How long ago was that? If it's over ten years, it don't mean a thing (apparently)
Last edited:
What's the Brand New Feature for ED in 2024?
- Thread starter Cosmo
- Start date
You seriously want me to untangle all of that?
The fundamental flaw of your position is to treat other people's wants as fungible if there is something that can achieve something similar. They are not.
I wanted onfoot gameplay, did I get everything I wanted from it via Odyssey? No, but that's because I can think of a zillion things that can come with it. Did I want what Frontier provide? For the most part yes, and I look forward to it being expanded to include some other linked gameplay that can use onfoot mechanics that require an overhaul of other aspects of the game to accommodate. Stuff like ship interiors, real cities on ELWs... and base-building.
Big enough that some would prefer x vs y given the choice?
Look, it's clear that your position on the matter of base-building is in opposition to it. That's fine, but I'm not sure what you seek to achieve by telling people that somehow they don't want base-building when they clearly do and can elucidate on why they do.
I know the general talk here is "what is the new feature going to be", which opens up a certain degree of potentials, depending on whether Frontier are talking about an update for Odyssey or a brand new paid for expansion - of which either are welcome to me, and maybe I actually might prefer it being a paid expansion actually, but I digress..
The bottom line is that it's the same as I've said before; Frontier can't develop all the features at once and some are hierarchical from a technical or developmental standpoint, which means that sometimes x has to come before y. I'm not saying base-building is one such feature, but then I'm not privy to the order of development, maybe there are aspects of base-building that can be built upon to implement ship interiors down the line. Who knows? The overall feeling that it will be base-building obviously comes from the leak that said that it was coming, whether that pans out or not, we will see.
What is clear now, and has always been, is that there is always going to be some group, large or small, who want y vs x. This is unavoidable due to the above fact that Frontier do not have unlimited resources to develop everything at once and the scope of the game means that there are a lot of great ideas that would work well in Elite. What is avoidable though is the outcry from x segment of players who didn't get y feature implemented. And if it was converse; y segment of players shouting about why x feature wasn't implemented. My question is what the point of all of that is, and to whom's benefit is it? Surely not anyone who wants to see Elite Dangerous progress or claims to be a supporter.
As an example; If you asked me if Power Play was the number one feature I wanted overhauled I would say no, but it is completely fine with me that it is as it is number one for another group of players and I'm glad the game is moving forward for them, and I'll be sure it check it out too. What I'm not going to do is tell Power Play players that some how an overhaul of Power Play isn't what they really want.
I think base-building could be really cool, I can see in many ways how it would benefit the game, I can also see potential problems and share some concerns in relation to implementation. But none of us know if it is going to be base-building, and if it's salvaging via ships, or whatever it is you'd rather it be, I'm sure I will be just fine with that too, with same caveats and concerns about implementation etc.
If it turns out to be base-building, I'd say give it a chance, even if it's bottom on your preference list.
Last edited:
Not at all, one can be for the concept and still have an opinion on the implementation. Could base-building be implemented so badly that I would prefer it not to be there at all? It's possible. However, your position is to seemingly just to pooh pooh just the idea of it.
If it is base-building, then the fact that it was only the roadmap leak from four years ago would be evidence that Frontier have spent more than just the time between the announcement from the last stream to it being released sometime later this year to do it, as it seems to be your presumption. It is entirely plausible that the scope of the Odyssey expansion and narrative was determined to include base-building at some point during it, which would firmly put base-building in the development cycle of Odyssey and if it were timed to be released at this point during the narrative, also in the time after Odyssey's release. That's plenty of plausible time to implement something like that IMO.
See my answer above.
That's pretty vague, but I would like to see what you consider is the necessary baseline work required to warrant a system like base-building to be added.
Maybe we are misunderstanding and the base-building referenced in the leak actually referred to bases in space? Or maybe both?
cough Panther Clipper coughHow long ago was that? If it's over ten years, it don't mean a thing (apparently)
We have misinterpreted everything!
They will introduce two new planets, in the Bubble, where players will have free rein with their creativity, using a technology that FD are very competent with.
The planets will be called Zoo and Coaster!
The way I see it, the baseline has been established:
1. Creative management games like Planet Zoo and Planet Coaster (which basically are base building at their core) are the current forte of Fdev. The know-how is there and the Cobra engine can do it.
2. Existing Odyssey settlement assets are all modular pieces that can be arranged in a variety of ways resulting in many possible layouts. Odyssey as-is explores just some of these layouts. The "gauntlet" style agri settlement is probably the craziest we have now and showcases Dwarf Fortress-like elaborate maze that's, I dare say, very frustrating for would-be infiltrators
I'm sure players would get creative and we'll have things like maze solving/infiltration competitions, race tracks, PvP shootout arenas etc.3. The procedurally generated nature of placing Odyssey settlements demonstrates that a large surface base can be placed arbitrarily according to whatever the procedural algorithm allows and does not need developer curation to make it work with planet generation. I've seen few, rather inconsequential, glitches with Odyssey settlements.
4. Fleet carriers establish that player-owned persistent assets in E: D are possible and even the problem of non-PEGI 7 compatible naming of the carriers is not prevalent and can be tackled.
5. Fleet carriers have established the baseline and testbed for player-to-player interaction, cooperation and trade. There have been community meetings aboard carriers; carriers act as temporary homes for other players during expeditions; they facilitate tritium, platinum, meta-alloy, Odyssey engineering materials etc trade; they act as support infrastructure for current Thargoid war. It's all working very well (some hiccups excepted), and stationary bases have the potential to expand on these interactions.
6. Base building or owning a stationary asset is not new in space games. NMS, the X series and even Independence War 2 all have proven that player-owned stationary facilities can be a useful and natural part of an otherwise mobility and travel focused game. And it's not limited to space games, either--eg player homes have been a traditional part of most RPG-s, games that focus mostly on wandering and adventuring in the game world.
Except that's not what's happening. Rather, I'm explaining in concrete and (comparatively) detailed termsterms why base building would be a bad idea, and people are disagreeing but only bringing simple platitudes to the table. When asked to provide more detail, "Oh, I can't do that"... well I guess the counter to my position has no basis and can be ignored then.
That 8 minute video (which precipitated this particular arc) says substantially less than what I've written here. It basically just says things like "a player run economy will be good for the game!" without actually explaining why, other than generic statements. For example, a common theme is "Let players trade materials for credits with each other" as an example of a player-run economy. I can tell you now, the rough outcome of that will be G5's being sold between players for between 200k (the minimum price the game currently baselines for them) and 1.2m (six times the cheapest, which is the cost of a cross-trade). Platitudes simply don't cut it when you talk about things like this... in this instance, you can scream "player run market" all you like, but it's entirely railroaded by the game into predictable patterns. Nothing player-driven about it.
Of course, then someone might say "But, location location! Go somewhere where materials are scarce and set up shop!"... which is a niche use of an already niche situation. That's not bang for buck.
Without consideration for resource limitations, I think base building could exist, successfully. I think the game wholistically would have to look incredibly different though... and multiple player-jaws put out of place in the process as the harsh realities of how irrational many parts of the game are.
I put no stock in leaks, no matter how realistic they may be. I've lost track of the amount of things that haven't seen the light of day (e.g the original conception of Thargoid capital ships which, as far as I could tell, would've functioned very similar in mechanics to human capitals... Orthrus actually being Orthrus... "The mysterious eye" and other associated mission mechanics.... just to name a very small few)
I remember a news article where someone leaked a draft document (unrelated to Elite) which had a controversial statement in it which had people up in arms. The response was "Yeah guess what... that was a draft.", and then showed the rest of the document acknowledging "This is controversial, and unlikely to be actionable". I've also seen people burn their careers based on leaks.
Unless it's actually a thing we can do in the game, or announced by FD, it's not a thing.
Sure. I want to be detailed though, so give me some time to do that. As a preview though.
If we got Base Building today... it'd basically be static FCs. Several people have already decried that idea, so that's dead in the water.
Given the nature of a base building system, you could get customisable personal spaces. That could look like:
- Cabin on your ship (expect a fade-to-black transition)
- A cabin on your FC
- A cabin in a station (something something hardlight telepresence which is why it looks the same everywhere)
But other common themes:
- Surface mining: Using what? Surface mining as a concept doesn't exist in the game, and is an enitre feature in it's own right
- Industrial complexes: Using what? Industrial manufacturing processes don't exist in the game, and is an enitre feature in it's own right
- <Research? Exploration? Some other non-existent feature>: As above. You don't just drop base building and get these things for free.
- Base raids: If you like things instanced, sure. Don't expect more than current-gen scenarios though.
- Player raids/infiltration: lol. Never happening, thanks to instancing.
Then there's a huge array of implementation problems which extend from that, which is when noses get out of joint and entire game systems need to change.
Last edited:
I agree, I don't see the point in staying on a planet as your home when you have an immense universe to discover. That's why I am a supporter of ship interiors, I think that your ship should be your home, and you take it with you wherever you go.
Surface mining along with a new spacesuit and suite of tools, with a new SRV including built in refinery.
I have to admit that you are very right about everything.You seriously want me to untangle all of that?
The fundamental flaw of your position is to treat other people's wants as fungible if there is something that can achieve something similar. They are not.
I wanted onfoot gameplay, did I get everything I wanted from it via Odyssey? No, but that's because I can think of a zillion things that can come with it. Did I want what Frontier provide? For the most part yes, and I look forward to it being expanded to include some other linked gameplay that can use onfoot mechanics that require an overhaul of other aspects of the game to accommodate. Stuff like ship interiors, real cities on ELWs... and base-building.
Big enough that some would prefer x vs y given the choice?
Look, it's clear that your position on the matter of base-building is in opposition to it. That's fine, but I'm not sure what you seek to achieve by telling people that somehow they don't want base-building when they clearly do and can elucidate on why they do.
I know the general talk here is "what is the new feature going to be", which opens up a certain degree of potentials, depending on whether Frontier are talking about an update for Odyssey or a brand new paid for expansion - of which either are welcome to me, and maybe I actually might prefer it being a paid expansion actually, but I digress..
The bottom line is that it's the same as I've said before; Frontier can't develop all the features at once and some are hierarchical from a technical or developmental standpoint, which means that sometimes x has to come before y. I'm not saying base-building is one such feature, but then I'm not privy to the order of development, maybe there are aspects of base-building that can be built upon to implement ship interiors down the line. Who knows? The overall feeling that it will be base-building obviously comes from the leak that said that it was coming, whether that pans out or not, we will see.
What is clear now, and has always been, is that there is always going to be some group, large or small, who want y vs x. This is unavoidable due to the above fact that Frontier do not have unlimited resources to develop everything at once and the scope of the game means that there are a lot of great ideas that would work well in Elite. What is avoidable though is the outcry from x segment of players who didn't get y feature implemented. And if it was converse; y segment of players shouting about why x feature wasn't implemented. My question is what the point of all of that is, and to whom's benefit is it? Surely not anyone who wants to see Elite Dangerous progress or claims to be a supporter.
As an example; If you asked me if Power Play was the number one feature I wanted overhauled I would say no, but it is completely fine with me that it is as it is number one for another group of players and I'm glad the game is moving forward for them, and I'll be sure it check it out too. What I'm not going to do is tell Power Play players that some how an overhaul of Power Play isn't what they really want.
I think base-building could be really cool, I can see in many ways how it would benefit the game, I can also see potential problems and share some concerns in relation to implementation. But none of us know if it is going to be base-building, and if it's salvaging via ships, or whatever it is you'd rather it be, I'm sure I will be just fine with that too, with same caveats and concerns about implementation etc.
If it turns out to be base-building, I'd say give it a chance, even if it's bottom on your preference list.
Sorry, missed this one before.
Realistically, it's the old Henry Ford saying of "If I'd have asked what people wanted, they'd have asked for faster horses".
People want base building for surface mining. What surface mining? It doesn't exist in the game yet.
People want base building for industry/manufacturing. What industry/manufacturing? It doesn't exist in the game yet.
People want base building for <insert new thematic feature here>. More than likely, that doesn't exist in the game yet.
FD can't boil the ocean when doing base building, as you're suggesting. The most tangible outcome if they were to do it now would be static FCs, because that's what currently exists. You could get "personal spaces" piggybacking as I mentioned, because that's functionally similar enough... (have blueprints, place in some sort of arrangement). But as many have already said... they wouldn't be happy if that's all base building was. You might be happy, but fair to say many wouldn't.
But the pathway to Base Building necessitates these things people want existing first. To pick out something like Industry/Manufacturing, you can't even think about that without completely redoing the economy. Happy to elaborate more on that if needed, but if you take my word on that, suddenly, it's not "just base building", it's "Base Building, and an industry/manufacturing subsystem, and a whole-of-game economic rework". And that starts to look like boiling the ocean very quick when you consider what a whole-of-game economic rework (which touches literally everything in the game). If you don't do the economic rework, and just introduce new commodities and items that are balanced... congratulations, you just made shadow-mechanics that operate in total isolation.
So, doing base building now without some of those baseline features which bring about the functions people actually want, is a fools errand. A pathway to base building would therefore look something like this:
Regardless, te above pattern is exactly how both FCs and Odyssey came about. FC's implement existing features coupled to a currency sink, to provide mobile player accessibility to those features, which is the edge it provides. Meanwhile, Odyssey benefited from an extant mission board, mission USS and POI system. It just needed new bits created to implement the same things, but for on foot. That alone was a major DLC, not just a point update... and it's about as disconnected as you can get, because the necessary actions such as a whole-of-game economic rework simply weren't done.
I know right. What people are asking for is insane.You seriously want me to untangle all of that?
Err... that's entirely what a business analyst's role is (particularly in software). Officially, taking business/customer requirements, and turning them into achievable technical outcomes.
Realistically, it's the old Henry Ford saying of "If I'd have asked what people wanted, they'd have asked for faster horses".
I don't fundamentally disagree with any of that. FD do have limited resources, correct. Which is why now is not the time to be talking base building. To go back to your comment about baseline effort:
People want base building for surface mining. What surface mining? It doesn't exist in the game yet.
People want base building for industry/manufacturing. What industry/manufacturing? It doesn't exist in the game yet.
People want base building for <insert new thematic feature here>. More than likely, that doesn't exist in the game yet.
FD can't boil the ocean when doing base building, as you're suggesting. The most tangible outcome if they were to do it now would be static FCs, because that's what currently exists. You could get "personal spaces" piggybacking as I mentioned, because that's functionally similar enough... (have blueprints, place in some sort of arrangement). But as many have already said... they wouldn't be happy if that's all base building was. You might be happy, but fair to say many wouldn't.
But the pathway to Base Building necessitates these things people want existing first. To pick out something like Industry/Manufacturing, you can't even think about that without completely redoing the economy. Happy to elaborate more on that if needed, but if you take my word on that, suddenly, it's not "just base building", it's "Base Building, and an industry/manufacturing subsystem, and a whole-of-game economic rework". And that starts to look like boiling the ocean very quick when you consider what a whole-of-game economic rework (which touches literally everything in the game). If you don't do the economic rework, and just introduce new commodities and items that are balanced... congratulations, you just made shadow-mechanics that operate in total isolation.
So, doing base building now without some of those baseline features which bring about the functions people actually want, is a fools errand. A pathway to base building would therefore look something like this:
- Introduce features and economic rework to support non-base surface mining.
- Introduce features and economic rework to support non-base industry/manufacturing (probably looks like renting facilities in starports).
- N-number of other features people are asking for; and then
- Base building, which introduces the base building framework and facilities which are functionally comparable to the extant methods, but offer certain advantages.
Regardless, te above pattern is exactly how both FCs and Odyssey came about. FC's implement existing features coupled to a currency sink, to provide mobile player accessibility to those features, which is the edge it provides. Meanwhile, Odyssey benefited from an extant mission board, mission USS and POI system. It just needed new bits created to implement the same things, but for on foot. That alone was a major DLC, not just a point update... and it's about as disconnected as you can get, because the necessary actions such as a whole-of-game economic rework simply weren't done.
Last edited:
NFTs of all the ships?
That's as likely as all the other suggestions. 
![[VR] wi03016](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/172/172660.jpg?1591551126){kind=avatar}
planetary base building is a point which could catch my interest. I like to see MB4 mining camps.
Why doesn't it exist yet? I think it's because mobile surface mining is not simply practical compared to asteroid mining. Collector limpets couldn't (until very recently) pick up materials from the surface. Mining with SRV that can carry just a few tons of cargo? How efficient would it be compared to laser mining an asteroid or how engaging would it be compared to popping a core? IMO it could only be viable with rare, really expensive minerals (something like 2+ million cr per ton galactic average) and even then I'm not sure it would be more engaging gameplay than current surface prospecting hunting metallic meteorites and bronzite chondrites.
For surface mining to be worth I think it would be best done with placing stationary mining lasers at a resource spot, connecting them to a refinery, adding storage facilities for the end product and a landing pad so you can fill up your ship with the product for export once you have enough in the storage.
It doesn't exist because you can't mass manufacture stuffz without first having production facilities. Sure, you could rent a station's plant to produce stuffz for you, but simply buying the end product from the factory and exporting it (maybe slapping your own brand name on it, too) is probably easier and just as profitable—the Shenzhen model, if you will. If you want to set up 24/7 vertically integrated production Intel or Samsung style, owning your own factories is probably most reliable and profitable in the long term. Upfront costs are high, but my experience in X3 has been that it's totally worth it.
Nothing says that a new thematic feature has to become available before base building, not with it. For all we know we might get customizable carrier's ready room and captains quarter or whatever along with base building. I suspect that at this point Fdev has been busy with this upcoming new thing, whatever it is, for more than a year already and has had plenty of time to plan and start implementing other things that tie into and release with the new feature.
Its not going to be base building or anything close, there are far too many QOL things folks would want before them investing time in that.
Reverse engineering suits, eva, interiors bla bla.
I wouldn't hold your breath.
O7
We do not know yet for sure what it will be, but according to various data points that we do have, there's a non-zero chance that it is base building. There's also non-zero chance that it's ship interiors, EVA and shipbreaking—we do not know for sure. But we can make educated quesses and speculation is fun
I'd be happy in either case. Although I don't think removing mods from suits/guns is a grand new feature, or even that much of a QoL improvement—suit/gun mods don't matter that much; I don't sweat it that maybe I could use more ammo instead of damage resistance on my CZ Dominator suit. It gets the job done either way.
Cool, thanks!
The metadata could well have been support for PMF, until ED changed their minds about that (or had their minds changed for them by the pesky Ps once they got hold of that feature). Having pay-for faction banners on faction bases would show up like that in the metadata.
The schematics are necessary to on-foot mission design anyway I suspect?
Since I just wrote a skeptical post I'll balance it out a bit - I do like this point a few people have raised: that base-building is basically CMS, and that is absolutely core competency and territory for 2024 FDev's stated business plan. It is a bit odd that settlements got good in Odyssey and they took the time to fix the FPS issues from making them so good, and then... nothing.