What's Wrong With Elite.
- Thread starter JeffRyan
- Start date
Right, it's downright shameful to the industry how cig-arrets continues to do their marketing for kool-aided backers. The hype around their "patcher" was ridiculously like promoting a new game by itself, like it was as important as a next new alpha version of SC. It's only a patcher. FD just has a quiet message that you need to update your launcher, one and done. Then that other lame distraction, the FOIP, and the i800 (cutter/gutamaya ripoff) . Then the "land plot" deed sales ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzK_whCSQyQ&feature=youtu.be&t=4m34s ), then supposed "tanks for sale", and a new newsletter , but oops, you need to sign up for a PAID subscription to the newsletter even if you were a backer for x number of years!
OP mentioned he doesn't care to know the development and production details of SC until it "releases". He and others who don't know what's really going on will probably stay uninformed until the final shtf big news of the ponzi farce collapsing. I was fooled in the beginning too with the initial trailers and thought it was going to be real competiion to ED, but then I didn't follow both games until 2015. And glad I did. SC went off the rails of ethical business conduct about the time their kickstarter went over their original goals of about 15 million. Now over a hundred million wasted and it's now known most of their trailers are scripted, 3rd party outscourced even back in the beginnning, and all SC currently amounts to overstuffed cryengine levels. Seriously COD:InfiniteWarfare would still be a better game in all aspects than whatever SC eventually releases if it does, before they go off hiding from the clawback authorities. http://dereksmart.com/2015/07/star-citizen-blogs/
An example of a guy who couldn't get $2k back with his refund from cig-arrets:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzK_whCSQyQ&feature=youtu.be&t=1h29m47s
I'd agree with CQC. Powerplay is still going on participated by hundreds of cmdrs each week. Up to billions spent in fast tracking, thousands of ships destroyed for combat merits weekly.
The X games look nice and all and were a decent alternative in the dearth of Elite games since FFE, but they are essentially just 3d spaces connected in a 2D scrabble connection with compass direction gates. ( http://x3ap-eng.x3tc.net/x3_albion_prelude_map/ ) Decent fantasy space illusion with planets(unlandable) in the background, single player, and decent microcosm trading strategy game. Bottom line, FD is gradually getting there to spacelegs and the other dreamed off content, it's just going to take more time , maybe many more years considering ED's tremendous scope.
Last edited:
I agree...
The impression where the game was going given from Kickstarter/Alpha/Beta etc was one of depth and layers of mechanics and gameplay.
I'd say over the past two years, too many design choices have resulted in shallow bolted on gameplay that not only haven't deepened gameplay, but all to often have added next to none.
I'd love to know what went on in the design discussions for:-
- CQC - Why wasn't that effort put into adding fighter gameplay (eg; tours of duty, protect, escorting, attack) in the core game?
- Powerplay - Why was it so limp in the scenarios it offered?
- Generation Ships - For all the build up it adds nothing more than some point and click audio files. Are CMDRs using this gameplay now?
- Asteroid Bases - Simply reskinned stations.
- Original Guardian Bases - Are CMDRs using this gameplay now?
- Thargoid Bases - Are CMDRs using this gameplay now?
- New Guardian Bases - Will CMDRs be using this gameplay in a few months?
- Multicrew - How much development effort went into this? Who greenlit it? What has it added to the game other than a development headache for any/all mechanics being added (to make sure they're multicrew compliant).
- etc...
I'm dearly hoping FD's clean slate opportunity to move gameplay forwards in Q4 of this year shows a change of ethos. I hope we finally get some gameplay with layers of inventive depth. But my fear is, surely with the design of it is being governed by the same people as gave us the list above... Hmmm...
ps: Generally looking at the game, I still can't believe there's a 100+ people working on it. And if there is, surely a huge majority must be artists and very few developers? Why else is everything so art heavy but gameplay simplistic?
Last edited:
I hope bandy-legged old people with bad skin are your thing.
I agree a lot with NeilF here. +1.
Usually, great games are greater than the sum of their parts. In ED ? Not so much.
Why so ? Well, most parts are standalone pieces with minimal interaction with the others. After looking for three years,
it seems to me that the issue must have its root in the design/development process used.
It's quite maddening if you think about it : let us speak thargoids, assets and CQC. we have :
Players see exactly where I'm going with this. However somehow design does not. We have all the pieces at hand, but it's not
used. Why ? Because each of these elements was developped as a lonely argon atom interacting with no one else.
Frankly how awesome would that be : emergency boradcast as a drydock is attacked. Either get your fat ship there or use telepresence
to take control of an AX fighter from one of the fighter base protecting the asset. Defend while the AEGIS modified big beast powers up
and punch a medusa or two on the nose.
And it goes on and on and on.
Do you expect to have opposing NPC factions raid your fleet carrier, you getting an emergency message for defence with the ability (if equiped)
to use the on board fighters/turrets ala MC ? I do. But I'm ready to bet it won't. Because it would imply binding several elite lonely atoms together.
And that does not seem to happen.
I mean, , we can't even use the SRV with MC. Which would be awesome for base assaults, but... nope.
Using Powerplay to display the thargoid advance/front and target systems ? Nope, would make too much sense.
Usually, great games are greater than the sum of their parts. In ED ? Not so much.
Why so ? Well, most parts are standalone pieces with minimal interaction with the others. After looking for three years,
it seems to me that the issue must have its root in the design/development process used.
It's quite maddening if you think about it : let us speak thargoids, assets and CQC. we have :
- Nasty thargoids attacking stations.
- Capital ship drydocks space assets introduced a rather long time ago now.
- CQC, introduced a long while ago.
- Galnet Audio / Covas that could be used for emergency broadcast
Players see exactly where I'm going with this. However somehow design does not. We have all the pieces at hand, but it's not
used. Why ? Because each of these elements was developped as a lonely argon atom interacting with no one else.
Frankly how awesome would that be : emergency boradcast as a drydock is attacked. Either get your fat ship there or use telepresence
to take control of an AX fighter from one of the fighter base protecting the asset. Defend while the AEGIS modified big beast powers up
and punch a medusa or two on the nose.
And it goes on and on and on.
Do you expect to have opposing NPC factions raid your fleet carrier, you getting an emergency message for defence with the ability (if equiped)
to use the on board fighters/turrets ala MC ? I do. But I'm ready to bet it won't. Because it would imply binding several elite lonely atoms together.
And that does not seem to happen.
I mean, , we can't even use the SRV with MC. Which would be awesome for base assaults, but... nope.
Using Powerplay to display the thargoid advance/front and target systems ? Nope, would make too much sense.
Last edited:
I have to agree here. CQC was a waste of time and effort. Maybe it was something that microsoft insisted on. Not too sure but it does seem to be an odd thing to create.
Agreed. Needed a much longer development time to make it shine. It really should have been the final update in the first season. The idea is great, the implementation is poor.
There is only so much you can do. But I suppose they could add some of the new megaship gameplay to open up different logs and so forth instead of just a scan. But the only way to truely open up generation ships would be to explore them on foot with natural and maybe some unnatural hazards to bypass. Use the mission system for this. They should add missions to these places.
They are just reskinned bases, hopefully they will be using these for other things in the future, maybe pirate only bases and so on. But yes, so far they are only potential.
Not me. Have done it once, but there should be missions from other scientists to these places, not just Ram Tah. Surely with all these populated systems there would be other people that would want knowledge of these things.
Not sure. I haven't been inside one yet, it's on my bucket list. But again see above with the orgininal Guardian bases.
Again see above.
It was decided a long time before horizons was revealed. On paper it's a great idea, but having no real gameplay to supplement it made it go the way of the dodo. I hate the idea of galaxy wide telepresence and hope they change that in the future.
To a degree I agree. It looks like to me that they are moving forwards now. I really like and enjoy the new trade tools. I find them fun to use and makes trading interesting. Well it does for me anyway.
Me too. The scanning mechanics have been dire. The megaship interactions though are nice (not talking about rewards, just the mechanics), and I really hope they expand on those in the future to other parts of the game. Missions should be tied into these new mechanics. I am really hoping the steller and planetary scanning updates are really good and they should also tie into missions, hopefully giving missions a bit more depth too.
This is the thing. If they have long term developments such as atmospheric planets, space legs, earthlikes and so forth going on, then what we are getting now is not from the whole 100ish people working on ED. It is a team from that 100, while other teams will be working on other areas.
I am pretty sure they are working on an NPC comms system too, but again, this is a long term project and we may not see that till next year if they are.
I also believe they have a team working on a full on NPC system to complement the NPC comms system.
That is why it is difficult to judge on just what we see.
While I do accept that there are a lot of flaws in ED, I can still have a great time playing the game. For me, I find the game good, I have a lot of fun, but I am not blind to its issues or the areas I percieve to be issues. For me 3.0 was a step in the right direction so gives me hope for 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3. Also there is the DLC that is coming out. That will be interesting.
Last edited:
The impression I get is, that ED is trying to be all things to all people. That's why these add-ons/patches were incorporated/developed
- CQC for example appears to be world of tanks with space ships, but the matchmaker wasn't anywhere near as good
trying to be a Jack of all trades has been limited by the available hardware, firstly iMacs and now it appears they are touching the limits of the PS4 also.
I just wish they would come clean and spell out their vision clearly (and stick to it), we could then buy in (or not). I would imagine most people who leave this game leave out of frustration or some other negative emotion and that isn't good for the long term prospects, and given the last week they are also becoming a laughing stock - not good.
- CQC for example appears to be world of tanks with space ships, but the matchmaker wasn't anywhere near as good
trying to be a Jack of all trades has been limited by the available hardware, firstly iMacs and now it appears they are touching the limits of the PS4 also.
I just wish they would come clean and spell out their vision clearly (and stick to it), we could then buy in (or not). I would imagine most people who leave this game leave out of frustration or some other negative emotion and that isn't good for the long term prospects, and given the last week they are also becoming a laughing stock - not good.
Last edited:
Development reminds me a lot of the development of Lord of the Rings.
Jackson found that stuff tended to work best when it came from the books or the appendices.
I think Frontier is finding the best received stuff is from the DDF.
They have to stop going 'Oh, here's a really great idea we haven't discussed before!' (CQC and Power Play are the worst offenders here).
Jackson found that stuff tended to work best when it came from the books or the appendices.
I think Frontier is finding the best received stuff is from the DDF.
They have to stop going 'Oh, here's a really great idea we haven't discussed before!' (CQC and Power Play are the worst offenders here).
Last edited:
You missed the engineers, but I agree with everything.
It's a shame to see that happen in this game, and no action is taken by the FD. And from what I've seen so far Beyond will not solve that.
Good luck with that; Frontier have their communication strategy which is to keep it to as little as possible (notice how few message threads now get a Community Team member response now that Dale has left?).
Agreed, telepresence is a completely dumb explanation. They would have been better off saying "it's just a game, rationalize it yourselves" or deferring it until Elite Feet is released, if that ever comes out.
If you were a game developer and you created a game exactly like ED but with missions/scenarios like you just described, what do you think that would actually be like to play? What do you think the experience would be for an average player?
This is a really, really important question and I hope you'll take a moment to think about it. There's something vital that you don't understand: the difference in terms of effort between an average player and a hardcore player is several orders of magnitude. What that means is, if you implemented a game exactly the way you described above, average players would not be able to take part in it. You could spawn 100 medusas to attack a station - hardcore players would wipe them out in 10 minutes.
Your thought process, as you're suggesting changes to the game, is that you want there to be something you can do that makes you feel important. That's what we all want in every game we play. The problem with ED is that we're all playing in the same galaxy - but it's physically impossible for us all to be the "hero" of the story.
There's a small group of people (CANNON) and they found all of the mega ships and all of the thargoid bases, for example. When FDev put those things in the game, they were thinking exactly the way you're thinking - "imagine if there was something cool that people could take part in." What actually happens though is that a small group of people play the game 20 hours a day, and they get everything done.
You will never find a megaship. You will never discover a thargoid base. And if your space station attack scenario was implemented, you would never be able to help defend the stations in any meaningful way.
What ED needs is a single-player campaign (actually, several of them) that work like the training missions - it's separate from your open world sandbox account. And any time there's an "historic" event in the game, FDev writes a story about someone involved in it, and releases a campaign where you can play as that person.
So for example, when the first station was attacked, they should have written a story about someone who maybe finds a message at a thargoid base that tells him the attack is coming. His objective (in the single player campaign) is to warn the station. When he arrives, that triggers the attack and he can take part in it. There are cutscenes and personalities associated with this story and everyone who plays it comes away understanding what's really going on in the game.
I'm not saying there should have been a single player campaign for every station that's been attacked. I'm saying there should have been one for Obsidian Orbital. There should also be a campaign that explains how the thargoids were "awakened" and a campaign that explains how the gardians were found.
I know it's not gonna happen, but it should've. The opportunity has passed IMO.
I really like this game. I play it quite a bit and when it feels grindy I go place something else for a while. But it hasn't left my hard drive since launch.
There are two decisions that to me were major sources of disappointment and I think hamstrung further development in some ways.
1) the decision to support multiple game modes. This has resulted in a game that does "solo" play not as well as other solo directed games like Freelancer or Privateer; and a game that does multiplayer "open" not as well as games with dedicated servers and MMO features like chat, dungeons, raids, social tools, persistent markets, player trade, etc. The game tried to appeal to both types and is hamstrung by that decision, especially when it comes to multiplayer features. My goodness what an MMO this could have been!
2) The multicrew implementation seems to me to be a clear case of ignoring community feedback to tick a box on someone's list. Almost nobody in the community was asking for player-only multicrew. Most people, and there were many polls, wanted NPC multicrew - companions we could develop, with their own skill trees and bonuses and persistence. It was really quite clear, it was all over the forums and posed in Q&As on youtube etc but for some reason they went player-based multicrew only, and exactly what we predicted would happen has happened: multicrew is not widely used, and despite lots of additional effort it's still buggy and unreliable. This one felt like a major misread of the playerbase and made me start to think FD was out of touch.
That said, the "refocusing on core gameplay" seems to be an effort to correct that, perhaps they have realized what a miss multicrew was. And most of the feedback I've seen on 3.0 is positive overall, with some balance concerns and learning curve on the new C&P to be expected. If they continue to iterate through their core systems this game has a chance to be in a great place one year from now. Specifically mining, exploration and Powerplay are three areas that could really draw people in, and I think Powerplay in particular could be where much of the narrative and "reason for logging in every day" comes from. Why not link Powerplay to mission boards? Why not link Thargoid response to alliances between PP factions? Maybe Zachary will want to wipe them out, but Felicia will want to try to build an understanding with them? Think of all the possibilities ... the pieces are there.
There are two decisions that to me were major sources of disappointment and I think hamstrung further development in some ways.
1) the decision to support multiple game modes. This has resulted in a game that does "solo" play not as well as other solo directed games like Freelancer or Privateer; and a game that does multiplayer "open" not as well as games with dedicated servers and MMO features like chat, dungeons, raids, social tools, persistent markets, player trade, etc. The game tried to appeal to both types and is hamstrung by that decision, especially when it comes to multiplayer features. My goodness what an MMO this could have been!
2) The multicrew implementation seems to me to be a clear case of ignoring community feedback to tick a box on someone's list. Almost nobody in the community was asking for player-only multicrew. Most people, and there were many polls, wanted NPC multicrew - companions we could develop, with their own skill trees and bonuses and persistence. It was really quite clear, it was all over the forums and posed in Q&As on youtube etc but for some reason they went player-based multicrew only, and exactly what we predicted would happen has happened: multicrew is not widely used, and despite lots of additional effort it's still buggy and unreliable. This one felt like a major misread of the playerbase and made me start to think FD was out of touch.
That said, the "refocusing on core gameplay" seems to be an effort to correct that, perhaps they have realized what a miss multicrew was. And most of the feedback I've seen on 3.0 is positive overall, with some balance concerns and learning curve on the new C&P to be expected. If they continue to iterate through their core systems this game has a chance to be in a great place one year from now. Specifically mining, exploration and Powerplay are three areas that could really draw people in, and I think Powerplay in particular could be where much of the narrative and "reason for logging in every day" comes from. Why not link Powerplay to mission boards? Why not link Thargoid response to alliances between PP factions? Maybe Zachary will want to wipe them out, but Felicia will want to try to build an understanding with them? Think of all the possibilities ... the pieces are there.
+Rep great point.
I would say two things:
1) I would love to walk the halls of my ships!!! (I do own SC but the frame rate is so bad on my i7700 / GTX1060 laptop that I can't play it)
2) I don't think it's the sense of "jeopardy," but a sense of "accomplishment."
Early in Elite you truly get that as you can afford better ships, but after a couple of years I just feel like my large ships just don't make me the money they should.
Also after you have a certain amount of credits I can think that money has very little meaning, so why bother. It's one of the reasons I try to keep my bank balance low.
It's already been said, but seriously? You are an optimist. Which isn't a bad thing but ... SChas ta great potential of being a great game. When, it becomes a game. I'll defer any other comments to the Star Citizen thread version 8.
@Jeff ... I believe I see your comparison with your first video,i.e. SC, I would welcome more Emerson. At least to a point and as long as it did not destroy what I enjoy about ED already. You and others here make valid points about ED. Some I agree with and some I don't. I have my own list but will not post.
OA makes some good points in his video also. I scour/read these forums each day seeing what you commanders have to say. I'm hindered from playing at the moment due to health issues. But I look forward to getting back at it. But the tips on everything from making a credit or how to do something are valuable to me and others. I've been here awhile now but in a way do not feel I've progressed beyond beginner. Perhaps this is why I'm not lacklustered yet.
I like the idea of 'legs but the magnitude of what it would take to pull this off is steep to me. Walking off your ship in a station to where? The gardens? The small control tower? Now with all that said I like the idea of maybe exploring a nearly intact direlect ship or one of those original ships sent out. Saw something similar on another SC video.
But to be honest I personally do not see a big use for 'legs' at least in regards to other things but would still welcome it. I think, even though I see you used SC only as a reference, that SC sets some things out there that most of us might like to see in ED. And we may in time. But over all I believe ED is a 'game' with great potential even considering its short coming. Many which are listed here in this thread.
But I also see, in spite of marked criticism, many that will be playing ED today or tonight. We live by optimism and wonder. Optimism because we hope for better ... wonder because we wonder if it will happen. We play because we like the subject matter ... Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers (showing my age) in space. But we appreciate other similar Space titles (or potential space titles) in reflection of ED and not against it. I believe the FDevs see this. But what they have up their programming sleeves is yet to be seen. Will we be WOWed or will it be a case of WHAT? We'll see in time.
For any payed content coming I wish someone would leak a possible cost so I can figure how to approach my boss (wife) on its purchase. But, that too, we'll see in time.
Now back to those with comments that makes more sense than mine ...
Chief
Maybe this post from another thread today will cover Engineers for you?
"Take The Engineers... You have to spend significant time upgrading your ship, simply then to then carry on doing exactly the same gameplay that you were doing before simply now at the newly imposed upper teir of performance (eg: better more powerful pew pew beams). And the mechanic/gameplay you need to invest in to upgrade your ships? Basically exactly the same gameplay that you were doing before.
ie: It introduced a whole new upper teir of performance you're bribed into taking part into to stay competitive, by undertaking the same (old) gameplay, so you can then take part in the same (old) gameplay. And all at the risk of unbalancing PvP and PvE.
Where over the past three year has there been truly impressive steps forwards with new gameplay mechanics/content/depth? Wings? Planetary Landings? ...ummm...
Look where we are right now with the long awaited first hostile alien invasion... With years to prepare the gameplay mechanics, we can take part and affect this epic invasion how? By taking X to Y to repair stations after invisible attacks. Meanwhile time galore for multicrew, thargoid/guardian bases, generation ships etc..."
Too bad I can not give you more Rep.
Does anyone in FD can see this?
It would be the most correct thing to do. The way it is now really is not working.
Last edited: