Game Discussions Well.. looking at Steam charts..

[Kubicide]

Thanks for agreeing that there are vastly more than "4 or 5 repetitive types" of planets in Elite Dangerous, as shown in the image - 16 different planet types, plus variants, plus star types too. Your moving of the goalposts to landable-only worlds only emphasises your desperation at saving face yet again; do more research and you won't be embarrassed in future.

Here are a list of the record sized 1:1 scale worlds that you can land on in Elite Dangerous, many of which are planets (it's an old post, there's a newer one around somewhere. Meanwhile, you can check said planetary statuses via EDDB.io btw):
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/really-large-landable-planets-the-list.217068/

For further information on the planets and moons in Elite Dangerous, I recommend browsing the Elite Dangerous Wikia and the links in @Alec Turner's excellent Best Of collection.

Lol, no. I didn't agree with anything. Assume your English probably isn't that good but I disagreed with you and presented factual statements which you conveniently ignored.

So, let's try again. About those planets you can land on in Elite. None. And about the roids there's, what, 4 or 5 different surfaces. Correct? No? Post pics of the 8 or so different surfaces.

 

[Kubicide]

Yes we do, as per my comment that you quoted. We also know that 3m copies had been sold by January 2019.

If reading text is a trouble for you I will helpfully link you some text-to-speak programs that may assist you. Please note that these will require your computer to output audio so you'll need some speakers or headphones too.


You appear to be incoherently ranting.


FDev financials are very clear on the number of game copies sold, as are CMs' further clarifying that "franchise sales" are copies sold (of basegame and/or Horizons) and do not include cosmetics or other items. This is all public information, available for anyone without a tinfoil-hat-prosthetic to read.



Cool: so you don't know how many copies of NMS have been sold, contrary to your previous comment which I've helpfully quoted above. I'm glad we've cleared that up. I did already provide one stat which you foolishly ignored (it is also public information):





Making things up again I see. NMS did sell well for the genre - 1.4m copies on Steam over 2 years - but it certainly didn't set any records.

I would recommend that you educate yourself with sourced information in future, to save yourself from further embarrassment.

Lots of nonsense here. That's about all that can be said.

NMS outsold Elite by a significant amount. You may find this disturbing for some reason. But it happened. NMS outsold many other games as well. Also remember there's more than just Steam sales.

 

[StuartGT]

Lol, no. I didn't agree with anything. Assume your English probably isn't that good but I disagreed with you and presented factual statements which you conveniently ignored.

So, let's try again. About those planets you can land on in Elite. None. And about the roids there's, what, 4 or 5 different surfaces. Correct? No?

I already linked you a list of the largest 1:1 worlds that can be landed on in Elite - of that list, literally the first is a planet (Chroabs TI-S d4-58 4). Feel free to check the rest of the list at your leisure so you can learn of the many other record-sized landable worlds that are also planets.

If you do not know what a planet is, this wikipedia article will help you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet

Meanwhile, asteroids can be found in planetary belts and asteroid fields. I'm surprised that you need this junior school science explaining to you.

 

[M00ka]

I have to agree with him on this point; showing a graph (a very nice one, btw) with a bunch of planet types seems pretty impressive at first until you stop and realize they're only subtly different from one another--4 or five visually distinctive stars, 4-5 distinctive planet types that really stand out from one another. Filled with variety ED isn't.

Jason, can you explain how the planets should look different to each other? How one icy planet should look unique to all the other icy planets? And please don't say they could be different colours, because well they are different colours in the game, when the geographical properties of the planet allow.

 

[babelfisch]

Only nonsense is this reply. But tell me this: NMS had over 212,000 simultaneous players online at one time. What is the all time high for Elite?

We don't know because the game didn't launch on Steam initially. Anyway, I don't want to bash NMS, but when a game drops from 212,000 to 2,000 concurrent players within 60 days, it's pretty clear that it failed as a game. Not sure which pointless argument you are trying to make, but it definetely doesn't get you anywhere.

For an offline game NMS has done well.

Nope. It's one of the biggest failures in the history of gaming. Financially it was very succesful, lots of people bought it but nobody wants to play it. Again, I don't like the NMS bashing, it's quite impressive what they managed to achieve with a handful of devs. They all must be multi millionaires now.

(BTW how is that offline mode working for Elite?)

I don't know how this is relevant. If you can't get over offline mode after 5 years you might want to see a psychiatrist, it's possible that you are obsessed.

 

[cpbtrading]

Planets in ED are not 1:1, but that is a seperate argument..

I'm not sure any of these games are that niche nowadays, perhaps years ago ED was niche, but not now really.
They are all good games in their own way and players will spend their time in the one they like best, charts and sales don't mean a great deal to players. Provided a game is complete or playable, it can be played for decades, even in a buggy'ish state (I play the Arma series.. nuf said)..
So sales mean nothing much to players.

If however a game is on-line only, then players are in a odd position, in that, if the sales dry up, what happens to servers etc. So in those cases players might take more interest in sales and keeping games funded.. But that again is a seperate issue.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Elite is and always has been a niche game. You can't argue this fact no matter how much you love it. The customer base is small.

I find it fascinating that you are so invested in your bitterness you simply cannot cope with anything countering even a fragment of your narrative. FD is a publicly traded company. They have earned hundreds of millions in the past few years, and ED is their most profitable IP. Whatever you think of ED is your business, but denying that ED has been a major, cross-platform, commercial success, catapulting FD from a very small studio to a the corporation it is today, is just rather tragic. It changes nothing about what is real and what is not, and only reveals how deep your frustration goes.

But sure, if ranting that they probably just 'sold millions of paints' makes you feel better, have at it.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I'm not sure any of these games are that niche nowadays, perhaps years ago ED was niche, but not now really.
They are all good games in their own way and players will spend their time in the one they like best,

This. Its inane to argue which game is more niche when both have sold millions upon millions of copies. Its also stupid to 'pick sides', just play as many games as you find entertaining. People downtalking NMS or ED because they like the other one is petty as heck.

 

[Old Duck]

Everyone is entitled to their subjective opinion as to whether a world is different to another - be it subtley, factually, scientifically, etc. Elite's explorers certainly enjoy finding the many different types of worlds in the game. EDSM has records of the tens of thousands of systems and worlds each found by CMDRs: https://www.edsm.net/top/logs

If there are only 4 or 5 types of planets in game then those explorers must be crazy

There is a repetitiveness to planets in ED, and I do believe there is room for more variety, but I think we'll get that once the other planets become procgen. Now looking at the landable planets that are procgen today, even those have a repetitiveness, but this is okay, as nature tends to be repetitive. In fact, I almost think ED has overcompensated a tad bit too much in order to try to compete with NMS fantasy planets. For example, too many rocky moons have fog and mist now, which should be reserved for ice planets closer to the sun IMO. The color palette has swung a bit extreme in the other direction as well - all beige was boring, but now we get some strange looking places that don't feel like something I'd see in NASA's catalog of probe images, unless artificial coloring was applied.

Don't get me wrong - I'm actually agreeing with you, in that there is variety in ED, perhaps a bit too much in places. Still, I'm eager for the current texture planets to be procgen like landable planets are, especially if Frontier can make an algorithm that takes in geological forces into account, things like erosion, tectonics, hydraulics, etc. I don't even need to land on such a planet - just to be able to orbit an ELW and see something like this or this (below), that would be epic.

But until then, I still prefer ED's realistic planets over NMS Bugs Bunny planets, both being equally repetitive

 

[babelfisch]

Planets in ED are not 1:1, but that is a seperate argument..

Source?

 

[cpbtrading]

Source?

FDev

 

[Cotic]

FDev

Interesting. A link to the information would be nice.

 

[cpbtrading]

pass[/QUOTE]

 

[cpbtrading]

Interesting. A link to the information would be nice.

It was an message from FDev regards concerns I had a few years ago. Not to be revisited now..
I still have the message, but it isn't coming on here. Had enough arguments last time.

 

[cpbtrading]

There is a repetitiveness to planets in ED, and I do believe there is room for more variety, but I think we'll get that once the other planets become procgen. Now looking at the landable planets that are procgen today, even those have a repetitiveness, but this is okay, as nature tends to be repetitive. In fact, I almost think ED has overcompensated a tad bit too much in order to try to compete with NMS fantasy planets. For example, too many rocky moons have fog and mist now, which should be reserved for ice planets closer to the sun IMO. The color palette has swung a bit extreme in the other direction as well - all beige was boring, but now we get some strange looking places that don't feel like something I'd see in NASA's catalog of probe images, unless artificial coloring was applied.

Don't get me wrong - I'm actually agreeing with you, in that there is variety in ED, perhaps a bit too much in places. Still, I'm eager for the current texture planets to be procgen like landable planets are, especially if Frontier can make an algorithm that takes in geological forces into account, things like erosion, tectonics, hydraulics, etc. I don't even need to land on such a planet - just to be able to orbit an ELW and see something like this or this (below), that would be epic.

But until then, I still prefer ED's realistic planets over NMS Bugs Bunny planets, both being equally repetitive

I put a true size Mars into Space Engineers a few years ago.. That opened my eye's a little to scale..

I do like ED's planets. I thought 'Battlescape' beat them really, feel great flying over those.

 

[babelfisch]

It was an message from FDev regards concerns I had a few years ago. Not to be revisited now..
I still have the message, but it isn't coming on here. Had enough arguments last time.

It's possible that size is like 1-5% wrong, IIRC it has been tested and confirmed that scale is mostly correct.

 

[Cotic]

It was an message from FDev regards concerns I had a few years ago. Not to be revisited now..
I still have the message, but it isn't coming on here. Had enough arguments last time.

Oh ok, would a PM be more appropriate?

 

[Old Duck]

I put a true size Mars into Space Engineers a few years ago.. That opened my eye's a little to scale..

Space Engineers supports this?

 

[cpbtrading]

Space Engineers supports this?

It did (modded). They changed the doc's so we can't do it now. I have it on video and can still go into the saves I have of various size planets, but it retards the game back for me to be able to get into it, so I haven't bothered for quite a while.

But yes, full 'real' size planets could be put into SE based on the games scale at one stage there ie. character. Not sure how they could be modded in now.. But someone at some stage will probably do it.

So you can imagine how large these things were and indeed how unstable too...

1200km wide planets are very stable infact probably around 2000km would be o.k. But for planet numbers I had 12 x 1200km wide in a save and they worked just fine.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtkNSzHmP-E


The first planets KSH tested with when deciding on introducing them were 3000km wide iirc, but they dropped all that in favour of these small ones, 120km wide. I suppose thinking about players systems etc. Especially because we can do so much with planets, building, mining etc, put a great strain on many systems I reckon.

Edit: I'll put a footnote to this.. Another mod maker told me how to reduce the planet surface sizes, ie, make the surface details match the planet size better. I did it but can't remember how. All the details are on their forums somewhere.

 

[Shinji Ikari]

I already linked you a list of the largest 1:1 worlds that can be landed on in Elite - of that list, literally the first is a planet (Chroabs TI-S d4-58 4). Feel free to check the rest of the list at your leisure so you can learn of the many other record-sized landable worlds that are also planets.

If you do not know what a planet is, this wikipedia article will help you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet

Meanwhile, asteroids can be found in planetary belts and asteroid fields. I'm surprised that you need this junior school science explaining to you.

Curiously, the definition of planet is based on the Sun, so technically any we are talking exoplanets here though evidently many call them planets (so do I).