Elite Dangerous - Yay or Nay?

[Galdred]

Indeed, most space games use space magic and/or dogfighting, but if it were pure space simumlations, ships would be orbiting stuff (stars or planets), and only use their precious fuel to engage evasive action/change orbit, and send ordnance from afar.

What if it's set in a Universe where we've mastered some magical nuclear fuel or whatever that is super light weight and can power ships for a while? Also, what if the fight is taking place from somewhere far away from a large gravitational force?

I was speaking about technology that would be a bit more advanced than what we have now. It is pretty hard to imagine warfare with technology very different from our own.
A critical "magic device" would be a way to neutralize acceleration to avoid turning space pilots into pulp.

Weapons in space would still have a very long range, and dodging them would require starting evasive maneuvers before you know they open fire, ie random evasive action, which means it would probably make more sense to feed the desired arrival position in a computer, and have him randomly thrust sideway for evasive action.

Evasive action would be a compromise between changing direction often, and thrusting long enough in a given direction to move the whole ship out of its predicted "hitbox".
That may make scatter weapons useful in space actually (but they already usually are in our space dogfighting games).

Getting closer would give less time for the target to adjust position (ie reduce the dodge chance), even more so if using kinetic weapons, so I don't think it would make the ranges at which we usually play space dogfighting feasible (if the range gets shorter, the target doesn't have enough time for evasive action to push it out of harm's way.

 

[ItsChon]

I was speaking about technology that would be a bit more advanced than what we have now. It is pretty hard to imagine warfare with technology very different from our own.

Ah, fair enough. I just assumed we were talking about any kind of Space technology or universe. Didn't help that I didn't bother to scroll up and read the other shit.

Weapons in space would still have a very long range, and dodging them would require starting evasive maneuvers before you know they open fire, ie random evasive action, which means it would probably make more sense to feed the desired arrival position in a computer, and have him randomly thrust sideway for evasive action.

Fair enough, my main point was honestly just regarding the planet's being locked into orbit around large planetary bodies. No arguments from me here.

Getting closer would give less time for the target to adjust position (ie reduce the dodge chance), even more so if using kinetic weapons, so I don't think it would make the ranges at which we usually play space dogfighting feasible (if the range gets shorter, the target doesn't have enough time for evasive action to push it out of harm's way.

Well, dog-fighting as we know it doesn't happen anymore with the technology that we have now, so I can hardly imagine it happening in space. In reality, it's far more likely that Space Combat would play like a slower, less cool version of naval warfare.

 

[what am i doing]

What if ED was a good game?

The Frontier forums would complain until it wasn't.

 

[DraQ]

I remember using the z plane a lot to get some ships in flanking position in Starshatter. But the game needs engagement ranges to be high enough that ships cannot instantly correct their position. But it is not the case in most dogfighting simulator, and even in games that try to give you a fleet to work with (StarPoint Gemini Warlords for instance).

I actually find that longer engagement ranges exacerbates this. At sufficiently short engagement ranges and high-delta-V, the game turns into a dogfight simulator and the 3D matters. At very long ranges and low relative delta-V, it turns into a 1D joust. At VERY long engagement ranges relative delta-V, it turns into a 0D dot shooter: You no longer have the ability to meaningfully affect any real change in your position relative to the duration of combat and you pew away with whatever weapons you have on you until one or both combatants are neutralized.

At very long range you can still dodge and even do so quite anemically (conserving delta-v) because time to taget will be long.

At relatively close orbital flyby you definitely get 3D environment even with low delta-v and acceleration, because you will have two ships/fleets leading each other and weapon fire incoming asymmetrically because of that.
Something like this:

The direction towards the enemy will be different than the remaining direction along the encounter plane and different than direction perpendicular to the encounter plane.
Deep space/flatspace battles are unlikely to be a thing - at best you will have a split second missile driveby going plaid, actual battles will be in gravwells.

Have you played COADE?

And then you can have multiple combatants.

Multiple combatants are never really going to be a thing outside of a rigged scenario, though. With stealth in space being impossible, you will see your opponents coming from well before the combat begins. If you have two forces approaching you from different directions, and you move to engage one of them, the other force will simply not reach the scene of the action until the battle is likely over. Otherwise, they weren't going to reach the original scene of action before it was over. If you have two forces approaching you from the SAME direction, speed, and distance, this is just one big force. So the only way to find yourself fighting two different forces at the same time such that there is not simply a line between the two of you that you're fighting around is if the scenario is somehow rigged to spawn these two forces close enough to engage you simultaneously from two directions. But, well, no stealth in space, so how did they get there?

If you have delta-v to try and engage one of the flanking fleets sooner, flanking fleets are likely to have delta-v to prevent that.

 

[Galdred]

Have you played COADE?

I haven't got the time to dive into CoaDE yet, but it is the next one I will play.
On a sidenote, when I was thinking about what game to make, I had two competing ideas I wanted to do:
A mix of strategy and RPG that would become Zodiac Legion, and a "realistic" space 4X with futuristic technologies that would not seem out of reach to us, so basically a "open ended" CoaDE (probably set in a single solar system).
I ended up going for the former, because realistic space battles seemed very hard to do well in a turn based format, and I really wanted to go with TB, so I really need to dive into CoaDE (and thank them for more or less doing the game in my place!).

Regarding stealth in space, it might but be possible indeed, but what about decoys?

If you can send sufficient decoys, it might be hard for the opponent to position himself correctly.
Decoys would need a similar level of emission (than the show they emulate), but that might be doable for a fraction of the cost, especially for the defender who could hide real ships among various orbital debris.

 

[Fedora Master]

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/the-arx-bamboozle-cows-to-the-slaughter.530054/

So, how many of you have purchased the Krait Phantom salvage paint jobs with these awesome new ARX? I bought this pack back in May of this year, and it cost me a whopping $4. If you add them all up in the store post ARX, you're spending $10.60 for the same thing!

 

[RoBoBOBR]

relevant

 

[Burning Bridges]

Ok so this is like - minigames that are megaparsecs apart?

 

[Norfleet]

Have you played COADE?

Not yet. Have they finished it yet?

If you have delta-v to try and engage one of the flanking fleets sooner, flanking fleets are likely to have delta-v to prevent that.

They can only avoid action by either running away from you and thus separating even further, or moving together into a single unit. I've played this kind of scenario in other systems before. Forces that start separated tend to end up converging if you attempt to engage them separately and they try to avoid being engaged separately.

 

[DraQ]

Have you played COADE?

Not yet. Have they finished it yet?

It's been released good several years ago.

If you have delta-v to try and engage one of the flanking fleets sooner, flanking fleets are likely to have delta-v to prevent that.

They can only avoid action by either running away from you and thus separating even further, or moving together into a single unit. I've played this kind of scenario in other systems before. Forces that start separated tend to end up converging if you attempt to engage them separately and they try to avoid being engaged separately.

Actually it's very simple:
You burn to accelerate intercept of one of the fleets and/or delay the other so one of the fleets burns to accelerate intercept and the other to delay it to compensate.

 

[Norfleet]

At relatively close orbital flyby you definitely get 3D environment even with low delta-v and acceleration, because you will have two ships/fleets leading each other and weapon fire incoming asymmetrically because of that.
Something like this:

Yes, that path looks complex when seen from an outside perspective, but what happens when you normalize it using one of the combatants as the frame of reference, instead of an outside point that has no meaning?

 

[DraQ]

At relatively close orbital flyby you definitely get 3D environment even with low delta-v and acceleration, because you will have two ships/fleets leading each other and weapon fire incoming asymmetrically because of that.
Something like this:

Yes, that path looks complex when seen from an outside perspective, but what happens when you normalize it using one of the combatants as the frame of reference, instead of an outside point that has no meaning?

That's in combatants' frame of reference.

And it's just 1-on-1.

 

[Norfleet]

That can't be in the combatant's frame of reference, because there are two tracks and you said there were only two combatants, 1-on-1. If the image were taken from the frame of reference of a single combatant, there'd be only one track.

 

[DraQ]

That can't be in the combatant's frame of reference, because there are two tracks and you said there were only two combatants, 1-on-1. If the image were taken from the frame of reference of a single combatant, there'd be only one track.

How so? Combat typically involves both sides shooting.

 

[Fedora Master]

So the big January Patch that supposedly had a beta beforehand still managed to introduce new bugs. While adding literally nothing worth mentioning.

 

[DraQ]

That can't be in the combatant's frame of reference, because there are two tracks and you said there were only two combatants, 1-on-1. If the image were taken from the frame of reference of a single combatant, there'd be only one track.

How so? Combat typically involves both sides shooting.

...so you have two *sets* of tracks, incoming and outgoing, appearing to curve in the opposite directions (because of ships' relative motion, acceleration and guns leading), each composed of possibly multiple individual tracks depending on the composition of batteries firing in regards to muzzle velocity aiming to impact the target from range of possible angles.

And that's for just two ships firing kinetics at each other in CQB.

 

[ADL]

Carriers soon
10,000,000 CR upkeep weekly currently in beta

 

[Yosharian]

Who gives a shit

 

[moleman]

With upkeep costs, that force you to log in regularly or you lose your carrier, I see absolutely no point in having one.

The only value of a carrier I could see is as a base for deep space exploration. But since you cannot earn any credits while being far away from the bubble, again the upkeep costs totally nullify that value.

And is there any new gameplay involved with the carriers? I mean new misson types or ability to attack or sabotage other commanders carriers? Apparently not. Just more grind.

Edit:
And with that jump limit of 500ly every 2 h it will only take you approx 80 hours to get that thing to Colonia lol.

 

[Yosharian]

Oh I have a carrier, cool, wait I'm still playing Elite Dangerous

fuck

 

[Fishy]

Who gives a shit

The 1% of the players who:
- still play the game
- have mindlessly grinded >5b credits over the years
- plan on mindlessly grinding some more to pay the weekly upkeep
- want to show off with a mobile base with less functionality and worse prices than the 9843242e14 stations around

But the other 99% can still enjoy those carriers by landing and paying a premium to earn less money than anywhere else by selling their goods with additional tariffs.

The beauty of it is the amount of money Frontier must have spent to get this whole feature developed, and how many paint job microtransactions they'll need to break even, but won't sell because they made sure most players won't get a carrier in the first place. But then, that's the same people who decided that arena pvp (CQC) and celebrity-driven group grind minigame (Powerplay) were critical features to tack on to the game asap, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

 

[anvi]

I would care about that kind of thing if it was single player and I could run the carrier myself like Captain Piccard or whatever. But the multiplayer aspect is a huge turn off. Not that I even own this game because it looks retarded and grindy. I am planning to get X4 though soon.

 

[what am i doing]

Not that I even own this game because it looks retarded and grindy.

It is one of the grindiest games there ever was. There's a core of fun, good-sounding, good-looking space dogfighting under there (which we experienced in the beta) but nowadays it's wrapped up in monumental layers of grind and tedium. Even travelling around the bubble is broken down into tons of unnecessary loading screens as you have to manually jump from system to system. Something like Starsector is a much better option.

 

[J_C]

Who gives a shit

The 1% of the players who:
- still play the game
- have mindlessly grinded >5b credits over the years
- plan on mindlessly grinding some more to pay the weekly upkeep
- want to show off with a mobile base with less functionality and worse prices than the 9843242e14 stations around

But the other 99% can still enjoy those carriers by landing and paying a premium to earn less money than anywhere else by selling their goods with additional tariffs.

The beauty of it is the amount of money Frontier must have spent to get this whole feature developed, and how many paint job microtransactions they'll need to break even, but won't sell because they made sure most players won't get a carrier in the first place. But then, that's the same people who decided that arena pvp (CQC) and celebrity-driven group grind minigame (Powerplay) were critical features to tack on to the game asap, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Frontier's official business reports show that they earn more and more from Elite in each year, so there is a good amount of core players who play the game. And there is also a nice influx of new players.

I'm happy that the carriers cost a lot, because nothing would be worse than every second player having a supercarrier, flooding every system with them. Having a few dozen of these is a much better balance.

 

[Fishy]

I'm happy that the carriers cost a lot, because nothing would be worse than every second player having a supercarrier, flooding every system with them. Having a few dozen of these is a much better balance.

I don't care for balance, I wanted an offline game. *gathers pitchfork and furiously googles up Frontier's address*

And turning "# millions of credits per hour" into an even more important metric is not balance. It's inflation. It just means the next toy will cost 100b and missions/rewards will be adjusted as such. At the end of the day, that's what the game has done since launch, each new expensive toy being paired not long after with new vastly improved money making schemes. I remember the old "Not everyone needs to have an Anaconda". Can you even play in open without coming across dozens of Anacondas/Cutters/Corvettes these days?

Imho, cost is almost irrelevant here. It just follows the shitty inflation this game has seen since launch. I'm just flabbergasted at how long it took Frontier to mention/hype/develop/release such an apparently massive feature which amounts to "added a new space station model". Meanwhile, I'm still waiting to land on more planet types than rocky/icy.