It will probably be along the line of:
Type9: "Hey, let's jump to System X!"
Eagle: "But my FSD doesn't reach that far!"
Type9: *facepalms*
The Wings discussion thread
- Thread starter Sir.Tj
- Start date
- Status
It will probably be along the line of:
Type9: "Hey, let's jump to System X!"
Eagle: "But my FSD doesn't reach that far!"
Type9: *facepalms*
Nor can you show me a single interview, diary, etc that says it was NOT supposed to be a trading game. It's Elite... that's why it's called Elite... and Elite is a trading game. David even said in one of his interviews that he's making the game he wanted to make (or as he said "that he saw in his head) in 1984... and in 1984 he made "The Seminal Space Trading Video Game". It was described as that in magazines and on the back of the box, wikipedia is quoting that for a reason, and that is still the heart of Elite Dangerous. Don't believe me? Then why is ED ACTING like a trading game? Why do all the mechanics they put in LIMIT the PvP/combat/etc sides of things, and promote the trading side? Why is trading STILL the most profitable activity, and the ONLY one you can (must?) use to support all other activities in game? You want proof? JUST LOOK AT THE GAME! All the evidence you could want is there! If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck then it's probably a duck, and ED smells like a trading game!
You seem to think I'm emotionally invested in your being a certain type of person... honestly I don't really care one little bit what type of person you are. I'm just talking about wings.
That's fine. I disagree with you.
you really have no idea do you? lol. the orignal game was solo, many of the backers are 84ers, many of us non backers are 84ers, each to their own, this game was quite clearly designed to accomodate all kinds of game play. you dont hear solo players saying "you people with friends are lame, you should stop relying on other people to play your game, your just scared of doing things for yourselves".
my reasons for prefering to play solo are pretty simple.. medical.. im not always in a position to be on when i would like, i may have to log suddenly and the time of day/night i play will vary greatly. is it so hard to understand that when i do play, i dont want my situation to effect others play, nor do i want to be having to wait around for other people to get ther stuff together. It has nothing to do with fear, and it certainly isnt hiding, its just the way it is.
As for the concerns solo players are having.. how can they not be valid? we are still to get many of the details which is cool, im happy to wait till the beta starts, but surely these forums are a place for us to air our concerns ahead of time and maybe seek answers. i see a diverse player base, choosing to play the game they want to play, solo, open, group.. what does it matter? the fact is that the game has been setup in that way for that reason, so the questions and concerns being raised are consequencial. for solo players it isnt about unfair treatment of not getting a new toy, its about making sure we can still play with the toy we have.
Need to add something extra here.. In terms of the MMO status of this game.. i'm not going to say it is or it isnt MMO, but unlike all the standard models that folk compare this game too, none of us are the sole focus, there is no 'hero storyline' that pivots around the player. We are a tiny part of the bigger picture, and besides a few really commited players, no songs will likely be sung about glorious deeds, forever imortalising us in the game. the best most can hope for is a mention with the cartographers for our findings. i say this as a positive thing, its also what makes me consider this game a sim more than anything else.
Last edited:
Speaking from a networking perspective having to many players the p2p method would kill e: d as slow players would kill the wing if we were all on 100mb connections we could have more.
I realised this when coding Elite Multiplayer I has 16-64 players in a system at once and they could all be in the same space, slow computers kill MMO games :/. The only way around this is a server-client model which is what I settled on in the end for Elite Multiplayer.
I realised this when coding Elite Multiplayer I has 16-64 players in a system at once and they could all be in the same space, slow computers kill MMO games :/. The only way around this is a server-client model which is what I settled on in the end for Elite Multiplayer.
Last edited:
I can show you many many interviews, dev diaries and videos showing ED was not designed to be a space trading game, trading was a part of the game and not the focus or main mechanic/feature of it. Trading was supposed to be an equal part of many "choices" in ED, not "the only choice". Again, I'd rather do it outside this thread as it's off-topic but, you're completely incorrect.
Why is ED acting like a space trading game? Good question, one many have been asking for months and months as ED was never designed or intended to be a "space trading game" nor was it supposed to dominate game play. So, that question; "why is ED acting like a space trading game" is one you need to ask FD, many of us would love to hear the answer to that one.
There's a fairly obvious answer to this, which I think you can figure out if you apply yourself.
I was also perplexed by this, in today's highly connected and Massively Multiplayer world. 4 seems very light.
This is possibly valid and certainly lines up with previous statements from FD around not using guilds and it being about the individual etc.
This is cart before horse. The GUI should be implemented to allow for whatever game design decisions are made, not constrain design decisions via implementation. Given this constraint, which implies a ground up design process (naturally more limiting to the end product), it's also possible that the networking model is placing some form of limitation on Wings.
This is possibly valid and certainly lines up with previous statements from FD around not using guilds and it being about the individual etc.
This is cart before horse. The GUI should be implemented to allow for whatever game design decisions are made, not constrain design decisions via implementation. Given this constraint, which implies a ground up design process (naturally more limiting to the end product), it's also possible that the networking model is placing some form of limitation on Wings.
Last edited:
I grant you that HUDs can be redesigned and probably should be - even without wings there's a lot of things I'd like to change about it. There's a lot of legacy here though, the display we have now gets a lot of it's DNA from the earlier games. Personally I'd like to see them make better use of multi monitors, head tracking in OR and track IR, and failing those the two side displays. There's a lot of virtual real estate there on the sides going to waste.
Again, no need to insult me. I have applied myself and, like so many others, I concluded that FD released ED with barebone features in order to get it out the door ( see "vertical slice") and trading happened to be the feature most developed at the time, as it still is. In months or years to come you'll see the other equally important parts of ED, like the current thread topic of wings in 1.2, start to be developed and shift gameplay back to what was intended, in the vision, in dev diaries, videos and interviews and essentially prove your "space trading game" theory incorrect.
Last edited:
Indeed. It implies the HUD was designed and implemented before the core game architecture was nailed.
A game like ED would really benefit from multi-monitor, it would offer something very immersive to be sat in the middle of 3 screens all containing valuable game data.
I didn't intend to insult you. It's just that the reason is brain numbingly obvious...
ED behaves like a trading game because it IS a trading game, just like it's three prequels were, and regardless of anything you may or may not have seen in a promotional video.
As soon as you let go of the idea that ED is something other than that, the whole thing suddenly makes sense. Trading is not the ONLY activity in the game, but it IS the CENTRAL activity in the game and everything else revolves around that. Think of bounty hunting, piracy, mining, exploring etc and little moons orbiting the big trading sun, and the devs decisions, the mechanics choices etc etc all suddenly come into focus. It doesn't matter what you WANT it to be, you've got to look at what it IS.
I'm not sure how else i can make it clear how devastating co-ordinated players in groups can be other than to show a video from another combat game.
Obviously this is WoT not ED but i think it makes a point, in case you've not played Wot I'll give some info here first.
You can see which tanks are in our platoon as we have yellow symbols over the tanks and on the map, allies are green, enemies are red. Enemies don't show up until someone is close enough to spot them.
We are driving premium tanks here which are bought for cash they are good but not as good as the equivalent fully equipped tank you earn in game.
We are in Type 59 Chinese medium tanks which are designed for rapid flanking manoeuvres and being in the thick of the action so they compared favourably to something like a Viper or a Cobra.
We have two average players in our platoon (i'm one of those) our names are yellow in the team list, one above average player who's name is in green, and we pick up a below average player who sensibly decides to follow us round and help out, his name is listed in orange.
The three of us in the platoon are using voice coms although that isn't in the vid mainly due to our habit of swearing and abusing each other for missing shots!
So in summary, out of a team of 15 players there are 4 of us, who are nothing special as far as skill goes in tanks that are OK but again, nothing special and we basically own one flank of the map (with some support from the heavier, slower tanks behind us.)
Imagine that this battle is an instance in Elite, there you are minding your own business in your pimped out Anaconda, taking down bounties or whatever when in drops a wing of loonies with a death wish in Vipers and Cobras.
Obviously this is WoT not ED but i think it makes a point, in case you've not played Wot I'll give some info here first.
You can see which tanks are in our platoon as we have yellow symbols over the tanks and on the map, allies are green, enemies are red. Enemies don't show up until someone is close enough to spot them.
We are driving premium tanks here which are bought for cash they are good but not as good as the equivalent fully equipped tank you earn in game.
We are in Type 59 Chinese medium tanks which are designed for rapid flanking manoeuvres and being in the thick of the action so they compared favourably to something like a Viper or a Cobra.
We have two average players in our platoon (i'm one of those) our names are yellow in the team list, one above average player who's name is in green, and we pick up a below average player who sensibly decides to follow us round and help out, his name is listed in orange.
The three of us in the platoon are using voice coms although that isn't in the vid mainly due to our habit of swearing and abusing each other for missing shots!
So in summary, out of a team of 15 players there are 4 of us, who are nothing special as far as skill goes in tanks that are OK but again, nothing special and we basically own one flank of the map (with some support from the heavier, slower tanks behind us.)
Imagine that this battle is an instance in Elite, there you are minding your own business in your pimped out Anaconda, taking down bounties or whatever when in drops a wing of loonies with a death wish in Vipers and Cobras.
[video=youtube;xutSQOcZ8ao]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xutSQOcZ8ao[/video]
Last edited:
4 player wing in 1 unit with coordination will dominate easily. It creates synergy, wing will dominate any situation.
We know other games where platoons of 3 can dominate 30 players game. And its played on small maps where you must meet other opponents.
IMO 4 players wings are too much - 2-3 would me more than enough- even 1vs1 Lakons are no match for Viper,Cobra, Asp - and if they attack 4 at once, it will be ridiculous.
and don't say to create convoys - it will be easy for pirates to gang up in similar ships for some action where they can easily split profits, it will be next to impossible to find fighters to follow Lakon in trade runs - unless one will be able to hire NPC escort, but even then, we know worth of NPC against Cmdr - not much opposition.
Last edited:
Yep... I use 3 monitors now and while it's nice to have a wide view out the front, it'd be a lot nicer if I could actually USE my side monitors as more than peripheral vision. Even if they'd let me turn the side menus on all the time that'd be a start.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I used to play WoT (in fact I still have some credit there that I never spent) and it was exactly what I had in mind when thinking about wings. Clan battles in WoT are devastating if run well and solos stand no chances against them, even really big solos against groups of small tanks.
Ask FD if trading was intended to be the CENTRAL activity in the game. Again, it's the most developed part at this point but, it was never supposed to be the CENTRAL activity, that's just an incorrect misconception on your part. Trading was supposed to be an equal part of many choices available in ED and may well be at some point if ED continues to develop the other features, as originally planned.
Show me a single post, interview, dev diary, audio clip or video stating trading was planned to be the central dominate game mechanic/feature in ED and I'll concede defeat and apologize. The fact that there's isn't one and you can't provide anything that states that simply proves you're incorrect, no matter what the game-play is dominated by today, that was never the plan or goal of FD in ED.
Thinking about this element, and in fairness to FD, they can increase numbers later if balancing permits. But it would be tougher to implement higher numbers and reduce them if proving too over-powered. It's always harder to take away than to grant.
Yeah ok, you obviously need to be right on this, and I really don't care if I convince you or not, so... whatever. Tired of this.
I'm imagining one Cobra equipped with beam lasers dropping in and wiping out shields, followed by another one with 4 cannons on it destroying the hull straight afterwards with two vipers fitted out to defend the cobras and harrass the enemy.
I'm pretty sure 4 players in a wing on coms with a plan could take down almost any number of random players in an instance of 32 AND do it fast enough to escape if help is on the way..
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
As am I - can users who are at odds and feel themselves descending into commenting on other users rather than the topic at hand please restrain themselves - otherwise posts will be deleted and infractions will follow.
This goes for all those involved.
- Status