News Elite: Dangerous Powerplay 1.3 Beta Incoming (changelog)

[Kitsune]

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.

And this improves/benefits the game... how exactly?

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.

Doesn't seem right.. why? That's not 'doing everything at once'. That's running away, docking, planning, refitting for different purpose, undocking, and THEN doing a DIFFERENT thing - namely, fighting back.

So small ships should be able to practically freely alter their role, but big ships should not? Why? Because you can laugh away the small ships in any setup, but heaven forbid a big space whale coming back with vengeance?

Same question again - locking bigger ships to single role, is beneficial to the game... how exactly? The ships are limited by their frame, by their ability to carry various modules.. and on the other hand by their cost, which reflects in their rebuy cost (in other words, the risk of flying said ship in particular kit). Those are the factors that define the ship's (or ship frame's) role. Some ships have more narrow utility, but they are generally better in that area, and cheaper to acquire (which makes them stronger when compared to multi-purpose ships in same price range). The ships are made with easy to swap, standardized hardpoints, instead of having their hardpoints welded in, never to be replaced. Everything in the design speaks to me of purpose of being able to quickly and easily change your loadouts. Nothing suggests to me that you're supposed to decide on one setup for the ship, and stick to it, rain and shine. So I utterly fail to understand where people are pulling this idea from, that ships are not meant to be rekitted.. and that going against that dogma should always be punished.

My guess is that people are misinterpreting this change. I don't think it's real intent was to punish people who like to rekit their ships, and certainly not to make multi-purpose ships less versatile and viable. I'd think the two major reasons would be, first - to introduce a way to drain some loose capital from circulation.. and second, because 'it seems right because that's how it works in most places'. I just feel that it fails on both counts... for reasons I've pointed out before, several times I think.

From what I understand of PvP side, big reason to why the 'multi ships' are potentially so powerful in combat, is their ability to kit up with so many shield recharges. I think that's an issue separate from the rekitting, though. One solution might be to make the recharges work similar to shield generators themself - in that only one is allowed in a ship. Balance the number of charges, power drain, and weight as necessary. This same could apply for shield boosters. This should close the gap somewhat between combat ships and multi-role ships, on that issue at least. Personally I think the role of shield recharges (and shields in general) in combat is currently far too important, as they multiply your potential shields manyfold, which in turn protect critical modules, which armor by and large fails to accomplish. Consequently, I think balance should shift from shield recharges to shield generators, and from shield generators - somewhat - towards armor. Perhaps allow a bit of damage to creep through shields, increasing proportionately as shields get weaker - at 3 rings, nothing gets through, but as shields weaken, more and more begins to come through. Perhaps allow armor to mitigate some of the damage to modules - maybe as a portion of strengthening - or 'armoring' given to each module, based on the hull/armor of the ship. In other words, before you can hit the module, you have to break the armor on top of that module. I'm sure someone else is better qualified to suggest particulars of this, since I'm personally not experienced - nor interested - in PvP.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

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.

One way to deal with this is simply not to make them lose value until you take off. Once you launch with modules fitted, then they are considered "second hand".

 

[Shar]

The 10% module change is very good for the game it adds more difficulty and texture to the experience however its not good for SOME players because there play style - i use this term loosely - has evolved to revolve around min-maxing which is not or ever was the intention of the design, but it need to be done. the change is good for the game not an unimportant and incorrect style of play. im going to get attacked for this but its true its good to see there is some acceptance that something needs to be done and some players are offering positive alternate models, but the goal remains the same to reduce min-maxing. in the end we need frontier to do whats good the the game and its hopefully long life. you will never change the mind of certain individuals but if they really like elite they will adapt. if not go play Space invaders. I'm going to put my hard hat on now and wait for the orbital bombardment to start.

 

[random_tangent]

The 10% module change is very good for the game it adds more difficulty and texture to the experience however its not good for SOME players because there play style - i use this term loosely - has evolved to revolve around min-maxing which is not or ever was the intention of the design, but it need to be done. the change is good for the game not an unimportant and incorrect style of play. im going to get attacked for this but its true its good to see there is some acceptance that something needs to be done and some players are offering positive alternate models, but the goal remains the same to reduce min-maxing. in the end we need frontier to do whats good the the game and its hopefully long life. you will never change the mind of certain individuals but if they really like elite they will adapt. if not go play Space invaders. I'm going to put my hard hat on now and wait orbital bombardment to start.

I think it's safe to say you know we disagree (respectfully).

The problem I have with this point of view is that you haven't actually given a single reason for your position. You haven't listed a single positive consequence of this change, which the players - the paying customers - can be thankful for. There is no tangible benefit to you, a supporter of this change, other than some feeling of satisfaction that the game is more in-line with your expectations. Your position is simply we "have to" reduce this, this play-style is "incorrect", the game isn't "meant to be" this way, etc. These sorts of arguments don't constitute a reasoned or logical point of view. They don't lead to a rational discussion or debate. My simple counterpoint is this: how FDev may have originally wanted the game to be is irrelevant. It's now out there, in the wild. What matters is how the game is played, and what about the game players enjoy. Pushing this change blindly through, simply because its "their game" and this is the way they wanted it originally, in spite of the fact that many people utilise this mechanic in a way in which perhaps FDev never anticipated, is likely to alienate their user base.

 

[Kitsune]

The 10% module change is very good for the game it adds more difficulty and texture to the experience however its not good for SOME players because there play style - i use this term loosely - has evolved to revolve around min-maxing which is not or ever was the intention of the design, but it need to be done. the change is good for the game not an unimportant and incorrect style of play. im going to get attacked for this but its true its good to see there is some acceptance that something needs to be done and some players are offering positive alternate models, but the goal remains the same to reduce min-maxing. in the end we need frontier to do whats good the the game and its hopefully long life. you will never change the mind of certain individuals but if they really like elite they will adapt. if not go play Space invaders. I'm going to put my hard hat on now and wait orbital bombardment to start.

Nah, for me at least, as long as you don't resort to trolling or thinly (if at all) veiled insults, I make every attempt to remain civil, open and 'constructive' where possible.

Minmaxing - it will always happen, in every game as far as it's applicable. People will minmax for gaining profits. Find the strongest possible build, for the fastest and most profitable farming run possible. Find the best possible setup for making cash, and go with it. This proposed cost in no way prevents you from creating and utilizing that 'ultimate setup', it just hinders your ability to get out of that one single hole, and try something else instead.

Frankly I think this may even end up favoring minmaxing - using that one perfect cookie-cutter build, in one specific thing it's fully optimized in, and to not deviate from that grind. Trade. Bounty-hunting. Exploration. Pirating. Mining. You can make a single, optimized build for any of those tasks, without needing to swap modules. I mean this in general terms - you can always strive to create the best possible setup, and once you find it (or once someone else finds it and posts it on forums), stick with it forever. It's when you try out different things, that the cost sets in.

For example, I currently have an Anaconda that's optimized for trade run. I don't really -have- to change that build, ever.. and take the multi-million hit from doing it. I can keep running the same optimized path between two stations, to make cash in optimal way. Until the servers close down. Or - as will happen a lot sooner - until I get so bored I give up on the whole thing. It only costs me extra if I want to drop that for a while, and try something else with my ship. And that.. I just can't find anything positive with it.

If you want to combat minmaxing, what you need to do is to create the challenges themself so versatile and varied that it's difficult to create an optimized build in itself - in other words, there's no single 'best build' for the task.. but rather multiple equally good ways to approach the problem. If beams are good on shields and projectiles on hull.. let some of the opponents be heavily shielded and some of them heavily armored... all within the same challenge. Let some of the opponents be nimble and hard to hit, and some of them more cumbersome, but powerful themself. Some of them you could then take on with turrets, or flying a fast ship yourself.. others would go down better with heavy hitting fixed weapons, or larger ships.

Difficulty doesn't come from forcing players to grind for another 10-100 hours to offset a new cash drain every time they want to change their angle. It comes from making the challenge fuzzy and versatile, so that there doesn't exist a single, optimal way to tackle it. Of course, creating that kind of challenge is in itself very challenging.

 

[Ian Phillips]

Hi All, this might be a stupid question but how do i get the beta client? is this something that anyone can participate? i would like to see/try the changes coming to the mac client.

Hello GarretJax,

The beta is not open to everyone, so unless you were an alph/beta tester before the game was released I'm afraid that you can't join in the testing effort.

 

[Steve50]

One way to deal with this is simply not to make them lose value until you take off. Once you launch with modules fitted, then they are considered "second hand".

This would be the ideal solution imo.

 

[DaggerSnake]

The 10% module change is very good for the game it adds more difficulty and texture to the experience however its not good for SOME players because there play style - i use this term loosely - has evolved to revolve around min-maxing which is not or ever was the intention of the design, but it need to be done. the change is good for the game not an unimportant and incorrect style of play. im going to get attacked for this but its true its good to see there is some acceptance that something needs to be done and some players are offering positive alternate models, but the goal remains the same to reduce min-maxing. in the end we need frontier to do whats good the the game and its hopefully long life. you will never change the mind of certain individuals but if they really like elite they will adapt. if not go play Space invaders. I'm going to put my hard hat on now and wait for the orbital bombardment to start.

Here's a non attack for you.
I agree. I think that players should weigh choices, make them and then if it doesn't work out that they like a specific module, they can sell it back at a slight loss. It's not like 10% is that much and your basically giving back a USED part.
Now there does need to be some kind of garage space for modules that players can set up at a home station to store modules like ships.

 

[Frankfort]

The new ship rebalance of Powerplay Beta is now availeble on http://www.edshipyard.com/#/L=701,5QG5QG,2-3w3w3w2M2M2M22,7Og03w2Uc

 

[DaggerSnake]

One way to deal with this is simply not to make them lose value until you take off. Once you launch with modules fitted, then they are considered "second hand".

Totally agree. You can't expect to use something and then just give it back. Just like a car, they depreciate as you drive them off the lot.

 

[Ein_MM]

how to install beta ver.?

 

[Shar]

You want a reason well this thread as you both know is full of them ill state just one the one that bugs me the most - The current arrangement cheapens the game its like a Lego set 10 tone modules installing themselves no real multi-role ships as there just a frame to specialize constantly unbalancing the game, its not just that its unrealistic as many things are but its the most unrealistic thing in the game. those of us that argue for the correction will suffer too we don't care about ourselves we want a great game.
As i previously stated im not trying to change your mind i understand your argument the size of your epic posts clue us in to how passionate you are on this subject i get it, it will have a major effect on your game play. so can you understand that i dont like it the way it was because to me and some others it just dumbs thing down too much. this is as succinct and UN-abrasive as i can be. A shell just hit near me im taking cover, if nothing else lets have a sense of humor its only a game.

Harder = Challenge = Fun

There should be some kind of final checkout so people don't accidentally buy the wrong thing, just a way to make sure you are leaving the station with what you want.
I also highly recommend Ed-shipyard app it is an excellent way to just try things out, because trying thing out is not a good reason to handicap the game. http://www.edshipyard.com/#/L=701,5QG5QG,2-3w3w3w2M2M2M22,7Og03w2Uc

 

[Kitsune]

You want a reason well this thread as you both know is full of them ill state just one the one that bugs me the most - The current arrangement cheapens the game its like a Lego set 10 tone modules installing themselves no real multi-role ships as there just a frame to specialize constantly unbalancing the game, its not just that its unrealistic as many things are but its the most unrealistic thing in the game. those of us that argue for the correction will suffer too we don't care about ourselves we want a great game.
As i previously stated im not trying to change your mind i understand your argument the size of your epic posts clue us in to how passionate you are on this subject i get it, it will have a major effect on your game play. so can you understand that i dont like it the way it was because to me and some others it just dumbs thing down too much. this is as succinct and UN-abrasive as i can be. A shell just hit near me im taking cover, if nothing else lets have a sense of humor its only a game.

Harder = Challenge = Fun

No actually, I think the most unrealistic thing about the game is, how you survive in your pod to reclaim your 'insurance' ship, after you flew the previous one in through the event horizon of black hole.. some 2000 light years away.

"Warning.. hull integrity compromised.. eject..eject..eject.." *ssuuuuuUUUUUCCKKK INNNNN!!* *CRUNCH* *warp out from beyond event horizon... 2000 light years away* *dock* "Hello, station master.. I'd like my new ship now, thanks." Why can't we use THAT technology to warp between stations to our stored ships?

What comes to dumbing down the game.. I complitely disagree. Finding the best/working setup for the more challenging tasks, case by case, is far more difficult than using the 'generic build' for any and all problems at hand. Meanwhile, you can actually make the game's challenges more difficult that way, so that the most difficult ones -require- you to think up the best way for you to tackle it.. including but not limited, to module setup. E.g. if kitting for task is not a supported playstyle, then all the challenges in the game have to be dumbed down enough that any viable 'general build' can take care of them. I think it's the opposite to what you imply. I think the 'minmaxed' builds may seem overpowered because they -are- by definition the 'smarter' way to tackle any particular problem (smarter in that they have been designed specifically for that problem).

In all the previous games that I enjoyed particularily, one of the most fun aspects for me has been to device different tactics AND builds to tackle the most difficult issues. From Guild Wars 1, to old Mechwarrior games, to Orcs Must Die 2, even back to titles such as the Crossfire in unix based servers. I don't support dumbing down or over-simplifying games. It's quite the contrary. Good memories - I still remember beating Duncan The Black in Guild Wars 1, hard mode, solo, with just 3 heroes and 4 henchmen. It's one of the most gratifying moments I've had in gaming. That sure as heck was min-maxing everything I possibly could in my party. And there was nothing dumbed down in it. (And no, I wasn't playing an assassin)

 

[wakajawaffle]

I was at first against the 10% loss on modules.
After some thought, I'm now for it.
The goal of a multi roll ship should be balance, to carry out all ship rolls simultaneously.

I have to say if this were intended from the beginning, there is NO VALID REASON for delaying implementation.
NONE.

On another note, in case I missed it.
What are can I see the optional CH Fighter Stick bindings?

 

[Shar]

No actually, I think the most unrealistic thing about the game is, how you survive in your pod to reclaim your 'insurance' ship, after you flew the previous one in through the event horizon of black hole.. some 2000 light years away.

"Warning.. hull integrity compromised.. eject..eject..eject.." *ssuuuuuUUUUUCCKKK INNNNN!!* *CRUNCH* *warp out from beyond event horizon... 2000 light years away* *dock* "Hello, station master.. I'd like my new ship now, thanks." Why can't we use THAT technology to warp between stations to our stored ships?

What comes to dumbing down the game.. I complitely disagree. Finding the best/working setup for the more challenging tasks, case by case, is far more difficult than using the 'generic build' for any and all problems at hand. Meanwhile, you can actually make the game's challenges more difficult that way, so that the most difficult ones -require- you to think up the best way for you to tackle it.. including but not limited, to module setup. E.g. if kitting for task is not a supported playstyle, then all the challenges in the game have to be dumbed down enough that any viable 'general build' can take care of them. I think it's the opposite to what you imply. I think the 'minmaxed' builds may seem overpowered because they -are- by definition the 'smarter' way to tackle any particular problem (smarter in that they have been designed specifically for that problem).

In all the previous games that I enjoyed particularily, one of the most fun aspects for me has been to device different tactics AND builds to tackle the most difficult issues. From Guild Wars 1, to old Mechwarrior games, to Orcs Must Die 2, even back to titles such as the Crossfire in unix based servers. I don't support dumbing down or over-simplifying games. It's quite the contrary. Good memories - I still remember beating Duncan The Black in Guild Wars 1, hard mode, solo, with just 3 heroes and 4 henchmen. It's one of the most gratifying moments I've had in gaming. That sure as heck was min-maxing everything I possibly could in my party. And there was nothing dumbed down in it. (And no, I wasn't playing an assassin)

Ok i respect what your saying but i of course disagree, the free ride has just to much impact on the game to not be corrected its a big problem, we are i would say polar opposites on this subject i just happy we both have the opportunity to voice are opinions in the end we will just have to trust frontier to do what they decide is best for the long term, now i have a name for the problem - The Mechano Effect excuse the spelling.
All the best and happy hunting or trading or exploring depending on what your optimized for at this minute.

 

[Asphine Nytrix]

about that 10%

It will be hard for new players, i mean we can't afford buying several ships for more roles. And who would want to buy same ship and then just outfit it in a different way. Boring like hell.

This should be implemented after module store. Then i wouldn't mind at all..... Now that we are forced to sell it's incredibly stupid to add this. And i just got my clipper and I'm already struggling with all those prices on modules........ I don't want to keep one setting and grind my way trough, it would kill the game for me. I want to do different things and still progress towards better ship.

Please reconsider this for the time being.

 

[Shar]

about that 10%

It will be hard for new players, i mean we can't afford buying several ships for more roles. And who would want to buy same ship and then just outfit it in a different way. Boring like hell.

This should be implemented after module store. Then i wouldn't mind at all..... Now that we are forced to sell it's incredibly stupid to add this. And i just got my clipper and I'm already struggling with all those prices on modules........ I don't want to keep one setting and grind my way trough, it would kill the game for me. I want to do different things and still progress towards better ship.

Please reconsider this for the time being.

In the beginning buy a true multipurpose ship that's what there for, as you grow richer you can buy some specialist ships or customize you multi-role for more specific jobs. its an enjoyable challenge but you must enjoy the journey, don't think to much about the end game.

 

[random_tangent]

Here's a non attack for you.
I agree. I think that players should weigh choices, make them and then if it doesn't work out that they like a specific module, they can sell it back at a slight loss. It's not like 10% is that much and your basically giving back a USED part.
Now there does need to be some kind of garage space for modules that players can set up at a home station to store modules like ships.

I could tolerate the change if storage were implemented too - I think most people who take issue with the change could too. But I still don't think it's a positive change. If you're going to give people less for used parts, there should be a second hand module economy. It's half a feature as it stands, intended just to hinder CMDR's progress. It hits people with less time on their hands, and less financial resources, MUCH harder than the supposedly super rich targets.

Why not delay a change like this until a proper module economy can be implemented? What's the rush?

 

[Shar]

I could tolerate the change if storage were implemented too - I think most people who take issue with the change could too. But I still don't think it's a positive change. If you're going to give people less for used parts, there should be a second hand module economy. It's half a feature as it stands, intended just to hinder CMDR's progress. It hits people with less time on their hands, and less financial resources, MUCH harder than the supposedly super rich targets.

Why not delay a change like this until a proper module economy can be implemented? What's the rush?

There is no real rush i suppose apart from the fact that it should never have been this way, i would however recommend fixing it before the X-box release or you will have another generation of mechano effect dependent players to detox.

 

[random_tangent]

You want a reason well this thread as you both know is full of them ill state just one the one that bugs me the most - The current arrangement cheapens the game its like a Lego set 10 tone modules installing themselves no real multi-role ships as there just a frame to specialize constantly unbalancing the game, its not just that its unrealistic as many things are but its the most unrealistic thing in the game. those of us that argue for the correction will suffer too we don't care about ourselves we want a great game.
As i previously stated im not trying to change your mind i understand your argument the size of your epic posts clue us in to how passionate you are on this subject i get it, it will have a major effect on your game play. so can you understand that i dont like it the way it was because to me and some others it just dumbs thing down too much. this is as succinct and UN-abrasive as i can be. A shell just hit near me im taking cover, if nothing else lets have a sense of humor its only a game.

Harder = Challenge = Fun

There should be some kind of final checkout so people don't accidentally buy the wrong thing, just a way to make sure you are leaving the station with what you want.
I also highly recommend Ed-shipyard app it is an excellent way to just try things out, because trying thing out is not a good reason to handicap the game. http://www.edshipyard.com/#/L=701,5QG5QG,2-3w3w3w2M2M2M22,7Og03w2Uc

It 100% is not the most unrealistic thing in the game, trust me You might feel it is, but maybe that's because you don't appreciate just how unrealistic other things are. That's not a criticism; we all only know what we know.

I'm in favour of more immersion, but not more immersion in a way that unfairly punishes those of us that love the game but are relatively time-poor. I also don't think this makes the game any harder. It just means i have to spend a lot more time doing repetitive tasks. Is that the definition of challenge? FDev should be thinking of ways to add interesting things to do with bigger ships once you get them, not making it harder to get and maintain them. I want the potential to earn epic rewards for epic risks, rather than just the opportunity to play it safe for a regular income.

It's not so much that it would effect me now - other than occasionally switching out my loadout for fun - it's more that it completely undermines my aspirations, which is probably worse. I was working towards a Python precisely because I could use it for all sorts of different things. I do a lot of combat right now, and I feel I've seen that side of the game. I was looking forward to trying a bit of everything. With this proposed change, I'm facing doing a lot more of what I'm doing now (grinding out credits) just so I can spend far less time trying out those different things.

I use ED shipyard, but people posting that whilst asking for realism makes me laugh. I mean, you want the game to be more realistic, but you're proposing alt-tabbing out of the game to visit a website to check potential configurations? That's not great for immersion.

I'm not against it getting harder. I'm not against more of a challenge. I'm just against increasing the grind. That is all this change will do. Either that, or it will force people to play more repetitively, and less flexibly. Both negative game-play changes.