Something Positive for Elite / Frontier Staff Who Are Human Beings w Feelings Not Targets

Totally agree with OP. Elite is a very complex game and Frontier made it very hard for themselves by:

1) trying to stay true to the spirit of the original games (consequences of this are that piracy and killing other players for fun is valid game play)
2) making a blaze-your-own-trail game without true progression and still keep it interesting
3) catering to new players, casual players AND veterans who play multiple hours a day

Given all this I think they are doing an amazing job, even giving us free updates. And with this complexity bugs will be inevitable.

On the other hand I truly believe that most negative comments are because people are passionate about the game and want it to be the best space sim it could be.
 
I don't deny that fact, but I've never seen any particularly scathing or unpleasant comments about personal developers. The development of this game has been slow and even when updates are made they are poorly executed resulting in months and months waiting for fixes. Bug resolution is generally shockingly inadequate.

How shielded can you make the people who are responsible for these problems? As I already stated, if there is a structural issue at FD then there needs to be difficult conversations about how the company is managed. But to ask to be spared professional criticism because it might hurt your feelings is infantile. It's not like the company is running a charity. Ultimately, they want your money.
I think this is well stated. Now sometimes people do go too far in their criticisms of developers. I think a good litmus test is how would you feel if an individual developer from Frontier were to contact you personally to respond to one of your criticisms. That happened to me once, and it made me wish that my original criticism was a little less "sharp".

On the other hand, Frontier is a company and we are the customers, and if we are dissatisfied, it is our right to voice that dissatisfaction. The very fact this forum allows voices of dissent is proof of this. The moderation team knows that is allowable criticism and what is a personal attack, and they are pretty quick to remove the latter. So even Frontier doesn't want "sunshine blown up their bums" -rather they want an honest assessment of their customers' (dis)satisfaction level.
 
I've paid for 3 copies of ED, reckon that on my main account I've already 'paid' for all 3 in hours played, so that says a lot I suppose :)
Mind you, I'm not one of those who pay £xx.xx for a piece of software and reckon the developers owe me for it and intend to keep ramming the idea down the throat of anyone and everyone...

Elite Dangerous has kept my imagination going for around 1500 hours so far, a couple of short breaks to play other things, but back again with yet another 'what if?' and away playing for another bunch of hours.

I'm retired, have way too much free time compared to my 'productive' days of yore, this game engages my attention quite nicely. Well done Frontier!
 
Cheer up, chances are there's more pressing problems in life than overly concerning yourself with bugs in a computer game. If not, you're lucky and should count your blessings.
There are a tonne of other things more pressing than Elite Dangerous. But, and this bit is kind of important, this is a forum about Elite Dangerous. I can discuss the damage being done to my industry by Brexit, but I'm of the view this forum is best reserved for discussions about bugs in computer game, don't you agree?
 
I realize my story may be kinda generic, but I think I should tell it anyway. When I saw the first trailer for Elite: Dangerous, I was ecstatic. I had never heard of Elite before then (I hadn't even been born when the first game came out) but Freespace 2 and its modding community had ignited my love for space sims, and the thought of a space sim MMO coming out made me ecstatic.

When the game launched I thought it was a little shallow, but the sheer scale of the galaxy and the slowly evolving story and gameplay got me hooked. I had to take a break after Horizons came out because my computer was a potato and couldn't even handle the original game at that point, but I finally got an upgrade and plunged back in to ply the galaxy once more. Void opal mining finally got me enough cash to afford the big ships, and I'm enjoying the hell out of my Python and Anaconda.😁

The sheer magnitude of what FDev have accomplished is awe-inspiring to me, and I have only a small inkling of all the research and effort that must have gone into creating this game as well as what it takes to maintain it. While I certainly have my complaints and criticisms about the game, I still realize that the dev team are giving it their best and I trust that it will only improve with time. I'd love to see ED last just as long as EVE Online has!😊

@Paige Harvey, I realize that there's plenty of negativity about the game that you get bombarded with day in and day out, but I want you to know that there's still players who love the game to death, and we'll continue to cheer you on.

Really, maybe I should save up for a ticket to the uk and meet frontier. That seems to be the missing link for the rest of us... white knights know frontier in person, the rest of us do not :(

Apparently Ed Lewis was an amazing person in real life, when is persona on live-streams was something else. I could never get how community members more senior than I could say that just from the live-streams.
Surprise surprise, actually meeting the devs and talking to them about their work sounds like one of the best ways to understand them! I honestly wonder what the cause of the game's issues are, and would love to have the Frontier team explain it to us in detail. A game on this scale might have a lot of issues that arise just from the sheer complexity and size of what they're working with.
 
Last edited:
I realize my story may be kinda generic, but I think I should tell it anyway. When I saw the first trailer for Elite: Dangerous, I was ecstatic. I had never heard of Elite before then (I hadn't even been born when the first game came out) but Freespace 2 and its modding community had ignited my love for space sims, and the thought of a space sim MMO coming out made me ecstatic.

When the game launched I thought it was a little shallow, but the sheer scale of the galaxy and the slowly evolving story and gameplay got me hooked. I had to take a break after Horizons came out because my computer was a potato and couldn't even handle the original game at that point, but I finally got an upgrade and plunged back in to ply the galaxy once more. Void opal mining finally got me enough cash to afford the big ships, and I'm enjoying the hell out of my Python and Anaconda.😁

The sheer magnitude of what FDev have accomplished is awe-inspiring to me, and I have only a small inkling of all the research and effort that must have gone into creating this game as well as what it takes to maintain it. While I certainly have my complaints and criticisms about the game, I still realize that the dev team are giving it their best and I trust that it will only improve with time. I'd love to see ED last just as long as EVE Online has!😊

@Paige Harvey, I realize that there's plenty of negativity about the game that you get bombarded with day in and day out, but I want you to know that there's still players who love the game to death, and we'll continue to cheer you on.



Surprise surprise, actually meeting the devs and talking to them about their work sounds like one of the best ways to understand them! I honestly wonder what the cause of the game's issues are, and would love to have the Frontier team explain it to us in detail. A game on this scale might have a lot of issues that arise just from the sheer complexity and size of what they're working with.
This is a common attitude...and in my view a misconceived one. What people always fail to understand is that this game is procedurally generated. To that end, the game is by definition scalable. The scale of what has been achieved isn't really much of anachievement as that's entirely due to the algorithm used to create the galaxy. The algorithm is good, i'll give you that, but please do not confuse width for depth as (as explained above), width is not a function of developer input. Where they could add value over and above width is depth....which is where this game is seriously lacking and always has been.

That's just my input...but please realise the scale is just a repeated procedure and rng. Whether 1 system or 1000 systems, there is no real difference.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
That's just my input...but please realise the scale is just a repeated procedure and rng. Whether 1 system or 1000 systems, there is no real difference.
There is actually plenty of difference though. Also procedural generation is actually the opposite to "rng". Proc gen is precisely deterministic, not random. In addition to the stellar forge itself you have in the ED galaxy a big chunk of the real celestial bodies identified in some of the most well known astronomic catalogues.

If you just brush off all the depth in the stellar forge with just a passing "The algorithm is good, I´ll give you that" then you may be probably missing out:

Source: https://youtu.be/Vz3nhCykZNw?t=373

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz3nhCykZNw
 
Last edited:
There is actually plenty of difference though. Also procedural generation is actually the opposite to "rng". Proc gen is precisely deterministic, not random. In addition to the stellar forge itself you have in the ED galaxy a big chunk of the real celestial bodies identified in some of the most well known astronomic catalogues.

If you just brush off all the depth in the stellar forge with just a passing "The algorithm is good, I´ll give you that" then you may be probably missing out:

Source: https://youtu.be/Vz3nhCykZNw?t=373

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz3nhCykZNw
That's not quite true. Rng is built into a procedure. It's like a Monte carlo simulation - you generate certain random variables as per a probability density function. I don't know how much of this stochastic process is used in FDev's algorithms - indeed the entire thing could be deterministic - but I would imagine there is some element of randomness (we see it in the signal sourcea for certain).

You can call it a 'stellar forge' but that's just your imagination, which is separate (not illegitimate). The topic in point is that the width/scale is a bit irrelevant as once the algorithm is in place, it takes little effort to increase the size....it's only limited by processing power. Whether there is depth is a bit subjective (I'd suggest you're hard pressed to argue there is) but affording credit on the basis of scale alone is, I would suggest, misplaced for the reason I have outlined.
 
There is actually plenty of difference though. Also procedural generation is actually the opposite to "rng". Proc gen is precisely deterministic, not random. In addition to the stellar forge itself you have in the ED galaxy a big chunk of the real celestial bodies identified in some of the most well known astronomic catalogues.

If you just brush off all the depth in the stellar forge with just a passing "The algorithm is good, I´ll give you that" then you may be probably missing out:

Source: https://youtu.be/Vz3nhCykZNw?t=373

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vz3nhCykZNw
This is very interesting. Do you have any more information about issues the devs are facing with regards to updating the game? One criticism of ED that I happen to agree with is how slowly patches come out, and I'd like to know the reasons for that, presuming you know/are allowed to tell us.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
That's not quite true.
And yet, it is true. If it was rng we would not be able to encounter the same things in the same spots every time. That is why the procedural generation in ED is fundamentally deterministic and not random.

In the case of the Stellar Forge it is even more true due to the fact that the star systems distribution and composition in it is not just based on an rng seed alone but based on actual galaxy disc matter density maps as currently known for the milky way. This in turn leads to very specific types of stars, systems composition, number of bodies, masses, temperatures and chemistry (and therefore colour) in them depending on where you are in the galaxy. If you actually watch the video I linked above you can learn about it, in particular min 13:05. It may very well have some random elements aswell but just to add flavour and fluff to the very deterministic core of the proc gen of the star systems based on actual galaxy data.

You can call it a 'stellar forge' but that's just your imagination...
Not really, there is a very specific scientific base for how and where the systems are generated in the Elite galaxy, as per above. Not random or imaginary at all.

The topic in point is that the width/scale is a bit irrelevant as once the algorithm is in place, it takes little effort to increase the size....it's only limited by processing power. Whether there is depth is a bit subjective (I'd suggest you're hard pressed to argue there is) but affording credit on the basis of scale alone is, I would suggest, misplaced for the reason I have outlined.
As shown above the stellar forge is not just a random algorithm. Not only it had to be designed to conform to known galaxy matter density distribution maps and produce logical results accordingly, but also it had to accomodate rationally all the actual existing celestial objetcs catalogued to date in it. The forge is so detailed that has managed to replicate reasonably well a certain number of recent real life discoveries like Trappist 1 or match certain theories like the ones related to the number of brown dwarves in the galaxy etc.

It is not a perfect system, but it is many orders of magnitude deeper and sophisticated than your "just a random based algorithm". Affording credit to it on the basis of scale alone (especially when you factor in all the actual real celestial catalogued items integrated to the system) is completely justified.
 
Last edited:
And yet, it is true. If it was rng we would not be able to encounter the same things in the same spots every time. That is why the procedural generation in ED is fundamentally deterministic and not random.

In the case of the Stellar Forge it is even more true due to the fact that the star systems distribution and composition in it is not just based on an rng seed alone but based on actual galaxy disc matter density maps as currently known for the milky way. This in turn leads to very specific types of stars, systems composition, number of bodies, masses, temperatures and chemistry (and therefore colour) in them depending on where you are in the galaxy. If you actually watch the video I linked above you can learn about it, in particular min 13:05. It may very well have some random elements aswell but just to add flavour and fluff to the very deterministic core of the proc gen of the star systems based on actual galaxy data.



Not really, there is a very specific scientific base for how and where the systems are generated in the Elite galaxy, as per above. Not random or imaginary at all.



As shown above the stellar forge is not just a random algorithm. Not only it had to be designed to conform to known galaxy matter density distribution maps and produce logical results accordingly, but also it had to accomodate rationally all the actual existing celestial objetcs catalogued to date in it. The forge is so detailed that has managed to replicate reasonably well a certain number of recent real life discoveries like Trappist 1 or match certain theories like the ones related to the number of brown dwarves in the galaxy etc.

It is not a perfect system, but it is many orders of magnitude deeper and sophisticated than your "just a random based algorithm". Affording credit to it on the basis of scale alone (especially when you factor in all the actual real celestial catalogued items integrated to the system) is completely justified.
You have read what I posted....but demonstrably do not understand any of it. I never said it was a random algorithm. I explained how 'randomness' is used in algorithms to respect a probability distribution and the signal sources are just one example of them in the ED procedure.

I don't think it's your fault. I just don't think you understand what I'm referring to.
 
There are a tonne of other things more pressing than Elite Dangerous. But, and this bit is kind of important, this is a forum about Elite Dangerous. I can discuss the damage being done to my industry by Brexit, but I'm of the view this forum is best reserved for discussions about bugs in computer game, don't you agree?
Sure, but you know your name is one I (and others!) associate with terminal negativity about the game. I just don't get why you, or anyone, would do that to themselves. Still, like you say it's up to you :)
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
You have read what I posted....but demonstrably do not understand any of it. I never said it was a random algorithm. I explained how 'randomness' is used in algorithms to respect a probability distribution and the signal sources are just one example of them in the ED procedure.

I don't think it's your fault. I just don't think you understand what I'm referring to.
I fully understand what you are referring to but also fully disagree with your oversimplification and that it should not deserve credit.

You seemed to have fundamentally misunderstood the deterministic nature of the Stellar Forge and its deep core roots in the modelling of actual cosmological data of the galaxy to produce results that are very far from a rng.

Not your fault, often times deterministic proc gen is confused with rng and wrongly assumed as trivial.
 
Last edited:
I fully understand what you are referring to but also fully disagree with your oversimplification and that it should not deserve credit.

You seemed to have fundamentally misunderstood the deterministic nature of the Stellar Forge and its deep core roots in the modelling of actual cosmological data of the galaxy to produce results that are very far from a rng.

Not your fault, often times deterministic proc gen is confused with rng and wrongly assumed as trivial.
Ah the plight of a software developer. If you are good, you make it look easy so everyone thinks you are not any good at all.
 
Top Bottom