The Ambitious Future of Elite: Dangerous

[Ekar]

A week or two back a poster linked to an article from last year in PC Gamer, titled "The Ambitious Future of Elite: Dangerous".

http://www.pcgamer.com/david-braben-on-the-ambitious-future-of-elite-dangerous/

One year on, it's probably an interesting exercise to read again these future plans as spoken by David Braben. I'm sure some of the reasons why Elite feels lacking for me currently were due to articles such as this one, which described a much more integrated world with emergent possibilities which don't really/can't really exist yet in the game.

Some of the quotes:

You might get the occasional gold rush, which changes the status of a particular place. Players will be running in to try and get some of the gold that's been discovered in some outlying system. But what else will happen is that a whole raft of other things will be in demand. The need for food and equipment will skyrocket.

Mining has been enhanced for 1.3, giving rise to high yield/high pay sites with new minerals and a nice drone collection system- but I haven't heard or experienced anything about any kind of 'gold rush' scenarios as of yet. I also haven't tried mining in ED, so can't say how unique these sites are, and whether they could interest enough players to a specific system. Talk of food and equipment being in demand is unlikely since supply/demand isn't modelled very well ingame yet.

There are also things that can turn into missions. If you come across a shipwreck, there could be a lot of things behind it. You could search it and find something interesting, but it might also be a trap. Or it might be that there's something very bad indeed there, whether it's a disease that later gets spread, or something that's a threat to your ship. But you won't know which one of those it is without investigating.

Never experienced communicable diseases out in space or had a USS investigation turn into a misson. But this is something which could be developed as time goes on without too much trouble, probably.

A load of players will get together and all buy food at the same time to drive the price up or down and manipulate the stock market. So we'll be putting in automated mission generation that will trigger when that happens. That feels natural. There will be advantages to co-operating with other players to break the system and mess with the stock markets.

Manipulating/messing with the market seems impossible currently, and nowhere does the game suggest a way or reason for doing so. Automated missions which trigger on market events sound great, but it's hard to know if or when these might occur. As the markets don't fluctuate all that much, the times when things get out of balance enough to trigger missions restoring balance would be very rare.

(I look forward to developments of this aspect of the game, as simple trade runs will start to have meaning outside of your bank balance. Again, lack of true supply/demand is hobbling trading in ED- trading feels irrelevant because it exists simply as something for you to do in order to make money, or spend time doing as an 'experience'. It has no further effect ingame- outside of CGs and PP missions. This is a problem of integration/coherence at a very fundamental level).

You can set a filter to say you only want to go through systems that have a reasonable level of law enforcement, so there's less chance of being attacked. But that might mean that your route ends up being longer.

Systems all still feel the same. Hoping PP will address this, perhaps via Control Effects or something similar.

These may seem like traditional single-player missions, but they can quite easily involve other players. You can contact your friends and say that this is going to be really hard, can you help me with this? And you can share the spoils once it's done. So there are official missions, but you might also get a message from another player asking for help escorting a ship through dangerous territory

Players in Wings sill can't share the bounty from missions as far as I know, I may be wrong. But they can share bounties in CGs- so it doesn't seem like an impossible fix (we're getting there)

The emergent missions you stumble into while exploring are the most fun, when something comes up that you can take advantage of. That can be very exciting.

Very underdeveloped currently, and I can't think of any decent examples within my own experience.


So yeah, this was stuff which was mentioned about a year ago- but the descriptors in the title give good context... 'ambitious', and 'future'. I don't mean to suggest that FD have lied to players. The future could still be some way off, and plans always change to some degree. I hope the ambitions are still there to realise some of the things mentioned above. Also we have new content which was never really hinted at before, Powerplay being one example. Yet the comments by DB above had formed in part my assumed ideas about the game and what it is all about... flying around, bumping into interesting things which lead into missions, a supply/demand economy which shapes systems and which players can use to their own advantage, missions which tie seamlessly into the economy, etc. Really, an integrated world in which fun/emergent possibilities can take place. The dynamism of PP is a good sign, but I don't know if there will ever be enhancements to how the economy/markets function... which would be a shame.

I love the idea of 'bottom up' world shaping... making sure stations have enough of what they need to produce goods, etc. Strong local economies would make systems more worthwhile for PP exploitation or control. Badly managed or neglected systems would have the opposite effect. Both outcomes could be controlled or heavily influenced by players, just doing what they normally do.

Cheers!

 

[Brandon31]

Good observations, I would agree with this critique of what I am sure many are hoping for in the (not too distant) future.

 

[Obsidian Ant]

A lot of very valid points. There were also many other things David Braben spoke about over time; choosing which faction to sell you discovery data to for example, which would lead to a gold rush, or to a bounty being placed on your head. There were many things spoken about which would make the galaxy feel more alive and dynamic. I don't really see Powerplay adding any of this to the game...but maybe given time?

 

[Lupin]

The question should be do you think ED will get there? I do.

You can not release content all at once, you need to add and build. Also with Star citizen breathing down there neck I expect more to come.

 

[Ekar]

The question should be do you thing ED will get there? I do.

You can not release content all at once, you need to add and build.

I would love to see them get there. Imo it's only really the economy simulation that I'm uncertain will be developed, and which I'm a bit pessimistic about since it's such a fundamental thing affecting every area of the game. It's a foundation... If there was no clear or set plan from the beginning about supply/demand chains then I doubt it can be smoothly integrated in the future. I don't want demand to be an injected event which can't happen naturally... If I'm a miner, I want to feel that the resources I'm collecting will add to the global stock of available minerals, contributing to the development of local Systems. I want goldrush scenarios to be possible and to see how players exploit those events. Etc. etc.

I don't really see Powerplay adding any of this to the game...but maybe given time?

I championed PP when it was announced because I saw it as a vital part of the game. When you kill someone from another Power for eg, you are making your own Power slightly more powerful. The more Powers are about their policies and effects, the more interesting PP should become (imo). I see PP as the top down, large scale control and management of Systems, whereas normal trading, mission running, mining etc should form the 'bottom up', local management and maintenance of stations and environments within Systems. How populations are affected perhaps.. That's one way to think of it atleast but currently not implemented that way.

 

[medwyn]

Great post, and looking at the number of topics increasing in the subject, validity is granted.
That's my biggest pain so far with ED - the marketing which sells you a Ferrari and you get a half-restored MGB classic.
Or how does this fraud marketing increase the level of trust I can give to one's word?
As someone who doesn't care about FD's financials I see the "release" state a fraud because it was clear that anyone could have bought himself into Alpha or Beta if wished. I wished for a solid release state game but FD took that away from me but had my money for a weak beta. And still.

(Please, FD fanatics, spare the "you should have researched the game before you buy"-mantra, it doesn't help nor valid for several reasons you'll possibly never understand.)

I guess the 'Soon!' sticker will not hold long without actually completing the promises.
We are "soon"-ed all the time.
I'm rather interested in the PRESENT of ED (that's the only reality, everything else is just a "use your imagination"-illusion) but it doesn't seem to add up comfortably.

 

[Dagless]

Not being able to make decent money by trading in a smaller combat capable ship for the simple reason you can get through where large haulers can't is IMO the biggest turn off. Either legitimately or illegally.

This should have been a fundamental aspect of the game from beta.

I could wait for better missions and emergent events, if that got that part right.

Now instead of people role playing hardened space rouges, they role play rich merchants who moonlight as lowly mercenaries for fun.

 

[Sanderson]

I believe the OP's point is this:

ED is not and most likely will not be what David said it would be. I suppose it's up to each person to sift through David's "vision" and asses the dream vs. reality. ED is very very different than the game David pitched and those expecting ED to be like the sales interviews will be disappointed, to say the least.

Sure, some will like it, some will be ok they ordered a steak and got a hamburger and a salad but, there's no one that can honestly say ED is what David said it would be, even within the expected norms of game design.

The fundamental properties of the ED galaxy just don't mesh the way David pitched them, there's a bunch of little parts sloshed in a bowl, that mix together about as well as oil and water and no matter how David shakes the mix there will always be pockets of one or the other.

Sure, some like it but, that's not the point. The point is: anyone that has bought ED based on what David has said will be left wondering what he was talking about. Maybe, and that's a huge maybe, ED will be what David pitched it as but, based on what we've seen, ED is an entirely different game going in a completely previously unadvertised direction from the original "vision".

As is, ED is a place where you can do a bunch of different things apart from each other but, none of them seem to be a part of the other. It's like you can go here to do this, go there to do that and it has no impact on anything else. In other words; pockets in the sandbox has no idea other pockets in the sandbox exist. This is hardly the cohesive galaxy one would expect, based on Davids "vision".

Sure, "visions" change but, if you're going to change destinations at least have the courtesy to let the passengers know and then tell them where the hell you're going. We can't even get a direction from David much less where the hell we are on the trip.

 

[medwyn]

What I'm reading is a vision DB has, since he also talks about 25 ships you can pilot, the vision is in it's early stages of completion at the moment. It's a direction towards which the game will developed hopefully.

To take this as a specifications list for Elite in it's current state would be to misrepresent the article. OP does not do this mind you, but I'm sure it will be read as such by many who will respond to this thread.

Without disagreeing with you, Ziggy (because what you say makes perfect sense) I would add a few factors which may help to understand why people feel sour a bit.
First of all what DB has as a vision is a bouqet of mementos he envisioned as in-game situations. That's very important and all look charming I would like to play out his visions in ED.
But I can't.

We all see that to achieve these moments ingame ED should meet certain requirements and criterias. Like persistency in all levels: economy simulation, political simulation, ranking, missions, NPCs etc. The best if they work ORGANICALLY together which creates the living and breathing universe. This is the fundament the devs could build on and make the game engine to create such convergences where the envisioned moments can take place.

When we read that article again after half year has passed since release (plus at least another year beforehand in which the same exact question marks appeared and remained unadressed), we obviously start questioning again.
Taking the already installed patches into account I can not convince anyone that ED goes firmly towards the vision. FD put a good load of working hours into ED since Betas and release but the result was likely to increase the revenue of FD rather than fill up what's empty or fine tune what's roughly carved and make visible steps towards the goal which sold the game out on several platform much earlier than it could justify the needs.

Instead we have "soon" stickers, "be patient, it's still early"s, "hopefully it'll come"s, "it'll be addressed"s, etc. which is NOT PRESENT.
ED has still very vivid changes in the patches which I would not call adjustments but major hits as they affect the gameplay fundamentally. Back and forth and back again to get forth next time.
That's what we have: it's not solid, it's a floating surface which is not desirable in a so called massively multiplayer environment where progression is the key element.

What do we have with 1.3?
Another unorganic addition of gameplay which I feel fun in some sort but what I don't understand is: why did FD do this? Were there not enough empty placeholders coming along in the past 1-1.5 years to fill up meaningfully? Like main factions, rankings, playable roles, etc? Why did they create another sub-structure instead of using the already existing one to fine tune? I guess I would have taken less effort and could have earned more rewards.

So yes, it's hard to re-read that article without using all our experiences we had since release or later betas.
Personally I don't see ED's future so bright. FD's financials may be considered as a success but that has nothing to do with ED's quality. The later what I care about.

 

[Sanderson]

What I'm reading is a vision DB has, since he also talks about 25 ships you can pilot, the vision is in it's early stages of completion at the moment. It's a direction towards which the game will developed hopefully.

To take this as a specifications list for Elite in it's current state would be to misrepresent the article. OP does not do this mind you, but I'm sure it will be read as such by many who will respond to this thread.

More like the article (and many many other articles) misrepresents the game in it's current state, which is the problem. The game, in it's current state, is nothing like the "vision". At all.

 

[EdzUp]

Given FDEV apparently has a ten year plan for ED who knows where we will be at the end of this cycle, for one who would have predicted PP six months ago?

I would love to see a dev plan for ED but I can understand why its under wraps after all you would get millions of clones otherwise. It would be nice to know what coming up in the next two patches/enhancements though.

 

[Sanderson]

Given FDEV apparently has a ten year plan for ED who knows where we will be at the end of this cycle, for one who would have predicted PP six months ago?

I would love to see a dev plan for ED but I can understand why its under wraps after all you would get millions of clones otherwise. It would be nice to know what coming up in the next two patches/enhancements though.

It's not like anyone and their brother can't read the DDF. Someone should make a game based on the DDF, that game would be awesome.

What 10 year plan? What plan at all? I'd guess FD is hoping they can still support ED next year at this point as I imagine sales and players have been steadily dropping over the last 3 months or so, certainly after PP.

 

[Ekar]

To take this as a specifications list for Elite in it's current state would be to misrepresent the article. OP does not do this mind you, but I'm sure it will be read as such by many who will respond to this thread.

Thanks Ziggy. My intention isn't to criticise the game as it currently stands- at the same time I feel it's reasonable to wonder about the future of ED within the context of these earlier statements, since the 'vision' outlined is still a very good one. My stance is more of a 'let's wait and see', with just a few reservations. It's also fair to say that people did buy the game based on the kinds of comments made in the OP and similar (since I was one of those people), and also that reality hasn't exactly aligned with or caught up to expectations. Still... let's wait and see

 

[Aussiedroid]

Good post OP.

These are the things I see again and again in the forums too, people wanting more depth, more dynamic interaction, more dynamic galaxy/markets/professions/missions etc. Myself included, as these are key things still lacking in the current build despite having CG, Wings, Powerplay introduced. We get some balancing, bug fixes, some improvements here and there but overall doesn't feel a lot different to me in the way I play.

I will be honest that I am starting to get concerned & steadily loosing interest in ED. I fully expected, post seeing the disappointing release version in Dec 14, that it was going to take a long time to get there, and I have adjusted my expectations accordingly, but each update doesn't really feel we are getting closer to the vision I have/had, the DDF contributors had or David has in this interview. Focus seems to be in the wrong areas from an outsider looking in.

Will they get there, or will it be further compromises? I think they will get there eventually for most things, but will I still be around & playing ED to see these changes .. that I am not so sure on that point.

 

[Roybe]

He'll be back! Until then, let's all take a break and listen to the theme song of every 'I quit and this game is going to die!' thread!

[video=youtube;CWsJcg-g1pg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWsJcg-g1pg[/video]

 

[KING5TON]

Great post OP and highlights what my main beef is with the game currently. The kickstarter and early backers were sold one thing. What was delivered was something not quite as described. There's certainly a lot good in the game but there's also so much missing.

I can accept that "stuff happens" and you have to change the design at times but where is FD's statement about this change, why they had to make it, what benefits us users get out of the changes.
Is it just like the offline mode? It was just too hard to implement what they described during the kickstarter? If so don't you think that's a teeny bit dishonest?

The problem I currently have with kickstarter and early access is that I just don't trust developers anymore after what I've seen with Frontier and ED. It's the exact same thing with Peter Molyneux and Godus, promised one thing and delivered another. David isn't as bad as Peter but not being as bad as the worst case isn't a good thing. I also backed a few projects still in development (satellite reign and the mandate) maybe they'll deliver what they described in their kickstarter and will change my opinion.

I've used this once today in another thread on a similar topic but here's an extract from a Jim Sterling interview with We Happy Few's lead designer Guillame Provost.

Some have suggested the recent resurgence of big-named projects like Yooka-Laylee and Bloodstained negatively impact “actual” indie projects on Kickstarter, drawing attention away from them. As a lesser known studio with a brand new game, have you felt that could be the case, or do you think these superstar projects help crowdfunding rather than harm it?

It’s more about community expectations and education. I think what hurts more is people failing to complete their goals or match the expectations of their backers. Establishing KickStarter as a viable platform implies building trust between the people who pledge on it and the developers, and it takes the combined efforts of many different talented people to make a great game. I think – the way the folks at inXile and Obsidian have been approaching it, for example, has been super positive for the community and for crowdfunding in general.

 

[Sanderson]

Great post OP and highlights what my main beef is with the game currently. The kickstarter and early backers were sold one thing. What was delivered was something not quite as described. There's certainly a lot good in the game but there's also so much missing.

I can accept that "stuff happens" and you have to change the design at times but where is FD's statement about this change, why they had to make it, what benefits us users get out of the changes.
Is it just like the offline mode? It was just too hard to implement what they described during the kickstarter? If so don't you think that's a teeny bit dishonest?

The problem I currently have with kickstarter and early access is that I just don't trust developers anymore after what I've seen with Frontier and ED. It's the exact same thing with Peter Molyneux and Godus, promised one thing and delivered another. David isn't as bad as Peter but not being as bad as the worst case isn't a good thing. I also backed a few projects still in development (satellite reign and the mandate) maybe they'll deliver what they described in their kickstarter and will change my opinion.

I've used this once today in another thread on a similar topic but here's an extract from a Jim Sterling interview with We Happy Few's lead designer Guillame Provost.

Some have suggested the recent resurgence of big-named projects like Yooka-Laylee and Bloodstained negatively impact “actual” indie projects on Kickstarter, drawing attention away from them. As a lesser known studio with a brand new game, have you felt that could be the case, or do you think these superstar projects help crowdfunding rather than harm it?

It’s more about community expectations and education. I think what hurts more is people failing to complete their goals or match the expectations of their backers. Establishing KickStarter as a viable platform implies building trust between the people who pledge on it and the developers, and it takes the combined efforts of many different talented people to make a great game. I think – the way the folks at inXile and Obsidian have been approaching it, for example, has been super positive for the community and for crowdfunding in general.

In the words of Steve Miller "Go on take the money and run". Seems to be the crowdfunding theme song.

 

[KING5TON]

In the words of Steve Miller "Go on take the money and run". Seems to be the crowdfunding theme song.

I don't think it's right to tar everyone with the same brush but TBH there's seems to be a lot more wronguns than rightuns. I haven't kickstarted that many games but I've bought quite a few early access games. For every Kerbal space program there's 20 stomping grounds. At 20 to 1 the odds aren't in my favour so I refuse to play. If game releases well then I buy it.

 

[Sanderson]

I don't think it's right to tar everyone with the same brush but TBH there's seems to be a lot more wronguns than rightuns. I haven't kickstarted that many games but I've bought quite a few early access games. For every Kerbal space program there's 20 stomping grounds. At 20 to 1 the odds aren't in my favour so I refuse to play. If game releases well then I buy it.

There's a few that have delivered, very few. Wonder if David is a Steve Miller Band fan?

 

[Herik]

A week or two back a poster linked to an article from last year in PC Gamer, titled "The Ambitious Future of Elite: Dangerous".

http://www.pcgamer.com/david-braben-on-the-ambitious-future-of-elite-dangerous/

One year on, it's probably an interesting exercise to read again these future plans as spoken by David Braben. I'm sure some of the reasons why Elite feels lacking for me currently were due to articles such as this one, which described a much more integrated world with emergent possibilities which don't really/can't really exist yet in the game.

Some of the quotes:



Mining has been enhanced for 1.3, giving rise to high yield/high pay sites with new minerals and a nice drone collection system- but I haven't heard or experienced anything about any kind of 'gold rush' scenarios as of yet. I also haven't tried mining in ED, so can't say how unique these sites are, and whether they could interest enough players to a specific system. Talk of food and equipment being in demand is unlikely since supply/demand isn't modelled very well ingame yet.




Never experienced communicable diseases out in space or had a USS investigation turn into a misson. But this is something which could be developed as time goes on without too much trouble, probably.



Manipulating/messing with the market seems impossible currently, and nowhere does the game suggest a way or reason for doing so. Automated missions which trigger on market events sound great, but it's hard to know if or when these might occur. As the markets don't fluctuate all that much, the times when things get out of balance enough to trigger missions restoring balance would be very rare.

(I look forward to developments of this aspect of the game, as simple trade runs will start to have meaning outside of your bank balance. Again, lack of true supply/demand is hobbling trading in ED- trading feels irrelevant because it exists simply as something for you to do in order to make money, or spend time doing as an 'experience'. It has no further effect ingame- outside of CGs and PP missions. This is a problem of integration/coherence at a very fundamental level).



Systems all still feel the same. Hoping PP will address this, perhaps via Control Effects or something similar.



Players in Wings sill can't share the bounty from missions as far as I know, I may be wrong. But they can share bounties in CGs- so it doesn't seem like an impossible fix (we're getting there)



Very underdeveloped currently, and I can't think of any decent examples within my own experience.


So yeah, this was stuff which was mentioned about a year ago- but the descriptors in the title give good context... 'ambitious', and 'future'. I don't mean to suggest that FD have lied to players. The future could still be some way off, and plans always change to some degree. I hope the ambitions are still there to realise some of the things mentioned above. Also we have new content which was never really hinted at before, Powerplay being one example. Yet the comments by DB above had formed in part my assumed ideas about the game and what it is all about... flying around, bumping into interesting things which lead into missions, a supply/demand economy which shapes systems and which players can use to their own advantage, missions which tie seamlessly into the economy, etc. Really, an integrated world in which fun/emergent possibilities can take place. The dynamism of PP is a good sign, but I don't know if there will ever be enhancements to how the economy/markets function... which would be a shame.

I love the idea of 'bottom up' world shaping... making sure stations have enough of what they need to produce goods, etc. Strong local economies would make systems more worthwhile for PP exploitation or control. Badly managed or neglected systems would have the opposite effect. Both outcomes could be controlled or heavily influenced by players, just doing what they normally do.

Cheers!

Yeah, but its interesting; players ideas about 'Emergent game-play' are different....For instance, we know what 'Eve' folk consider emergent. Others?