What's the Brand New Feature for ED in 2024?

[Rat Catcher]

Base building would do nothing for me.

Nor me, my FC is my own mobile base...

But I can forsee, should FD introduce base building, the anguish from the proponents here, who appear to have convinced themselves that it couldn't be any other feature, in this feature not being the 'base building' they were discussing - pretty much the same as EDO didn't provide the 'elite feet' that had been dreamed of in the past...

 

[bangermsuk]

Frontier might even consider both FCs and bases giving you, as the owner, some form of acknowledgement when you dock

they not going to tell you that it will go around utube within 5 secs.they are well known to keep stum...on future bits of game coming out. i don't know about the influencer thou or whatever they called these days.but i supposed most have to sign up for a NDA ageement.and carriers aren't really yours to keep.i see them quite regualar now on the system map getting ready to be disenbowled, so will the bases if that are the case be in the same line has carriers. (LEASTED)

 

[amigacooke]

And yet people are so confident it would be great for the game.

My observation is that most people think that what they want would be great for the game, but it doesn't really matter as Frontier is the final arbiter.

 

[yianniv]

Nor me, my FC is my own mobile base...

But I can forsee, should FD introduce base building, the anguish from the proponents here, who appear to have convinced themselves that it couldn't be any other feature, in this feature not being the 'base building' they were discussing - pretty much the same as EDO didn't provide the 'elite feet' that had been dreamed of in the past...

There will definitely be dissatisfaction with every new feature, even from its initial supporters, never mind the opposition. It's human nature. Also, in my opinion, FDev tend to leave a lot of their content, if not incomplete, at least as minimal as possible. Orrery, anyone?

I'd really like the new feature to be Base building, and I'm ready to complain when it surfaces and it's not what I've been expecting

 

[Ultra-Chris]

I really can't see something like Starfield/NMS style base building where you can plonk down buildings willy nilly.
If if it is base building of some form, will we have to pay rent like with fleet carriers?

 

[Fizzatron]

As for the case writ-large, I'm still not telling anyone what they want. I'm simply parroting what they said, and for some reason that's getting people's noses out of joint... and these conversations are, tbh, quite insane.
"I want a Tesla!"
"Why do you want a Tesla?"
"Because I want an electric vehicle!"
"Right, so you want an electric vehicle."
"No, I want a Tesla!"

This is exactly what happened with Odyssey...
"I want space legs!"
"Why do you want space legs?"
"So I can EVA out of the ship and have fun salvage wrecks!"
"Ah, so you want better salvage activities?"
"No I want space legs!"

In both examples, the want can be both and can be linked, flipping the rationale for both examples doesn't refute the initial claim either.

Example 1 can be that they want an Electric Vehicle and they want it to be a Tesla, as opposed to say, Skoda.
Example 2 can be that they want Space Legs with their gameplay example being just one thing they want from them, and want to do other onfoot things too. Can a ship do onfoot things? No, so maybe they won't be satisified with expanded ship salvaging instead of. Though of course may totally be happy with that as well as.

It's like asking for a filet mignon steak, being told "I hear you want a steak" and then being told that really you wanted an eye of round steak instead. Both are technically steak but OP didn't want eye of round, they wanted a steak that is also a filet mignon. "but they asked for a steak". That's called bait and switch.

 

[aRJay]

I really can't see something like Starfield/NMS style base building where you can plonk down buildings willy nilly.
If if it is base building of some form, will we have to pay rent like with fleet carriers?

As they are apart from mobility almost identical I would say yes though you probably wouldn’t need to buy/mine/steal Tritium for one.

 

[Ultra-Chris]

As they are apart from mobility almost identical I would say yes though you probably wouldn’t need to buy/mine/steal Tritium for one.

Without Starfield fast travel or NMS teleporters I don't see the point in locking yourself to one barren rock.

 

[Dr Pillman]

Fdev will add a brand-new feature to the core gameplay of ED. The tentative release date is end of 2024.

What could it be? Such as:

1. Ship interiors
2. Base building, mining resources
3. Station management
4. New planet types and biomes
5. EVA outside a ship in space
6. Deep NPC interaction with AI voices
7. On foot VR mode
8. Procedural cities on planets
9. Guild system for player groups
10. Hunt procedural alien wildlife
11. Something else

My guess would be a reworked PP that is greatly simplified and possibly watered down. Or another set of living aliens. I have a hunch. Or alien animals.

 

[metatheurgist]

My guess would be a reworked PP that is greatly simplified and possibly watered down. Or another set of living aliens. I have a hunch. Or alien animals.

Uhhh, PP is the scheduled gameplay rework. New feature is unknown. But I like the confidence with which you made your assertion. Feels familiar.

 

[Duel]

My guess is it'll be the ability to change the color of your HUD in the options menu. 11 months isn't nearly enough time for FDEV to add a bigger feature than that.

 

[Jmanis]

In both examples, the want can be both and can be linked, flipping the rationale for both examples doesn't refute the initial claim either.

Example 1 can be that they want an Electric Vehicle and they want it to be a Tesla, as opposed to say, Skoda.
Example 2 can be that they want Space Legs with their gameplay example being just one thing they want from them, and want to do other onfoot things too. Can a ship do onfoot things? No, so maybe they won't be satisified with expanded ship salvaging instead of. Though of course may totally be happy with that as well as.

It's like asking for a filet mignon steak, being told "I hear you want a steak" and then being told that really you wanted an eye of round steak instead. Both are technically steak but OP didn't want eye of round, they wanted a steak that is also a filet mignon. "but they asked for a steak". That's called bait and switch.

That's fair... I feel like my analogy was back to front when you put it like that. Without wanting to re-elaborate too much, to redo and extend my analogy, it would actually be:
"I want protein (base building)!"
"Why do you want protein?"
"Because I love the taste of steak (some feature that doesn't exist)!"
"Oh, so you want steak?"
"No, I want Protein!"
gives steak
"This isn't Filet Mignon with a side of mash and veg!" (the gross details missed in the ask)

People don't want base building. They ask for particular features implemented through a base building construct (the steak). The reality is those features transcend a massive amount of other implied tasks (the necessary cut and style for a filet mingon and the sides to go with it) that amount to boiling the ocean (in the context of something like Elite, which a steak-based analogy has trouble capturing).

Because there's a big difference between this, and this.

 

[Shurimal]

Without Starfield fast travel or NMS teleporters I don't see the point in locking yourself to one barren rock.

Carrier is the mobile FOB and force projection vehicle. Today it's here, tomorrow it may be 3000 lightyears away. A static base would complement it as an "always there" point of operations, especially when it comes to trade (with NPC-s and players alike) and creating income from trade. For example, offloading all my surplus Odyssey materials there and selling them while my carrier is with me outside of the bubble doing exobiology. Or a vinyard in Rackham's Peak, that could be very profitable

11 months isn't nearly enough time

I'd wager that whatever it is it's been in the works for more than a year by now. There have been hints that Fdev didn't start developing it just before the livestream. Possibly it's been planned for a long time as a logical sequel to the Thargoid war.

 

[Markov Chaney]

True - maybe meeting minutes, employee expenses, accident logs, job applications, payroll information, tax records and visitor registers will get some use in the new "ED: Accountants" expansion, where Frontier are excited to bring the thrills of VAT returns, employment tribunals and safety inspections to a mainstream computer game for the first time.

I bet you could make Dwarf Fortress evolve in that direction if you tried hard enough...

 

[Markov Chaney]

What ever we get: Do not wander into the deep jungly caverns alone.

That would not be the first time this game took me to Witt's End ...

 

[jacozilla]

Optimistically it will be something supporting the original core of the game - ships and space piloting (with ship interiors completely irrelevant to my preferences).

Pessimistically, it will be some new form of game currency - ARX Super or whatever, and will just uninstall ED again.

 

[Markov Chaney]

It is becoming clear to me that the fraction of the player base that reads and posts to the forums that says it is interested in base building is actually much more interested in base management, perhaps they should change their requests to reflect that.

Why do I say that? Because there has been lots of waffle about what the base will do and nothing on how to build it.

Well, now you got me interested in driving a fork-lift in 0.05g, yes please!

(There's precedent, that was one of my favourite missions in GTA:SA)

To get back on-topic:
- everyone on the forum now thinks it's base-building because everyone on the forum now thinks it's base-building. I'm not sure I've seen much reasoning about why it might be that, just it seems like a popular idea with us lot.

• Braben is on record with "no base-building" and that's coming up in these threads basically never, so we maybe need to mention that a bit more often...
• I can't see how FDev building a complete new game with complete new paradigm within the game makes any sense for FDev. It's much more likely they'll expand, extend, or redo something that's there already.
• I suppose the only thing that mitigates that is FDev's CMS capability which does suggest "CMS in spaaaaaaaace" might be easy if they had some sort of space game already oh look they do.

And finally me personally - if we are going to get "building things" then I'd rather it was orbitals thanks, 6DOF is unique and fun and there's WAY less competition for this in the games market already.

 

[aRJay]

Carrier is the mobile FOB and force projection vehicle. Today it's here, tomorrow it may be 3000 lightyears away. A static base would complement it as an "always there" point of operations, especially when it comes to trade (with NPC-s and players alike) and creating income from trade. For example, offloading all my surplus Odyssey materials there and selling them while my carrier is with me outside of the bubble doing exobiology. Or a vinyard in Rackham's Peak, that could be very profitable

I'd wager that whatever it is it's been in the works for more than a year by now. There have been hints that Fdev didn't start developing it just before the livestream. Possibly it's been planned for a long time as a logical sequel to the Thargoid war.

I was sort of hoping it would be a you can only have one at a time deal where you had to decommission your carrier to build a base or demolish your base to build another.

Well, now you got me interested in driving a fork-lift in 0.05g, yes please!

(There's precedent, that was one of my favourite missions in GTA:SA)

To get back on-topic:
- everyone on the forum now thinks it's base-building because everyone on the forum now thinks it's base-building. I'm not sure I've seen much reasoning about why it might be that, just it seems like a popular idea with us lot.

I think someone hacked into the code at some time and found the letters, or their binary equivalent, ABBDEGIILSU and then reformatted them.
Something found somewhere we might not be supposed to be anyway.

• Braben is on record with "no base-building" and that's coming up in these threads basically never, so we maybe need to mention that a bit more often...
• I can't see how FDev building a complete new game with complete new paradigm within the game makes any sense for FDev. It's much more likely they'll expand, extend, or redo something that's there already.
• I suppose the only thing that mitigates that is FDev's CMS capability which does suggest "CMS in spaaaaaaaace" might be easy if they had some sort of space game already oh look they do.

And finally me personally - if we are going to get "building things" then I'd rather it was orbitals thanks, 6DOF is unique and fun and there's WAY less competition for this in the games market already.

 

[andrewg_oz]

everyone on the forum now thinks it's base-building because everyone on the forum now thinks it's base-building. I'm not sure I've seen much reasoning about why it might be that, just it seems like a popular idea with us lot

It's not random:

• 
  
• There was a brief moment when the ARX store was published with meta-data referring to base building
• There was that development leak a few years back that mentioned base building
• There are "building schematics" in the game now, alongside the "suit schematics" and "weapon schematics" that we currently use to build things (and "ship schematics" and "vehicle schematics" that have no purpose for now)

 

[metatheurgist]

That last point is no evidence at all. Unless we also want to speculate the new feature is Bartenders making cocktails. But then that's about the strength of all the "evidence".