News Elite: Dangerous Powerplay 1.3 Beta Incoming (changelog)
- Thread starter Edward Lewis
- Start date
- Status
Oh my...
If I would read that all, I would not have any time for beta testing...
If I do something stupid announced here we should not do, and if for that you should ban me from more testing, at least please send me a PM informing about my misbehaviour, so I know, please.
Thank You.
If I would read that all, I would not have any time for beta testing...
If I do something stupid announced here we should not do, and if for that you should ban me from more testing, at least please send me a PM informing about my misbehaviour, so I know, please.
Thank You.
That's a fair point, but I think if we entirely take modules out of the equation for a moment, then two Fire buttons would be quite sufficient to take care of your weapons.. Using another fire group if you want to swap from say, "Fire 1 = lasers, Fire 2 = cannons" to "Fire 1 = lasers + cannons, Fire 2 = missiles/mines". That's where a third fire button would allow you to do this and have a KWS or something attached too.
I think this should somewhat balance the change between larger and smaller ships, in that the larger guys wouldn't be able to simply let rip and bear down on anything that comes within range of, say, a constant stream of heat-seeking missiles (get 6 on a 'Conda, pair them into 3 groups, then push one button after the other - you'd be able to constantly fire missiles with no cooldown time whatsoever, whereas with only 2 fire groups you're still forced to wait a second or 2 before firing again, quite rightly so with missiles!)
Of course, balance is something that has to be nit-picked and ground down, finely combed through to make it just right. And it's the difference between your opinion and mine, and especially us talking about it, that helps to shape exactly where that balance lies
Hmm..... let's see.. I've never actually used missiles, and generally don't use fire groups either, so I'm not sure if this would work but.. for example:
install 6 launchers. Designate them L1, L2, L3, L4, L5, L6. Make three firegroups. On group 1, Set L1 and L2 to trigger 2. On group 2 set L1, L2, L3, L4 to trigger 2. On group 3 set all launchers to trigger 2.
Start combat. Shift from group 1 to group 2 and then group 3, with a kind of interval that walks through the groups in a time equal to load cycle of missiles. Keep firing missiles as fast as possible. This should delay the launch of L3 and L4, and delay L5 and L6 even more as the launchers deploy out (assuming it doesn't undeploy and redeploy launchers that are both in current group and the next one you shift to).
Alternately you could create a bit more complicated setup with 6 separate firegroups, staggering the launchers so that when you shift through the firegroups, each launcher is present in 2, 3, 4 or 5 consecutive firegroups - however many it takes to set their rhythm so that as you roll through the groups each launcher will be deployed long enough to fire their missile, then temporarily undeploy for a while.. to create a sort of 'gatling gun' effect with the launchers. You don't even have to let them fully undeploy.. it's enough to have them 'dormant' long enough to stagger the launches.
Personally I think it would be fair tactic - not just with missiles but with say, burst lasers, cannons, or whatever slow firing weapons. Would be fine to allow it as a supported firing scheme - similar to old mechwarrior games where you could set weapons in firegroup to fire either simultaneously or consecutive - depending on your play style (are you trying to sort of snipe with alpha strikes, or trying to maintain a constant barrage and hope at least some of the shots hit).
Last edited:
I think you didn't catch it: in my post I just wanted to be a little sarcastic about the IMHO unuseful idea to charge a fee for removing items instead of charging it to install them whatever amount or %age it could ever be because adding or removing doesn't change the matter.
Besides, if you are not understandably patient enough to look for and read the whole of my posts both in this thread and in the other one specially dedicated to the subject, I want to assure you that I am absolutly and irrevocably against the foolish purpose of charging even 1Cr to change modules for all the reasons a human brain can create in order to make people understand how silly this idea is.
Last edited:
The same can be said about, say, fixing the shield recharge problem in supercruise. Nobody is gong to go "Wow, my shields won't instantly recharge when I go to supercruise? Sign me up!" Why would they even care?
But at least one player is going to go "What? I kicked all kinds of butt using that feature. They're killing my game and the way I play it. I quit!"
Ergo, they shouldn't include that fix?
The right thing to do is not always the popular thing.
I don't think the two features are comparable in terms of loss of playability and amusement the game could suffer: persistent shields in supercruise are logic and the fact they were not until now is clearly a mistake, charging 10% to outfitting just because the fee is already charged on ships is all but logic and as useful as a kick in the b.lls.
Last edited:
Just pointing out that guy was using a zero-sum logic to make his point - his point was if even ONE player is lost more than is gained, it should not be done. And that's just silly absolutism.
I think that from a marketing point of view the guy's logic is even too optimistic! Follow me: the update was created to make the game more enjoyable not mainly for the people who are already playing because they've already bought the game and FD won't earn even a cent from them but for potential new buyers. This update took several hours of work from DEVs who want to to be payed for that so FD not just need not to lose players but needs to gain a certain amount just to reach the break even point (i.e. the moment they stop losing money and start earning it from this update) ERGO not only is bad for them if they do not lose any but it would be a complete disaster if they even started to lose just one.
Last edited:
Well, to nitpick a bit - from the same perspective, it's of secondary importance if 50% of people playing the game left - if they gained say, another 20% of new players. Of course it would not suggest very high longevity for the game, and I do think FD has interest in the longevity of the game too. At least so I would hope. In long term, since there's no subscription, they likely need to start focusing more in the cash shop. Will be interesting to see how that'll shape up. Will it lean towards cosmetics that are related to eventual station side / planetary landing / multi-pilot ships etc, possible land vehicles, potentially even some form of exo suits (e.g. 'mechs'). Time will tell.. but this is sorta going on a tangent.
Please stop acting like spoilt brats.
if you want fdev to change stuff. Stop ing and moaning and provide an impartial, non-emotional, constructive feedback.
Provide an alternative that you would prefer or support an existing idea.
Stop being so freaking immature.
Example of a useless post.
This change will ruin the game because I can't change my outfit everyday.
I really, really hope that next April fools the devs post up that they are removing insurance. Sit back and watch the forums burn for a few hours.
Edit: the above is not directed at the people who actually are posting helpful solutions.
/Rant
One useful effect this might have is make the smaller ships be more useful to the multi-millionaires.
The cost is not going to be so bad for the smaller ships. And if you have enough money to spend on the modules that are 1mil+, you have enough to pay for the 10%.
currently I can meet a player who has his ship equipped for trade,10 minutes later I can meet the same ship, now filled to the brim with scb's and in full offensive kit. Doesn't seem right. Sorry but this game isn't about being able to do everything at once. You have to compromise, and live with your choices.
I really hope they can bring some defensive weaponry in to alleviate the imbalance in power between large and small ships, trade ships and military ships. Mines are pathetic, anyone used them since their thermic damage upgrade?
I guess pulling the rich out of their bigger ships into the small ones is one way of doing that....
if you want fdev to change stuff. Stop ing and moaning and provide an impartial, non-emotional, constructive feedback.
Provide an alternative that you would prefer or support an existing idea.
Stop being so freaking immature.
Example of a useless post.
This change will ruin the game because I can't change my outfit everyday.
I really, really hope that next April fools the devs post up that they are removing insurance. Sit back and watch the forums burn for a few hours.
Edit: the above is not directed at the people who actually are posting helpful solutions.
/Rant
One useful effect this might have is make the smaller ships be more useful to the multi-millionaires.
The cost is not going to be so bad for the smaller ships. And if you have enough money to spend on the modules that are 1mil+, you have enough to pay for the 10%.
currently I can meet a player who has his ship equipped for trade,10 minutes later I can meet the same ship, now filled to the brim with scb's and in full offensive kit. Doesn't seem right. Sorry but this game isn't about being able to do everything at once. You have to compromise, and live with your choices.
I really hope they can bring some defensive weaponry in to alleviate the imbalance in power between large and small ships, trade ships and military ships. Mines are pathetic, anyone used them since their thermic damage upgrade?
I guess pulling the rich out of their bigger ships into the small ones is one way of doing that....
Last edited:
That's a fair point, but I think if we entirely take modules out of the equation for a moment, then two Fire buttons would be quite sufficient to take care of your weapons.. Using another fire group if you want to swap from say, "Fire 1 = lasers, Fire 2 = cannons" to "Fire 1 = lasers + cannons, Fire 2 = missiles/mines". That's where a third fire button would allow you to do this and have a KWS or something attached too.
I think this should somewhat balance the change between larger and smaller ships, in that the larger guys wouldn't be able to simply let rip and bear down on anything that comes within range of, say, a constant stream of heat-seeking missiles (get 6 on a 'Conda, pair them into 3 groups, then push one button after the other - you'd be able to constantly fire missiles with no cooldown time whatsoever, whereas with only 2 fire groups you're still forced to wait a second or 2 before firing again, quite rightly so with missiles!)
Of course, balance is something that has to be nit-picked and ground down, finely combed through to make it just right. And it's the difference between your opinion and mine, and especially us talking about it, that helps to shape exactly where that balance lies
I personally would like to have a passive modulees/drone menu popup rather than assigning a fire group to everything. then some very quick stick controls to do this, do that and exit immediately by pressing fire 1 and lauch the drone turn on KWS or ADS with fire 2 when in that menu.
Couldn't have said it better. Changing the modules with 0% loss was very handy to try out new fittings while being poor like space rat.
This message addresses only the "10% reduction in resale proceeds for used modules". An earlier response asked the question "From a game design perspective, what is the driver for this change?" I think that's a great question. FDev has been really clear before: It's their game, and they're going to make it into what they want it to be. So... leaving aside "verisimilitude", what's the purpose for the change?
.
My answer: "Greatly reduce the impact of MinMax on gameplay." Minmaxing per-mission is a very common gameplay style for quite a few players. For any given mission (the next 15 minutes or the next 4 hours), they want to select the best ship-frame, load it with the best possible combination of modules for that mission, kick the mission's a%$e, pick another mission, lather-rinse-repeat. For a subset of missions (based on type or spatial location), the best shipframe is a specialist (e.g. Vulture, Type 9) and little or no module variance is required to be "optimal". For the majority of missions, the best shipframe is one of the "multirole" birds, and the optimal build varies wildly from mission to mission.
.
Near as I can tell, FDev's goal is to raise the price of minmax re-spec high enough that it strongly encourages "compromise" play. It will be sufficiently expensive to re-spec a multirole ship to a "no compromises" build for a specific mission that players will instead choose a compromise build for their multirole ship and learn to make it work. If that is indeed their goal, then they will never introduce "module storage" into the game, unless swapping modules from storage into and out of ships has a similar cost as sell/buy; that would defeat their goal of making per-mission minmax non-viable.
.
There are some negative side-effects of the mechanism they've chose to achieve their goal, but they can be solved.
Adding these two additional mechanisms cancels the undesired effects of the 10% mechanism, leaving only the effect the game designers appear to want, i.e. eliminate minmax in favor of compromise. The trade-up discount is easy. The simulator might be difficult to tie directly into the outfitting screen; it might be easier to achieve the same result by updating the actual combat simulator (reachable from the main game loader) to have an outfitting screen.
.
To those who say "But I want to play the game MY WAY, and my way means min/max", I say "too darn bad. FDev has been clear; it's their game." I hate PvP with a burning passion, but I have no choice; FDev has made it clear that non-consensual PvP is part of their game. Sure, I can play in solo, if I don't mind eliminating a large number of other game possibilities. Just as surely, dedicated minmaxers can grind out the credits to have multiple Anacondas fitted out for specific roles, or they can forbear from selecting missions for which they don't have optimal ships.
.
I can sling a spreadsheet as well as the next person. I know how to minmax, and I've done it in other games. I actually think FDev has the right idea here, rewarding gameplay that embraces compromise and discouraging gameplay that focuses on extreme specialization.
.
My answer: "Greatly reduce the impact of MinMax on gameplay." Minmaxing per-mission is a very common gameplay style for quite a few players. For any given mission (the next 15 minutes or the next 4 hours), they want to select the best ship-frame, load it with the best possible combination of modules for that mission, kick the mission's a%$e, pick another mission, lather-rinse-repeat. For a subset of missions (based on type or spatial location), the best shipframe is a specialist (e.g. Vulture, Type 9) and little or no module variance is required to be "optimal". For the majority of missions, the best shipframe is one of the "multirole" birds, and the optimal build varies wildly from mission to mission.
.
Near as I can tell, FDev's goal is to raise the price of minmax re-spec high enough that it strongly encourages "compromise" play. It will be sufficiently expensive to re-spec a multirole ship to a "no compromises" build for a specific mission that players will instead choose a compromise build for their multirole ship and learn to make it work. If that is indeed their goal, then they will never introduce "module storage" into the game, unless swapping modules from storage into and out of ships has a similar cost as sell/buy; that would defeat their goal of making per-mission minmax non-viable.
.
There are some negative side-effects of the mechanism they've chose to achieve their goal, but they can be solved.
- Incremental improvements in build are discouraged. This is fixed by offering a "trade-up discount" that exactly matches the reduction in resale value. It would only apply when the new module is an increase in performance/capability (measured appropriately for the module type) over the old module. Alternatively, it only applies when either grade increases within a class (e.g. 3D to 3C) or class increases (3A to 4D).
- Certain build-out changes can only be evaluated by flying the ship. This is fixed by allowing a player to enter a "simulator" from the outfitting screen which lets the player fly the proposed ship. The game already has a simulator within the role-played universe; newly-minted pilots are told to "use the combat simulator to learn to fly". In-role, the experienced pilot is simply ushered into a simulator pod wherein he or she can play through exactly the same scenarios used in pilot school training, but with something a bit more exciting than a stock Sidewinder.
Adding these two additional mechanisms cancels the undesired effects of the 10% mechanism, leaving only the effect the game designers appear to want, i.e. eliminate minmax in favor of compromise. The trade-up discount is easy. The simulator might be difficult to tie directly into the outfitting screen; it might be easier to achieve the same result by updating the actual combat simulator (reachable from the main game loader) to have an outfitting screen.
.
To those who say "But I want to play the game MY WAY, and my way means min/max", I say "too darn bad. FDev has been clear; it's their game." I hate PvP with a burning passion, but I have no choice; FDev has made it clear that non-consensual PvP is part of their game. Sure, I can play in solo, if I don't mind eliminating a large number of other game possibilities. Just as surely, dedicated minmaxers can grind out the credits to have multiple Anacondas fitted out for specific roles, or they can forbear from selecting missions for which they don't have optimal ships.
.
I can sling a spreadsheet as well as the next person. I know how to minmax, and I've done it in other games. I actually think FDev has the right idea here, rewarding gameplay that embraces compromise and discouraging gameplay that focuses on extreme specialization.
Last edited:
If you are "qualified" for this testing as a beta player (hope FD will let at some point even more players to test new expansions to find possible bugs better and faster, even for a nominal fee if they fear reaction from backers), you should see in a launcher (when you are logged in) at bottom between "Elite: Dangerous" and "Single Player Combat Training" new thing to click (and upgrade), "Elite: Dangerous -Power Play Beta".
Last edited:
Big ships make big money... but cost big money to operate. Makes sense. If you don't want to pay 5-20M for a tryout, don't run a huge ship
Can you explain to me what your "rhetoric" brings to the game? Making someone (now) pay 5-20M (or more) to try/swap a layout achieves what? What clever mechanic or enjoyable fun or sparkling intelligence does it bring to the game?
To me it seems so illogical and so unfair I'm having trouble fathoming the reasoning behind it - It just seems a way to "punish" CMDRs for swapping modules. I can't see it helping in anyway, and only actually removing some fun from the game for some people.
IMHO - Make it a flat removal charge by module size. And if the module was installed less than say 24hrs ago, no charge.
Last edited:
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
no its not. Infact any flaws in the system which remain are IMO purely because the system is still going to be too soft.
Elite (As I see it) is attempting to be as believable as possible - whilst still being enjoyable - as playing the role of the life as a space(wo)man. (where FTL travel is possible)
when you put it in this context, then it makes sense. Do you think "accidentally" shooting someone and causing damage (remember a few stray shots to shields are forgiven) would be instantly forgiven?
Do you think ramming and causing damage or destruction would be ignored? (it is now in 1.2 and it is killing open around certain areas thanks to a small numbers of idiots who I kept hoping would get kicked to hell world, but it seems clear that is not gonna happen now)
and finally do you think smuggling illegal items if you are caught red handed, the excuse, "oops it was a mistake" would wash?
Fair enough what is enjoyable is subjective and if you do not enjoy it, that is fine, not all games are for all people, but it does not make the mechanics stupid.
try playing DCS warthog without any cheats / aids on.
it takes 20 mins to even get your plane started. It is WAY to hardcore for me, and not fun at all (for me) but it isnt stupid, and I know a few people who think it is one of the best games ever made, so far be it for me to suggest it be changed.
Last edited:
- Status