Why can we only Land on Barren Planets after almost 5 years?

Elite Dangerous launched in December 2014. It had many major free and paid updates that exponentially improved the base game. However, aside from the desired space legs, there's one aspect that disappoints the most. We can only land on desolate, barren planets. We've waited almost 5 years for more lively planet types.

We want more than simplistic planets covered with monotonous dirt and rocks! ED's planets have endless sand, dirt and rocks as far as the eye can see. Sometimes, if we're lucky, we find a little primitive flora. We want more natural features, explore alien forests, jungles teeming with life. If Frontier plans to take another 10 years to release more land-able planet types, that's too slow.
Agreed :)
 
Getting the atmospheric physics right for atmospheric worlds is going to take some doing, not to mention expanding the amount of content by a lot when it comes to worlds with life on them. Otherwise it'd be planets you could land on, take a look at the pretty trees/animals/hostile life forms and go "Oh, that's nice." And then take off to never look at again. Gameplay and game mechanics needs to be developed so there's actually things to do there, far beyond what we have today's content. I have no problem with waiting, myself.
 
Plans and priorities change, unfortunately for us.

Now, on the other hand, if the leaks would turn out to actually be true and Frontier would really prioritize space legs over atmospheric flight, then "why" would be an excellent question there. After all, they've pretty much always said that it would be a distant future feature, as it would constitute almost a whole new game.
Of course, they could shut down such speculation at any time, if they wanted to.
 
LOL, do you have a macro for this quote? You should just put it in your signature like I did with EBL.
He has a point though, nobody above the age of seven or so should ask the question in the title sincerely.

Q:"Why is feature X not in game Y from developer Z?"
A:"Because every company has limited resources, and Company Z decided to spend those resources not on X but on something else instead, because they thought that was in the best interest of the company."

The end. There is nothing left to discuss beyond some incredibly immature "but I like X!!!!!", to which the only answer is: "Okay, duly noted, thanks for sharing. Again.". Usually there is the final desperate:"But if there is no X I quit!!!!!", to which the answer, again, is:"Okay, duly noted."
 
I personally don't understand why people want to play a spaceship game just so they can get back to planetside gameplay ala 99.9% of games. I have plenty of fun in space and would prefer FDev spends it's dev time on fixing bugs in the current state of the game and expanding on the spaceship part of the game.
 
Elite Dangerous launched in December 2014. It had many major free and paid updates that exponentially improved the base game. However, aside from the desired space legs, there's one aspect that disappoints the most. We can only land on desolate, barren planets. We've waited almost 5 years for more lively planet types.

A certain other game launched 1 1/3rd years after ED and has 10000 times more variety in land-able planets. It has many different kinds of alien creatures, vegetation, you can even travel underwater in a submarine. The procedural generation of planets in ED is very basic comparatively.

We want more than simplistic planets covered with monotonous dirt and rocks! ED's planets have endless sand, dirt and rocks as far as the eye can see. Sometimes, if we're lucky, we find a little primitive flora. We want more natural features, explore alien forests, jungles teeming with life. If Frontier plans to take another 10 years to release more land-able planet types, that's too slow.

So why is ED very primitive with procedural planets? Why aren't there more terrains, creatures, plants etc? It seems that Frontier is focusing too much of their resources on other IPs (Planet Zoo, PC and JWE).
The major concern for me is if we consider that huge technically impressive addition of (non atmospheric) planetary landings, IMHO nothing has come close to it since, in FOUR YEARS!

It almost feels like the wind left the sails of the management or designers with little/no significant technical developments of note being undertaken. And then add to this features like Multicrew being given the greenlight and developed, seemingly all the time with the community raising their eye brows, only for it now to be collecting dust for most of the community due to how ill considered it was.... You really have to scratch your head!

The latest Mining 2.0 showed some promise, but even there it has frustrating balancing issues and clear needless issues and oversights in its mechanics, once again (IMHO) seeming to demonstrate FD's continued questionable management and design efforts with ED...

I dearly hope the now much hyped big update in 2020 is more akin to 2015's planetary landings in technical bar raising efforts, than the list of mediocre, ill considered, unbalanced, shallow plug ons that has all but plagued the years since.

But the fear is, with the same people, with the same ethos, why would next year prove any different to the past four? Can but hope for some truely deep, involved, impressive, well considered, bar raising mechanics at long last!
 
Last edited:
He has a point though, nobody above the age of seven or so should ask the question in the title sincerely.

Q:"Why is feature X not in game Y from developer Z?"
A:"Because every company has limited resources, and Company Z decided to spend those resources not on X but on something else instead, because they thought that was in the best interest of the company."

The end. There is nothing left to discuss beyond some incredibly immature "but I like X!!!!!", to which the only answer is: "Okay, duly noted, thanks for sharing. Again.". Usually there is the final desperate:"But if there is no X I quit!!!!!", to which the answer, again, is:"Okay, duly noted."
However, I faintly remember that a bigger variety of landables was originally set out to happen at some point.
 
ED is yesterday's game. "New Era" is just a marketing ploy to keep people buying cosmetics.
Are you calling 'Doom' Ducky? :D

Very melodramatic...

But the fear is, with the same people, with the same ethos, why would next year prove any different to the past four?
Counter pep talk: The key 'ethos' change is still the end of seasons for me. More time to do additions justice before hitting a delivery wall.

Guess we'll see. I'm off to play NMS in VR until something juicy actually drops either way ;)
 
Counter pep talk: The key 'ethos' change is still the end of seasons for me. More time to do additions justice before hitting a delivery wall.

Guess we'll see. I'm off to play NMS in VR until something juicy actually drops either way ;)
Sure, with each expansion some change in direction can be expected. But seriously, if you didn't enjoy the last four years at all, you dont need a new direction, you need a new game.

And I'm stuck waiting for steam to get its stuff together, lucky you. :/
 
I personally don't understand why people want to play a spaceship game just so they can get back to planetside gameplay ala 99.9% of games. I have plenty of fun in space and would prefer FDev spends it's dev time on fixing bugs in the current state of the game and expanding on the spaceship part of the game.
It isn't very difficult to understand: people want ED to be more than a spaceship game. People have wanted that for thirty years, including David Braben. I am not sure what is so puzzling about people wanting that. You don't have to agree, but to not understand it...
 
I dearly hope the now much hyped big update in 2020 is more akin to 2015's planetary landings in technical bar raising efforts, than the list of mediocre, ill considered, unbalanced, shallow plug ons that has all but plagued the years since.
Considering Next Era has significantly more manhours spend on it than 2.0 that doesn't seem an unreasonable hope. ;)
 
Top Bottom