Sound familiar?

[Shepard]

I should put on my asbestos flameproof underwear before saying this, but I do not understand how people can equate width (number of different activities) with depth (engaging, non-repetitive and rewarding content).

Why is this so difficult to understand???

I have done every single thing on your list without a single exception. I'm still debating whether I should do another hiatus and hope that not every single activity is still a repetitive grind when I return. Good steps have been taken in the right direction lately, so I'm cautiously optimistic that FD have understood what you do so desperately not want to see.

Sometimes I wonder if the reason why we have these arguments is that people who want more "depth" simply play a lot more of this game than people like OP and simply know it a lot better. I realize that if OP is someone who plays an hour a week, the game must really feel amazing. It must seems like that to him/her. I play a lot more than that, and on the list of stuff to do, I've done it all. Several times.

I don't want more different things to do. I want the things I do to be fun. They are for the first few hours, but after that...well, I think we all know how it feels after a while. Even if we want to pretend we can just cover all the repetitive stuff with our imagination, *pretending* that you didn't just kill your ship no 100 in the hazres zone or mined your 100th ton of platinum in exactly the same way as you did an hour earlier, with no real risk of anything killing you other than boredom. Repetition - is - not - fun. And having 100 repetitive activities doesn't make it any better.

If you do not share this point of view, don't mind repetitive activities because you can switch to another repetitive activity and therefore trick your brain into thinking that you are playing a game with tons of variation, then good for you. I am seriously happy for you, and envy you a bit. I just know these activities to well to be fooled, and that's the reason why I dare say such horrible blasphemous things as "more depth would be really nice". Sorry if you find that offensive.

I know, some people just don't get it what depth means... It's above their understanding, they would rather post a flat note, narrowing everything there was said down to one senseless phrase " I don't want to do it ". But then again, there are different gamer age groups. As older you are, as less depth you need in game to entertain yourself. The very old farts would post something like OP did, then the old farts like me, would try to criticize, the young farts would try to engage into some argument with someone on the board and then very young farts... Ahh never mind, those would never even play ED. So, I think that the problem with ED is that it has too many farts in it, and there is a lack of air freshener in game.

 

[Cmdr Ig]

I've not played this arguing game for a while.... what the hey, let's have some fun...

Player 1: Man, there's nothing to do in Elite. It's a mile wide and an inch deep.

Player 2: What about trading?

Player 1: While there is a briefly therapeutic meditation to the trader's life, the lack of any real and dynamic and purposeful and persistent market makes the whole affair feel empty and hollow and ultimately unsatisfying. Add to that the simple truth that finding a good trade-route is a chore (jumping to systems and hoping they have demand/supply rather than some pleasing interaction with the map, the news, and bulletin board contacts selling hot trade data) and frankly, once the surface is scratched, there's little too keep you interested.

Player 2: Rares?

Player 1: Much like trading, but with more loading screens and even less sense of a real market.

Player 2: Community goals?

Player 1: I've enjoyed some of these, and found others frustrating. The real issue is that they don't grow organically out of the game - it is not as if the activities of the community are causing them to happen - they are goals dictated by the gods to provide entertaining short-term purpose. Once they're over, nothing has really changed.

Player 2: Powerplay?

Player 1: I don't want to do that. You see, before PP there was this great thing called the background simulation, and some great emergent gameplay was starting to emerge from it - people were fighting over systems, getting emotionally attached to local factions, doing everything to rid the Alliance of anarchy systems or rid the galaxy of the Federation... there was a natural and elegant ebb and flow emerging, and yeah, it was buggy, but you could see where it was going. Then PP came along with its artificial and forced veneer over the top, with goals that only the most hard-core could ever achieve, and it subsumed and destroyed the chance of emergent gameplay. I don't PP out of principle.

Player 2: Assassination missions?

Player 1: I don't want to do that. They are often bugged, and they don't have any depth. Let's face it, all you do is jump to a system and wait for the random number generator (RNG) to maybe spawn your target, eventually. If you could in some way actually hunt your target - if they were a single, persistent entity that was you actively had to hunt, if you weren't instantly faced with "gaming the RNG", then maybe, just maybe, this could work.

Player 2: Smuggling?

Player 1: I don't want to do that. It suffers much the same ills as trading, with no persistent market and sense of an ebb and flow of demand and secretive difficult supply. The real problem is that eventually (frequently?) the RNG will decide you must be interdicted, so there's no real sense that you can apply skill and mastery of the craft of smuggling - there's simply nothing much to master.

Player 2: Planetary landings?

Player 1: I do want to do that, but it's not worth it for me until there's atmospheres I think, and something to do down there other than hunt the RNG.

Player 2: Exploration?

Player 1: I don't want to do that. I've expressed my opinion on this before, but the implementation of exploration is criminally broken. Jump in, push the button on the Fog horn, decide how long you feel like lingering, point your ship at a planet or two an wait for the timer to count down, jump out. They took the game out of it when they left the place-holder foghorn in there. Yes have a scanner, but if there were an application of skill to the whole affair, then it would have depth and start to feel appealing. The trivialisation of the task makes it utterly disappointing.

Player 2: Mining?

Player 1: I don't want to do that. Again, there's no sense of skill or wit or challenge. Point you laser at the rock, wait for the RNG to maybe give you a reward. rinse, repeat. MAybe if there was some way of scanning and cutting the rocks that required a bit of skill to maximise your gains, that would greatly help. As would a bit of persistence perhaps.

Player 2: Bounty hunting?

Player 1: I've accumulated a lot of bounties, and if there's one thing I know, it's that there's absolutely no hunting involved. Instead, you go to one of a few types of magic room and wait for the RNG to give you a target. The nature of that target will never change in response to your presence - just an infinite supply of the same old thing. If the pirate's really value the RES, they should mount an all out assault on your for attacking their territory. If you've killed off 600 of them, you should start to exhaust supply and find the system becoming safe (and for you, boring), meaning you move on. Again, this is a lack of persistence, a dependence on a RNG that can't adapt and can't respond.

Player 2: Object recovery and salvage?

Player 1: I don't want to do that. It's chasing the RNG. It's probably one of the most obvious places where the game shows the thin veneer over the RNG. I mean, really... jump to a system, stop all engines, wait for the USS to pop into existence conveniently close, and hope it's the one you want? How about getting a plot of the route the ship you're chasing took, and bread-crumbs of clues or a scanner for interesting things, or the target in question being persistent and unique as soon as the mission exists so that yes, you're searching for it, not gaming the RNG for a USS.

Player 2: Be a fuel rat and rescue ships?

Player 1: I don't want to do that. It's nice emergent gameplay and I whole-heartedly approve, but I can't commit the time required or prioritise the game over life - and if you're promising someone you'll do something in game, that gets upsetting when you end up having to quit. So, yeah, one up the game, something good has come!

Player 2: Piracy?

Player 1: I don't want to do that. There's enjoyment to be had here, but no sense that the game facilitates hunting juicy targets, instead you're just hoping the RNG rolls two sixes for you. Waiting on the RNG gets old quickly.

Player 2: There's always PVP...

Player 1: Not had much call for PVP - there's not enough in-game reason to hunt it out. If the BGS was supporting more emergent gameplay, then I think I could see PVP having value. As it is, my experiences are either pleasing conversations or being massively over-powered by someone hunting easy kills. There's some fun to be had here, but I don't like dicing with death without and sense of purpose.

Player 2: You play in solo.

Player 1: Nope, never. I may not be in it for PVP, but I like seeing other players around, like seeing the odd chat, like the fear - it's one of the few things the game has going for it. A shame though that the networking is to some extent the cause of the lack of persistence, requiring that the game be a thin veneer over the RNG.

---

or: tldr...

The game lacks persistence, and as a result, lacks emergent organic gameplay, and thus, lacks purpose and connection for the player. Without a sense of purpose or connection, or affection for the game and its tropes, the activities on offer feel like empty hollow shells good for a five minute blast, but quickly wear thin. And I hate being so aware of the RNG.

 

[CMDR Hagglebeard]

I don't think Shadragon understands depth.

Depth is not having a lot of things to do, but it's the ability to tackle any given thing in a variety of ways, with no clear best in each. Elite does not have this.

There are best weapon loadouts, best places to mine, best places to explore, best commodities to trade, etc.

 

[Ydiss]

I've played many MMOs since the days of EQ and UO, and single player games as well, pure PvP FPS games and puzzle games, even Facebook based games(love Angry Birds), and they are all nothing but repeatedly doing the same things over and over, the context may or may not change, the target may or may not change, the graphics may or may not change, but you are just doing the game things over and over. Storyline is all that changes, and that's usually one of a handful of different stereotypical storylines with you as the hero or for a REAL change up, you as the villain!

SW:TOR and WoW, the difference is the setting, you are still doing the same things in both games, go kill X of this, go collect Y of that, go kill this boss. Storyline is different, the actual mechanics are different but it's the exact same thing. Same with LotRO or DDO or Scarlet Blade or 9 Dragons or Altantica Online, different games, different makers, different stories, same thing over and over again none the less.

And make no mistake, Elite Dangerous is an MMO, as an MMO is simply an online game played by a lot of people at the same time, a persistent world isn't even a requirement, nor is a quest system, or storyline.



There is no such thing as a classic MMO, it quite literally means Massively Multiplayer Online, that's it, and Elite Dangerous is exactly that. YOU are referring to games like EQ and UO and WoW, which are exactly as deep and engaging as Elite Dangerous to the vast majority of their playerbases. They are nothing but repeatedly doing the same things over and over again, only those others games have a storyline which is used to push the player around the game world and direct where they go and what they do at all times. Elite Dangerous has no such storyline pushing the players around, that is the only difference between them, it HAS a storyline, it tells you that storyline if you want it to, but it doesn't force you to follow that storyline in order to play the game as those other games do.

Doom, Quake, other FPS games of that type, exactly the same thing, there's a storyline that pushes you around the game world in a preset sequence, it's otherwise doing exactly the same things, killing the mobs put in front of you, over and over until you reach the end of the story, which is the end of the game. No more depth and engagement that Elite Dangerous, less really since you almost never have any options on those genre of games.

Skyrim, single player game that is storyline driven, it just has multiple storylines you can follow along the main one, and it has PG questing. And it has no more depth and engagement than Elite Dangerous does using that same PG questing system. Skyrim is one of those few games that gives you options, of a sort, but in the end, it's still just you doing the same things over and over again. The Witcher games are like that too, better story in my opinion at least, and the first one gave you very limited options and was pretty linear, the second was a bit better on allowing you 'freedom' but still linear, while the third gives you freedom to explore all you want..but the storyline is still how you actually progress through the game. GTV V, same thing, open world/sandbox I hear it called all the time, only, if you don't follow the storyline, you don't actually progress, and nothing you do outside of the storyline has any impact on the game world at all. You can go blow up the same cars and people on the same street over and over and over and over...yeah, that's so deep and engaging isn't it?

What most people consider depth is usually a storyline that draws them in, that's it, nothing more. That is not depth, it's a tool that's used to herd the player through a preset sequence of events and that's it. People LET it do that and call that depth and engaging game play, but in reality it's being forced to do what the game designers want you to do.

For others, at least from what they've posted on these forums on these types of threads, depth is making more ingame coin for whatever they are doing, that's it. They see no point in doing X for 500 creds but they'd consider it well worth their time and effort and deep and engaging to get 10000 creds for doing X.

Depth has different meanings to different people, which is funny but also makes sense, we're humans, we can't even all agree that killing each other in the name of whatever isn't something we should be doing, so what can you expect?

To me, personally, depth is things like the mechanics of the game, and Elite Dangerous has plenty of depth there. It's the ability of the game to draw me into the game world, which Elite Dangerous does very well. It's also the ability of the game to make me WANT to play it more, be that through goals the game sets or I set myself, which Elite Dangerous does very well, or because I just enjoy the game world setting, which again, Elite Dangerous does that. And these are all for ME, no one else, so for ME, Elite Dangerous has plenty of depth already. I don't need a justification for whatever I'm doing in the game, be it killing pirates or running cargo or data or mining or just flying around and looking at stuff(which I do a lot of), the game allows em to do those things or not as I see fit and it provides me the options via missions to do them for a reward that is not only game coin but also reputation and influence as well, so that if I so desire(and I do), I can play around with the BGS and change what factions are running what systems, cause them to grow and expand or stifle them until they stagnate and die out. Talk about depth, the BGS and factions has that in spades, but so many people ignore it totally. They say that depth means being able to have a real impact upon the game world, something that NO MMO out there actually does, and they totally ignore that you can do exactly that in Elite Dangerous, and it has a real and meaningful impact upon the game world, it's not just another title for killing the boss of a raid(who's been killed 203 times so far today). That's depth to them, getting a title for killing something that a few thousand other people will also kill every single day of the week, but being able to cause a faction of your choice to grow and expand to multiple systems, that's not depth, that's not leaving any mark on the game world.......

Yup. I've been around since those days of online gaming too. And you're pretty much spot on.

I would add one thing though. Back then (and up until the last few years) I had a lot more time for gaming. And I spent much more of my time playing games that had pvp in them. For me, pvp added years to many games simply because no one game was the same anymore, due to the human element.

But even those games eventually wound up with repetition. And eventually you get bored.

But spot on... I've yet to play an online rpg that wasn't tedious, except for the exploration and human interaction. And those only kept me interested for x hours.

Still, the majority of EDs content can be vastly improved. And should be. So it's a bit of a dichotomy. There's no sense comparing this game to countless other tedious games (tedious after playing them for x hours, at least) but then this game still has huge potential to be amazing.

 

[Cynaqq]

....They say that depth means being able to have a real impact upon the game world, something that NO MMO out there actually does, and they totally ignore that you can do exactly that in Elite Dangerous, and it has a real and meaningful impact upon the game world, it's not just another title for killing the boss of a raid(who's been killed 203 times so far today). That's depth to them, getting a title for killing something that a few thousand other people will also kill every single day of the week, but being able to cause a faction of your choice to grow and expand to multiple systems, that's not depth, that's not leaving any mark on the game world.......

o7 Kristov, as logical and to the point as always. As a surprise, I could rep you this time, which normally doesn't happen much

The perople's voiced reason for not caring about the BGS, and playing the minor factions is summed up in the fact that they are not the ones to establish and own the corporations. If the game had the exact same mechanics but FD had made clan tags of minor factions available, ED would in a minute be declared the best game of all time. For a time of course. Then, everybody would be complaining about the lack of battles around stations. If FD gave that, than they would be complaining about too many battles around the stations and so on.

Well, we'll have to accept that this game is actually the game for everyone but it just happens to be a bad game. There seems to be no other option.

 

[GraXXoR]

THX.
I would REP you, but apparently I already have in another post... LOL ... 5 WEEKS of actual playtime under my belt and am just discovering open/Mobius... More addicted than I was a year ago when I started.

 

[Cynaqq]

I don't think Shadragon understands depth.

Depth is not having a lot of things to do, but it's the ability to tackle any given thing in a variety of ways, with no clear best in each. Elite does not have this.

There are best weapon loadouts, best places to mine, best places to explore, best commodities to trade, etc.

Every game in history boasted a premise of what you said but none actually managed to do it. They all, without fail, converged on best ways to do things and everyone just did that after reading about it on the internet.

It's a rule of human created games. There is always a best way to do a particular thing, no matter how hard the developer tries.

It's funny, actually ED is one of the best games in that regard, with all it's base professions paying about the same and different activities are usually balanced with their risk/reward ratios. Still, people criticise them of being disconnected or useless this time.

I've come to believe there are a few type or person to complain about ED here on the forums.

Those who feel betrayed after their high expectations weren't satisfied last year, especially because CQC and Powerplay was added instead of what they call the 'depth', obvious, since they keep bringing that up. Oh, and wings, I forgot wings.

And those who just dislike everything about ED because it's cool and you get a lot of attention if you open a thread complaining about whatever with a bait title and cool gaming website cliches.

Others seem pretty happy with how the game is turning out.

 

[Kristov]

Yup. I've been around since those days of online gaming too. And you're pretty much spot on.

I would add one thing though. Back then (and up until the last few years) I had a lot more time for gaming. And I spent much more of my time playing games that had pvp in them. For me, pvp added years to many games simply because no one game was the same anymore, due to the human element.

But even those games eventually wound up with repetition. And eventually you get bored.

But spot on... I've yet to play an online rpg that wasn't tedious, except for the exploration and human interaction. And those only kept me interested for x hours.

Still, the majority of EDs content can be vastly improved. And should be. So it's a bit of a dichotomy. There's no sense comparing this game to countless other tedious games (tedious after playing them for x hours, at least) but then this game still has huge potential to be amazing.

I have close to 10,000 hours in the Battlefield games(BF1942-BF3), and that's entirely due to the online PvP of those games, that's it, so I really do understand that PvP can literally add years to how long a game is fun. And the human interaction aspect is a big part of that, I'm still a member of an online gaming group that starting playing online games together in 1995 and we still do over 20 years later. I played Dungeons and Dragons Online for years after I'd 'beaten' the game because of the friends I played it with online, people I still talk to despite us not playing that game together for years now, and PvP wasn't part of that at all, it was simply the interaction with the friends I made in that game. The GAMES were fun and engaging for a very short time in and of themselves, then they quickly became boring, as once you reach the 'end', you are literally just doing the exact same things over and over. Might squeeze a little more time out by changing class, taking a different approach to how you play, but you are still literally doing exactly what you already did, the story doesn't change. All video games suffer from this, replayability is a big thing, and it's lacking in 99 out of 100 games on the market for the past decade, and for the 1 out of 100 that has it, it's usually only good for a second run, it's very rare that you can actually get one that you enjoy replaying 3 or more times for the GAME itself, nothing else, which includes PvP, social interaction or mods. My nephew has played through Skyrim more times than he can count, but almost all of that is due to mods, not the actual game being so much fun but the mods allowing him to do so many different things.

We have multiple people TELLING us what depth is between your response to my post and my post, not giving us their definition of it but telling us exactly what it is, no exceptions! They are just as wrong as everyone they say is wrong, and just as right as everyone else, as depth really is a personally defined thing in ANYTHING, not just video games. I find some novels to be boring and lacking depth, others feel they are extremely deep, same with tv, movies, even people. Who's right and who's wrong? Everyone, in both cases, as depth is a matter of perception AND taste, it's not a preset, easily defined concrete thing.

Can Elite Dangerous be made more engaging and have more depth? Yes, definitely, anything can, and we know there's many things coming to Elite Dangerous that will actually add many of the things so many in this very thread listed as being required to qualify as deep and engaging. But...and this is something I don't like saying but it does need to be said, those people will not find the depth they are missing when those elements are added, they don't WANT to find it. There is something about Elite Dangerous that just doesn't fit what they were wanting for whatever reason. Some of them may find it, most won't, even if they could add exactly what they say is needed, it wouldn't be what they want in the end, there's just something about Elite Dangerous that they don't actually like somewhere deep down, even if they think they want to love it, they are just lying to themselves. It's like dating someone you really want to love and yet...there's something...you don't know what...that just doesn't quite...you keep looking at others for that reason, you keep comparing them to others and finding them lacking somehow and yet, you love them, right...right?

 

[Jesse Blue]

Man these forums are becoming more toxic, critical and combatitive by the thread. Enough already, please. The community is at each others throats right now. Any more and it'll start getting like the MWO forums back in the day. Oi vey, the memories -_-

Nah... These forums are just the training grounds for the white knights that wish to promote to white zealots.

 

[Majinvash]

I've not played this arguing game for a while.... what the hey, let's have some fun...

Player 1: Man, there's nothing to do in Elite. It's a mile wide and an inch deep.

Player 2: What about trading?

Player 1: While there is a briefly therapeutic meditation to the trader's life, the lack of any real and dynamic and purposeful and persistent market makes the whole affair feel empty and hollow and ultimately unsatisfying. Add to that the simple truth that finding a good trade-route is a chore (jumping to systems and hoping they have demand/supply rather than some pleasing interaction with the map, the news, and bulletin board contacts selling hot trade data) and frankly, once the surface is scratched, there's little too keep you interested.

Player 2: Rares?

Player 1: Much like trading, but with more loading screens and even less sense of a real market.

Player 2: Community goals?

Player 1: I've enjoyed some of these, and found others frustrating. The real issue is that they don't grow organically out of the game - it is not as if the activities of the community are causing them to happen - they are goals dictated by the gods to provide entertaining short-term purpose. Once they're over, nothing has really changed.

Player 2: Powerplay?

Player 1: I don't want to do that. You see, before PP there was this great thing called the background simulation, and some great emergent gameplay was starting to emerge from it - people were fighting over systems, getting emotionally attached to local factions, doing everything to rid the Alliance of anarchy systems or rid the galaxy of the Federation... there was a natural and elegant ebb and flow emerging, and yeah, it was buggy, but you could see where it was going. Then PP came along with its artificial and forced veneer over the top, with goals that only the most hard-core could ever achieve, and it subsumed and destroyed the chance of emergent gameplay. I don't PP out of principle.

Player 2: Assassination missions?

Player 1: I don't want to do that. They are often bugged, and they don't have any depth. Let's face it, all you do is jump to a system and wait for the random number generator (RNG) to maybe spawn your target, eventually. If you could in some way actually hunt your target - if they were a single, persistent entity that was you actively had to hunt, if you weren't instantly faced with "gaming the RNG", then maybe, just maybe, this could work.

Player 2: Smuggling?

Player 1: I don't want to do that. It suffers much the same ills as trading, with no persistent market and sense of an ebb and flow of demand and secretive difficult supply. The real problem is that eventually (frequently?) the RNG will decide you must be interdicted, so there's no real sense that you can apply skill and mastery of the craft of smuggling - there's simply nothing much to master.

Player 2: Planetary landings?

Player 1: I do want to do that, but it's not worth it for me until there's atmospheres I think, and something to do down there other than hunt the RNG.

Player 2: Exploration?

Player 1: I don't want to do that. I've expressed my opinion on this before, but the implementation of exploration is criminally broken. Jump in, push the button on the Fog horn, decide how long you feel like lingering, point your ship at a planet or two an wait for the timer to count down, jump out. They took the game out of it when they left the place-holder foghorn in there. Yes have a scanner, but if there were an application of skill to the whole affair, then it would have depth and start to feel appealing. The trivialisation of the task makes it utterly disappointing.

Player 2: Mining?

Player 1: I don't want to do that. Again, there's no sense of skill or wit or challenge. Point you laser at the rock, wait for the RNG to maybe give you a reward. rinse, repeat. MAybe if there was some way of scanning and cutting the rocks that required a bit of skill to maximise your gains, that would greatly help. As would a bit of persistence perhaps.

Player 2: Bounty hunting?

Player 1: I've accumulated a lot of bounties, and if there's one thing I know, it's that there's absolutely no hunting involved. Instead, you go to one of a few types of magic room and wait for the RNG to give you a target. The nature of that target will never change in response to your presence - just an infinite supply of the same old thing. If the pirate's really value the RES, they should mount an all out assault on your for attacking their territory. If you've killed off 600 of them, you should start to exhaust supply and find the system becoming safe (and for you, boring), meaning you move on. Again, this is a lack of persistence, a dependence on a RNG that can't adapt and can't respond.

Player 2: Object recovery and salvage?

Player 1: I don't want to do that. It's chasing the RNG. It's probably one of the most obvious places where the game shows the thin veneer over the RNG. I mean, really... jump to a system, stop all engines, wait for the USS to pop into existence conveniently close, and hope it's the one you want? How about getting a plot of the route the ship you're chasing took, and bread-crumbs of clues or a scanner for interesting things, or the target in question being persistent and unique as soon as the mission exists so that yes, you're searching for it, not gaming the RNG for a USS.

Player 2: Be a fuel rat and rescue ships?

Player 1: I don't want to do that. It's nice emergent gameplay and I whole-heartedly approve, but I can't commit the time required or prioritise the game over life - and if you're promising someone you'll do something in game, that gets upsetting when you end up having to quit. So, yeah, one up the game, something good has come!

Player 2: Piracy?

Player 1: I don't want to do that. There's enjoyment to be had here, but no sense that the game facilitates hunting juicy targets, instead you're just hoping the RNG rolls two sixes for you. Waiting on the RNG gets old quickly.

Player 2: There's always PVP...

Player 1: Not had much call for PVP - there's not enough in-game reason to hunt it out. If the BGS was supporting more emergent gameplay, then I think I could see PVP having value. As it is, my experiences are either pleasing conversations or being massively over-powered by someone hunting easy kills. There's some fun to be had here, but I don't like dicing with death without and sense of purpose.

Player 2: You play in solo.

Player 1: Nope, never. I may not be in it for PVP, but I like seeing other players around, like seeing the odd chat, like the fear - it's one of the few things the game has going for it. A shame though that the networking is to some extent the cause of the lack of persistence, requiring that the game be a thin veneer over the RNG.

---

or: tldr...

The game lacks persistence, and as a result, lacks emergent organic gameplay, and thus, lacks purpose and connection for the player. Without a sense of purpose or connection, or affection for the game and its tropes, the activities on offer feel like empty hollow shells good for a five minute blast, but quickly wear thin. And I hate being so aware of the RNG.

Repped with Bells on!

Majinvash
The Voice of Open

 

[Abomination]

Might all be true but I've also seen other remarks:
.
"Nothing I do matters"
"Already have anything want, the game doesn't offer me any challenge anymore"
"There's no involvement, can do random missions for random factions but neither care one bit about me"
"PP is not rewarding"
"CG's are simply copy-pastes with text adjustments"
.
Can't argue against that either.
.
Problem is, a lot of players want to feel rewarded in the end.
At some time, everything we can do in the game gets very repetitive.
There need to be incentives to do something.
The ranks are one, but they don't offer that much once having the rank for a certain ship you like to have.
CG's are cool, but indeed are starting to get very repetitive.
.
So, some constructive criticism (and of course personal opinions):
.

Why can't we fight any BIG wars?
Instancing (and instancing issues), player wing limit and no real in-game method of forming larger groups makes it very difficult to feel part of a group.
This really needs to change, but it can't because of the p2p model.
.
Missions are still very restricted. Do this, get that, done. Ad infinitum.
Having new mission types is great, but there's still no reason to do them except for credits.
Sure, you can change the outcome of the BGS, but for what? Who cares what faction owns which system, they're all the same.
.
NPC faces might help. Gives npc 'persons' a bit more personality.
Also helps they will be the same for everyone and hopefully these mechanics or what's the name will be spread out and non-generic. That would give locations more personality.
But this, while really great for immersion (imo), again doesn't add any gameplay depth unless ranks really mean something, missions are given for a reason and maybe reputation needs to be earned to have access to mechanics.
.
Vanity rewards might help too.
Give players a medal box or whatever that can be viewed on the forums.
Some care about it, some don't, but it can be a trigger to keep playing for whatever reason they like.
.
Or what about BB missions asking the player to get 2000+ ton of cargo or more (maybe depending on rank), or to scan XX amount of system.
Things that can't be done in a limited amount of time, but have no restriction on when you need to complete it or at least a very long duration.
Again, and this is very important: for a reward worthy of doing, otherwise nobody would bother.
.
And while rambling on aimlessly, I come to the conclusion I'm not adding much suggestions for depth either.
It's difficult. Maybe depth isn't even the correct word.
But I think there's no question that something IS indeed missing: the drive to keep on playing (hope that's correct english).

 

[Philip Foster]

Apart from all that, what have FDev ever done for us? Hmm? Sanitation?

Barking mad you are.

 

[Abomination]

I've not played this arguing game for a while.... what the hey, let's have some fun...

+1 VERY well written!

 

[Kristov]

Might all be true but I've also seen other remarks:
.
"Nothing I do matters"
"Already have anything want, the game doesn't offer me any challenge anymore"
"There's no involvement, can do random missions for random factions but neither care one bit about me"
"PP is not rewarding"
"CG's are simply copy-pastes with text adjustments"
.
Can't argue against that either.
.
Problem is, a lot of players want to feel rewarded in the end.
At some time, everything we can do in the game gets very repetitive.
There need to be incentives to do something.
The ranks are one, but they don't offer that much once having the rank for a certain ship you like to have.
CG's are cool, but indeed are starting to get very repetitive.
.
So, some constructive criticism (and of course personal opinions):
.

Why can't we fight any BIG wars?
Instancing (and instancing issues), player wing limit and no real in-game method of forming larger groups makes it very difficult to feel part of a group.
This really needs to change, but it can't because of the p2p model.
.
Missions are still very restricted. Do this, get that, done. Ad infinitum.
Having new mission types is great, but there's still no reason to do them except for credits.
Sure, you can change the outcome of the BGS, but for what? Who cares what faction owns which system, they're all the same.
.
NPC faces might help. Gives npc 'persons' a bit more personality.
Also helps they will be the same for everyone and hopefully these mechanics or what's the name will be spread out and non-generic. That would give locations more personality.
But this, while really great for immersion (imo), again doesn't add any gameplay depth unless ranks really mean something, missions are given for a reason and maybe reputation needs to be earned to have access to mechanics.
.
Vanity rewards might help too.
Give players a medal box or whatever that can be viewed on the forums.
Some care about it, some don't, but it can be a trigger to keep playing for whatever reason they like.
.
Or what about BB missions asking the player to get 2000+ ton of cargo or more (maybe depending on rank), or to scan XX amount of system.
Things that can't be done in a limited amount of time, but have no restriction on when you need to complete it or at least a very long duration.
Again, and this is very important: for a reward worthy of doing, otherwise nobody would bother.
.
And while rambling on aimlessly, I come to the conclusion I'm not adding much suggestions for depth either.
It's difficult. Maybe depth isn't even the correct word.
But I think there's no question that something IS indeed missing: the drive to keep on playing (hope that's correct english).

And this guy(or gal, can't tell) gets it!

Depth is...what the hell is it? This is a great list of things that would make the game more...something, fun, engaging, whatever, but in end, are they actually things that add depth?

I know what I want to see added to the game, it's the list of things they've stated will be added as time goes on. That's my primary list, and beyond that, I vary from day to day on what I'd like to see added, as sometimes I'd really like to see THIS but then I think and realize that I'd really rather have THAT...or...well...you know...that OTHER thing is pretty damn cool as well...hmmm....

To me, the fact that I want to login and play the game tells me, personally, that the game has enough depth to keep me logging in and playing the game. When I look at the icon on my task bar and just feel 'meh' and don't click on it, then I will agree it's lacking depth. That hasn't happened with Elite Dangerous yet, it has happened with many other games over the past few decades, so I know that moment when it happens, but it's not happened for Elite Dangerous, and I'm not worried about it happening anytime soon either, as there is so much to the game right now that draws me in still. I STILL get a thrill from sitting there in front of a star I've never been to and scanning it and scanning every planet and moon around it, and I've done that literally thousands of times now, so...

 

[Hilight]

Here we go again LOLOL
Just so everyone knows--- the speed record is 40 pages in two days

 

[Harmoniser]

Trading is a good example of lack of depth. It can be made to be fun, by creating a rewarding career, just ask all the Euro Truck Simulator fans.

Trading right now is a means to and end. That end being buying bigger ships and equipment. There is very little satisfaction to be gained from trading other than the money at the end. Its interesting that in that other space game its biggest critics argue it is pay to win as you can buy the ships with real money, but because of that it means the career path its self has to be interesting and deep, which I believe is the case/plan.

When they got to the end of the alpha David said they have now built the house, now they have to put the furniture in. Horizons added a conservatory but the main game is still full of stuff from Ikea.

 

[Raile]

Well, the main difference between hauling cargo in Euro Truck Simulator and Elite is that in Euro Truck Simulator, you can go point A to point B without a load screen and changing landscape, where as in Elite you're going to spend 90% of the time staring at a star and then a 5 second countdown followed by witchspace as many times as it takes to get there.

 

[cpunk]

Player 2: What about this and this?

Player 1: I don't want to do that.

Player 2: Why?

Player 1: because the reward is not WORTH it.

(or even worse, bugged)

Sounds familiar?

 

[EdzUp]

Damn can't rep again lol

 

[Kristov]

Trading is a good example of lack of depth. It can be made to be fun, by creating a rewarding career, just ask all the Euro Truck Simulator fans.

Trading right now is a means to and end. That end being buying bigger ships and equipment. There is very little satisfaction to be gained from trading other than the money at the end. Its interesting that in that other space game its biggest critics argue it is pay to win as you can buy the ships with real money, but because of that it means the career path its self has to be interesting and deep, which I believe is the case/plan.

When they got to the end of the alpha David said they have now built the house, now they have to put the furniture in. Horizons added a conservatory but the main game is still full of stuff from Ikea.

I'm not a Trader by nature, find it mostly boring as hell to be honest, so can you enlighten me on what would make it deeper? The market already responds to the supply/demand effect, even if people don't notice it, I've seen it happen in many locations around the bubble when I've found something sold cheap at A and bought for a lot at B, so I'll start playing trucker for a bit to make some easy credits. Within a few days I've seen those prices change at A and B until there is little, if indeed ANY, profit to be made as the prices equalize due to the supply/demand effect. I'm just one player, and I don't move anywhere near the cargo that an Anaconda or T9 can in my Python, so I know it's not just me that's running that cargo back and forth and getting that price equalization happening, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of other players doing it as well. And this is a known factor, trading routes are always in flux, I've seen Traders complaining about constantly, and Horizons threw a huge spanner in the works by opening up so many new markets with the planetary bases.

So, since supply and demand already are factors in play and working, what exactly is missing that would make Trading such a deep profession? Keep in mind, I find it boring as hell personally, but I understand economics and trading itself quite well in the real world, having worked in the industry, I was the head of IT for one of the US's largest grocery wholesalers, which is probably why I find it so boring, I know how it really works, and it's boring as hell in reality as well