiser once said... Why not both?
Last edited:
Well, it's always a question of gameplay experience vs the results you want.
Faction/Powerplay people aren't really experiencing the game, or playing the game for the sake of playing the game.
They are just playing for the stats. Like how championship FPSérs will turn down the LOD on their games for the best frame rates. To get an edge over their competitors. To me, that's akin to metagaming, in some aspects.
Hence they will take the path of least resistance. Totally understandable.
Likewise, I want my modules engineered, so I can jump further, turn better, boost faster, all of these just to use for a better experience in combat or travels.
I would prefer to buy them off the shelves directly with the credits I already "grinded" for.
I mean, I now do deep core mining because there's a level of skill involved. Not just buy stuff here, sell there... or get stuff here, bring there.
Some might argue that it is still a grind, but I think it's not so grindy, because you're doing something physical, or skill-based, as opposed to just playing with numbers.
That's why I earlier did PVP and bounty hunting, over trade, laser mining, and passenger missions. But I remained a pauper, in game terms, until Deep core mining came about. I just couldn't be arsed to do the grindy things. And by grind, i meant doing inane, skill-less things that are repetitious. Like running numbers.
So as above, after "grinding" for cash by core mining, I'm now forced yet again to grind for materials in the worst way possible, by once again getting stuff and bringing it elsewhere... that is boring to me.
Now, if you're asking me to deliver cargo to an atmo world known for terrible weather, and is an absolute nightmare to fly into.... vs another airless rock. (And of course the game should reflect the payout accordingly with the risk involved, at a proper level.... ), I'll take the former. It'll be fun... like that Dropship landing in Aliens.
So if ED implements atmo worlds correctly, with re-entry conditions, weather patterns, aerodynamics restrictions, etc... normally boring missions into airless rocks would actually turn into something new. You add color to that otherwise boring transport mission.
Of course, if you're just a stats player, then ignore my post.
If the risk matches the reward people will engage in the activity. As a BGS player, I normally take the path of least resistance. What if the faction I'm working for only owns a ground port on a world with terrible weather? It would shake up my routine and add more variety to my work. I love it.
The same goes with space legs, there's bound to be things only capable of being done on foot that I won't be able to ignore.
The key here is to have BGS related things that one (BGS players that is) can't ignore added with new styles of play. It forces you to try new things and allows the game to put out missions that require a high degree of know how to complete. It also creates a more varied experience for a rather bland (but necessary) aspect of maintaining a healthy faction.
This is pretty much what I mean. The BGS gives you reasons to do stuff. If there is a better reward for the more time consuming and riskier way then people will do it. It is just as efficient as any other way. The same goes for space legs.
Personally I would love mission rewards and faction benefits to be completely redone. They make little sense at the moment.
Of course. That makes sense.
That's why I was implying that, while you may create new types of gameplay, or missions, with a restructured risk/reward system to grab players, you can also do the same with new environments.
Eg: Surface scanning mission on a Medium sec installation on an airless rock:
Pays out 2m Cr
Now you have a surface scan mission on the same type of Med Sec installation, but on an atmo world, known to have really crap weather systems:
Payout 3.5m
Risk from the NPCs is the same. But the environmental factors/risks justifies the higher payout.