The Galaxy - Is its size now considered to be a barrier to gameplay by the Developers?

[jprelph]

I don't feel like power play is the best defense. It's got to be the most ignored feature, one which no one asked for to begin with. Are CG's really as susceptible to last-minute stocking? It doesn't really seem like it… CG's in my experience have been big enough Affairs that one extra run does not a huge difference make. And considering that both sides of any conflict can use instant transportation… Does it make a real difference? However, rep given.

I'm sure you just asked for:

Can you justify an argument against instant transfers without A) bringing in an argument against transfers in general such as jump distance, and B) bringing up role play which we are not all into.

I'm pretty sure that meets those requirements, regardless of your particular view of PowerPlay. There are a lot of pretty involved players who play PP and if FD don't mind about further breaking the balance of PP then they should probably just remove that until they can add a mechanic in that they do want to support. It seems odd to alter the balance of a game mechanic for what they admit is a last minute "QoL" addition.

CGs are just as effected - a hauling CG is still time-dependant and competitive, it's not so much about last-minute sniping but if haulage capacity is increased per-player that's going to make a difference in situations where groups are trying to stop people hauling into a CG. There have been blockades of CGs before and this makes opposing the delivery of goods harder because more can be shipped in more quickly. Even if you don't think PowerPlay is an important mechanic, presumably you accept that CGs are relatively popular?

 

[Mohrgan]

You're re-framing and misinterpreting my point there - my point was that this change makes quite a big change to the mechanics of the game for what has been passed off as a small "QoL" patch. My point is that it has ramifications and that those are that it increases the advantage richer players have more than already exists, and that that is not positive. Engineering doesn't do that because the availability of materials isn't tied to the amount of money or ship type that you have. The cost of ships and modules is one of the core differentiators between players in terms of their ships and how much money they have made - what I was saying is that this is a further significant differentiator which I don't think should be rushed in (especially when there are other issues with it).

For one, I don't believe that any advantage is given to the rich, because the mechanic is intended to be sensitive to the cost of the ship, i.e. the players wallet. And secondly, the game makes no allowances for or against your in game wealth concerning ships, modules or Engineering. Why should this transfer mechanic be subject to it? If FD were to inject personal fiances into this feature, should we expect them to change course and subject the established mechanics of the game to it?

I intentionally re-framed your point to show it's weakness. A players in game wealth already has a determining impact on play, and balance, why should ship transfer be considered any differently?

 

[jprelph]

For one, I don't believe that any advantage is given to the rich, because the mechanic is intended to be sensitive to the cost of the ship, i.e. the players wallet. And secondly, the game makes no allowances for or against your in game wealth concerning ships, modules or Engineering. Why should this transfer mechanic be subject to it? If FD were to inject personal fiances into this feature, should we expect them to change course and subject the established mechanics of the game to it?

I intentionally re-framed your point to show it's weakness. A players in game wealth already has a determining impact on play, and balance, why should ship transfer be considered any differently?

No, you re-framed my point to make it seem as though I was saying something that I wasn't.

As I've said as well, engineering really isn't dependant on your cash balance and modules and ships are literally where the main wealth differentiator is. Again, as I said, this increases the difference between new/casual players because a player with 50m in the bank and a relatively small set of ships is still far more affected by any cost associated with this and doesn't gain the same advantage that a player with 2bn in the bank and a whole fleet of ships does.

I don't think increasing the differentiator between new/casual players and dedicated/rich players improves the game. It's not that there isn't already a difference, just that this increases the difference.

 

[mossfoot]

No, no, no.

All this lore junk about 3d printing is a can of worms as Adept has said. Avoid it. Otherwise nothing makes any sense - 3d print anything at a pirate base; what pirate cares about a "license".

Come on, you're not thinking creatively enough. Sure, a pirate could try to make an illegal copy of a fighter... and have it blow up on them because the DRM virus hidden in the schematics introduces a number of subtle fatal flaws that won't be noticed until your first hyperdrive jump. It's not like they're gonna sue

It would be a constant battle of the hackers getting the schematics and claiming they've got a "clean" copy and the designers introducing new such flaws that only appear in hacked copies, but after the dozen or so explosion is reported they're going to be wary of buying from One Eye Pete.

Not to mention there could be sanctions from the Pilot's Federation for pilots caught using such a ship, so if you're outside the law you better make sure you stay there...

Just sayin, there's always a way to work around things.

 

[Jypson]

Come on, you're not thinking creatively enough. Sure, a pirate could try to make an illegal copy of a fighter... and have it blow up on them because the DRM virus hidden in the schematics introduces a number of subtle fatal flaws that won't be noticed until your first hyperdrive jump. It's not like they're gonna sue

It would be a constant battle of the hackers getting the schematics and claiming they've got a "clean" copy and the designers introducing new such flaws that only appear in hacked copies, but after the dozen or so explosion is reported they're going to be wary of buying from One Eye Pete.

Not to mention there could be sanctions from the Pilot's Federation for pilots caught using such a ship, so if you're outside the law you better make sure you stay there...

Just sayin, there's always a way to work around things.

That's what I like to read! Also, China, good luck with your new "F-35's"

 

[Vincent Starson]

Instant Ship transfer... would certainly help me use all my ships collecting dust. But, having a delay wouldn't hurt me either.

As long as I can get my ships to one spot in the bubble without flying haulers everywhere that's great.

While devs are reading this thread, can you guys fix the galaxy map resetting to economical when fastest route is deselected please? It's been broken since 2.0 and QA says "check 2.2 and let us know" which is not what anyone wants to hear.

 

[Shar]

True colors? I hope I've made the reasons for my preferences known.

But yeah, I wouldn't be in favor of having modules "magically teleported" between stations either. Have them ordered and delivered or transport them yourself. Makes sense to me.

Yes your answer is acceptable, it passes the hypocrisy test [up]. The actual hypocrites wont answer they will hide in the shadows on points like that.

 

[Jack Schitt]

Spoiler

This might be more convenient for newer (and maybe a younger demographic?) players but its driving many of us away. I'm now gutted I put money enough into the kickstarter to get free updates.

Since launch I have been (mostly) happy with most aspects of the game and have eagerly awaited each new update, this 3D ship printing and instant transfer or owned ships is pushing it to far and I wish i could refuse to buy any new updates as my own small protest.

The game was sold to me as being a semi realistic, almost sim type game and each new about turn in policy that gives in to the demand for an "easy" game takes it further from that original plan. There are many many easy games these people could play, why they have to turn up here, complain about this one and get it ruined I have no idea.

I get why FD are doing it, they need to make money and as the game becomes more to modern tastes they'll sell more, but I haven't loaded it up since those announcements and I can't see why I ever would want to now that the whole flavour is changing.

For almost two years we've had gameplay mechanics that force us to travel and accept that the size of the galaxy forces us to make allowances and now it's being shrunk for the sake of some players who want things to happen faster.

Well screw you guys, thanks for crapping on a game I waited 30 years for AND put (A lot compared to what i was earning at the time) money in to getting made just to see it tunring into just another version of a modern style game.

I'd be seriously interesting in knowing how many original backers vs how many newer players support this new update.

Believe me, friend, I feel your pain. I haven't yet reached the "giving up" stage, and I love this game so much more than any other that it'll take dozens more decisions like this one before I'm even close (that's not a challenge, Mr. Brookes). But I do mourn for the idealised vision given to us in the Design Proposals and Development Diaries, many aspects of which I now accept will never happen.

Part of the problem, from the perspective of us old-schoolers, is that some elements of ED are just too good. Primary among these is the combat model, which while ironically one of the least "sim-realistic" aspects (space soup, nominal thrust, capped speed) is absolutely phenomenal to play. If you want to shoot things in space, ED is one of the best Thing Shooting games ever made. If you want to shoot other people, it is arguably unmatched as an Other People Shooter. But if all you want to do is shoot things or other people, the pace of the rest of the game starts to get in the way.

CQC was an attempt to address this but while it can be fun it doesn't have the visceral drama of deep space engagements for those who thrive on such things. There are a core of people who still enjoy Arena but I doubt it sold many new copies of ED, and certainly not in a sufficient number to offset the cost of development. So if FD want to appeal to players who favour the more action-oriented aspects of the main game, compromises have to be made in other areas. I don't agree with it on an artistic level, but from a financial survival perspective it makes absolute sense.

Try not to take it personally. God knows that can be difficult as my own posting history will show. But when I sit down to do some PC gaming, when I've finished ranting about the latest debacle, I always ask myself these two questions and would invite you to do the same:

• Are the Elite games, official and fan-made, still my favourite games of all time?
• Is Elite: Dangerous the best incarnation of that series?

If the answer to either of those is "no" then it may genuinely be time to call it a day. If the "no" is to the first question, go and play whichever game(s) beat Elite. If the "no" is only to the second, go and play JJFFE or Oolite, or fire up an Amiga emulator for some proper nostalgia.

But if the answers to both are still "yes" then jump back in and fly on, Commander. You might not be comfortable with the latest design decisions du jour or the tortuous twisting of logic that often accompanies them (I still cringe at every mention of 3D ship printing) but you will still be playing the best version of your favourite series, something that would not exist if it wasn't for your Kickstarter pledge. There's still something quite special about that.

 

[Kicks]

Believe me, friend, I feel your pain. I haven't yet reached the "giving up" stage, and I love this game so much more than any other that it'll take dozens more decisions like this one before I'm even close (that's not a challenge, Mr. Brookes). But I do mourn for the idealised vision given to us in the Design Proposals and Development Diaries, many aspects of which I now accept will never happen.

Part of the problem, from the perspective of us old-schoolers, is that some elements of ED are just too good. Primary among these is the combat model, which while ironically one of the least "sim-realistic" aspects (space soup, nominal thrust, capped speed) is absolutely phenomenal to play. If you want to shoot things in space, ED is one of the best Thing Shooting games ever made. If you want to shoot other people, it is arguably unmatched as an Other People Shooter. But if all you want to do is shoot things or other people, the pace of the rest of the game starts to get in the way.

CQC was an attempt to address this but while it can be fun it doesn't have the visceral drama of deep space engagements for those who thrive on such things. There are a core of people who still enjoy Arena but I doubt it sold many new copies of ED, and certainly not in a sufficient number to offset the cost of development. So if FD want to appeal to players who favour the more action-oriented aspects of the main game, compromises have to be made in other areas. I don't agree with it on an artistic level, but from a financial survival perspective it makes absolute sense.

Try not to take it personally. God knows that can be difficult as my own posting history will show. But when I sit down to do some PC gaming, when I've finished ranting about the latest debacle, I always ask myself these two questions and would invite you to do the same:

• Are the Elite games, official and fan-made, still my favourite games of all time?
• Is Elite: Dangerous the best incarnation of that series?

If the answer to either of those is "no" then it may genuinely be time to call it a day. If the "no" is to the first question, go and play whichever game(s) beat Elite. If the "no" is only to the second, go and play JJFFE or Oolite, or fire up an Amiga emulator for some proper nostalgia.

But if the answers to both are still "yes" then jump back in and fly on, Commander. You might not be comfortable with the latest design decisions du jour or the tortuous twisting of logic that often accompanies them (I still cringe at every mention of 3D ship printing) but you will still be playing the best version of your favourite series, something that would not exist if it wasn't for your Kickstarter pledge. There's still something quite special about that.

Great post Jack.

I just want to add that Frontier might want to look in the history books.

When the original Elite was in development (around 1982), the party-line was that computer games should be 10-minute play-time affairs. Arcady, and "casual" I guess. Thorn EMI turned down Braben & Bell. Acornsoft realised the potential, and in the summer of 1984 - Elite was released. 1 copy for every BBC Micro owned. It put the UK on the map of game development, and shot to the top of the US Gaming Charts. The first UK game to do that.

If people don't get what I'm getting at, I'm hinting that back in the day most games were casual, 10-15 minute affairs. Elite was hardcore and meant to be played of days/weeks.

Before Frontier make the game "more accessible" perhaps they don't realise that the reason people love Elite is because history is repeating. It's different.

Let's make design decisions based on that!

 

[OriginalBadBoy]

Let's make design decisions based on that!

Or not ... The point is this isn't 1984. Take off those rose tinted spectacles for a second and see the world for what it really is .. in 2016. You (and I) are dinosaurs of a bye gone era. Get over it.

If Frontier had released ED with FA OFF all the time, and made it so difficult to dock at a station that they had to save for a docking computer, do you think Frontier would have sold many copies of that game? Of course they wouldn't.

Frontier need to make money in the end they cannot afford to just pander to the purist Elite crowd, literally cannot afford it.

ED is Elite for 2016, I accepted that long ago, and for me its fine. There is enough in ED to still make it Elite, and there is enough for a lot of pther people to enjoy the game as well without having all the 'annoyances' of the previous games.

Would it be nice to have an updated pure version of Frontier or FFE, sure why not but we are not going to get that , and we were never going to get that.

Stop living in the past.

 

[EdzUp]

I'm on the side of "I request transfer when I log off so when I get back in the ship is there or nearby" camp.

Instant transfer of pilot is down to death and recreation elsewhere to do that with your ship is fine but it makes the galaxy pointless.

 

[Krieger]

Believe me, friend, I feel your pain. <snip>...
Part of the problem, from the perspective of us old-schoolers, is that some elements of ED are just too good. Primary among these is the combat model, which while ironically one of the least "sim-realistic" aspects (space soup, nominal thrust, capped speed) is absolutely phenomenal to play. If you want to shoot things in space, ED is one of the best Thing Shooting games ever made. If you want to shoot other people, it is arguably unmatched as an Other People Shooter. But if all you want to do is shoot things or other people, the pace of the rest of the game starts to get in the way.
.
CQC was an attempt to address this but while it can be fun it doesn't have the visceral drama of deep space engagements for those who thrive on such things. There are a core of people who still enjoy Arena but I doubt it sold many new copies of ED, and certainly not in a sufficient number to offset the cost of development. So if FD want to appeal to players who favour the more action-oriented aspects of the main game, compromises have to be made in other areas. I don't agree with it on an artistic level, but from a financial survival perspective it makes absolute sense.
<snip>...

Makes me wonder: why don't they expand CQC/Arena to include a simplified (section of the) Galaxy without the BGS, trade system, mission system, etc. but with instant everything so the combat-only minded players can have their instant kicks? Instead of slowly grinding down Elite: Dangerous to the point it no longer fits the lore of the Elite games.

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

Makes me wonder: why don't they expand CQC/Arena to include a simplified (section of the) Galaxy without the BGS, trade system, mission system, etc. but with instant everything so the combat-only minded players can have their instant kicks? Instead of slowly grinding down Elite: Dangerous to the point it no longer fits the lore of the Elite games.

Perhaps they realised that would be throwing good money after bad? After all, dropping the price for CQC to free didn't encourage vast numbers to play.

 

[Kayweg]

In my opinion, the size of the game world always was ED's greatest asset and it's greatest handicap.

 

[dynamicbob]

they can make the msot of it by expanding sensible procedural content for sure, its a vast galaxy so why not make use of it

 

[Forumate]

When the game world is this empty and void of content it makes the player feel AMAZING when they acctualy discover something useful. Maybe that was the plan all a long...

 

[[VR] Frank_G]

I really tried to express my thoughts with various examples in various threads over the last few days, but i always focused on the examples, running in circles around the core of my concerns, but i think these are the right words:

Some games feel right - the ones you play for the story and/or the immersion. Other games play right - the ones you play all day long or just a few minutes whenever you have the time and like to entertain yourself. And then there are a few gems, that combine both, like Skyrim, Project CARS, Deus Ex and Homeworld 2, to name just a few.

Elite Dangerous was a game that felt right from the beginning, but lacked playability in many aspects. With each update, the playability was increased. Some liked the updates, others dont, but overall it was a very good development, giving more to every playstyle. A build up on top of the existing foundation.

What happens now, is a sacrifice at one end to favor the other, a shift of the customer base, instead of serving both. Part of a core feature for some, immersion and consistant lore, is dropped, besides rupturing the existing gameplay experience.

It would be good to see increase in what we have, regardless on what end. But cutting off from what was really good, cannot be the way to go.

 

[Luniticisi]

I'm on the side of "I request transfer when I log off so when I get back in the ship is there or nearby" camp.

Instant transfer of pilot is down to death and recreation elsewhere to do that with your ship is fine but it makes the galaxy pointless.

This is the kind of solution that make zero sense .. the transfer is still gonna be 'Practically' instant - Log out - Log in - ships are there.

For me I don't need any Lore reason for anything in a computer game .. having a reason something works the way it does in a game add nothing (for me) as it's only a game .. I'm not one of these people that feel I am flying a real spaceship and things like funny names or even this insta ship travel will break that illusion .. I am playing a game.

I wouldn't mind a delay just as much as I don't care if it's instant .. as I have said before a good percentage of these perceived exploits won't be fixed by adding any length delay .. it will only 'Delay' them.

If you don't want the possibility of the exploits then don't add ship transfer at all ..

 

[Jack Schitt]

Would it be nice to have an updated pure version of Frontier or FFE, sure why not but we are not going to get that , and we were never going to get that.

I didn't see anyone asking for that.

Stop living in the past.

I think you've misinterpreted the tone of Kicks' post. He's not suggesting FD's design decisions should be retrograde, more that they shouldn't necessarily pander to whatever the current trend is. Doing something different is a gamble, but sometimes it sets a trend. David Braben proved that once, arguably twice depending on the criteria with which you measure the success of FE2.

I'm not saying Kicks is necessarily right in the case of ED. Computer gaming was still nascent in 1984, relatively limited and fragmented in 1993. Everything's much more homogeneous now and perhaps the only way to survive with limited resources is to embrace more conformity at the expense of artistic freedom. His urge for FD to be different may indeed be a gamble too far in 2016.

But to accuse him of "living in the past" is to have missed his point entirely, I feel.

 

[Jypson]

Makes me wonder: why don't they expand CQC/Arena to include a simplified (section of the) Galaxy without the BGS, trade system, mission system, etc. but with instant everything so the combat-only minded players can have their instant kicks? Instead of slowly grinding down Elite: Dangerous to the point it no longer fits the lore of the Elite games.

Elite: Dangerous has a lot of different things to do that appeal to different people. To me, that's a great thing, but it comes at a price. That means that people are going to enjoy some parts of the game, and some won't.

I don't see it as a case of combat junkies vs everyone else, it's just a very broad game with some core aspects that only appeal to certain groups of people.

To me Elite: Dangerous is the poster child of the 'Jack of all Trades'.

You can Explore, but it's not a great exploration game.
You can be a space-trucker, but it's not a great space-trucker game.
You can be a combat pilot, but it's not a great combat-pilot game.

I think you can see where I'm going with this. It does a lot of things well, but there will always be certain core aspects that will get under the skin of one group or the other. I'm not saying that I enjoy everyone and their mother coming up with 'great ideas' to improve the game, but that seems to be the law of the land.