Answers from the devs #2

[PeachingTony]

According to some members of the community, Solo players should have a limited or no effect on Powerplay - or, alternatively, playing in Open should offer Powerplay bonuses. Is this something you are considering?

No. For us Solo, Groups and Open are all valid and equal ways to play the game.

The dismissive tone of this response suggests that Frontier have not bothered to follow the substance of the 600+ pages worth of discussion on this on these forums, which if true is hugely disappointing.

It is the primarily balance between contributions between Open and Solo that are the problem - the fact there is more risk and slower reward in Open, compared with minimal risk and fast reward in Solo, when participating in Community Goals or Powerplay. Have Frontier even considered this argument or do they look at that thread and assume the contributors all sit at the extremes ("Ban Solo" etc) with no middle ground?

Addressing the balance issue *might* encourage more players into Open, which in turn would encourage the 'confrontational' aspect of Powerplay, which without evidence of in the game, makes the whole thing feel unconnected and non-immersive.

Can we get a better answer to this?

 

[lysan]

Some sneak peek of how you are going to make weather patters on planets would be nice. Also we would like to know what kind of weather we could see? Snow, rain, tornados, hurricanes, thunder ?

 

[Mazhurg]

Addressing the balance issue *might* encourage more players into Open, which in turn would encourage the 'confrontational' aspect of Powerplay, which without evidence of in the game, makes the whole thing feel unconnected and non-immersive.

Can we get a better answer to this?

Considering that FD statement above appears to be direct and non-equivocal, I'd say that you won't get the answer you are looking for.

 

[Samosa]

I think you guys misunderstood the question or missed the word "exactly". I think the person who posed that question was after some hard numbers.

I was just about to say this, and you're a step ahead of me!

Dear developers, there are long threads here:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=164309

and here:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=165258

detailing our struggle with and attempt to reverse engineer the ranking system.

We really, really, wanted to know exactly what the mechanism is behind naval ranking.

Whilst I greatly appreciate your response, it really is just more vague overview and not the gory details.

Are you suggesting that reputation merely unlocks missions? Or reputation unlocks rank opportunity missions? Is unlocking a rank opportunity mission the result of completing X missions of any sort? Do high reputation missions contribute more to the mission count than low reputation missions, or do they merely improve reputation, thus unlocking different missions? Etc. etc.

Thank you!

 

[Tinman]

The dismissive tone of this response suggests that Frontier have not bothered to follow the substance of the 600+ pages worth of discussion on this on these forums, which if true is hugely disappointing.

It is the primarily balance between contributions between Open and Solo that are the problem - the fact there is more risk and slower reward in Open, compared with minimal risk and fast reward in Solo, when participating in Community Goals or Powerplay. Have Frontier even considered this argument or do they look at that thread and assume the contributors all sit at the extremes ("Ban Solo" etc) with no middle ground?

Addressing the balance issue *might* encourage more players into Open, which in turn would encourage the 'confrontational' aspect of Powerplay, which without evidence of in the game, makes the whole thing feel unconnected and non-immersive.

Can we get a better answer to this?

It's not a dismissive answer.

It's a very clear answer.

It's a very clear answer precisely because they have followed the discussion.

It's also an answer you don't like, but that is beside the point.

 

[Fnurgh]

Hi Zac, thanks for doing this!

My question is;

How detailed are your player behaviour metrics? Obviously no one would expect you to reveal numbers but I'd like to know if you have dedicated people looking at the stats for how often players log in to the game, how long their sessions last and particularly how these have changed over time in response to each update. E.g. do you know the effect the release of Powerplay has had on long-term players?

Thanks!


Fnurgh

 

[Wilkin]

My question is about exploring: are the devs satisfied with the mechanics at the moment, or can we expect more to come? Like maybe taking probes from celestial bodies with some kind of drones, or "exploration drones", you could shoot towards bodies 500k ls away and wait for the results? Anything planned to widen the possibilites of exploration?

 

[ozrix84]

We really, really, wanted to know exactly what the mechanism is behind naval ranking

Exposing the underlying mechanisms opens the game up to more exploits

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Can we get a better answer to this?

People keep asking this question and FD keep giving same answer - over and over again.

Answer won't change. There might be some small functional changes in implementation, but overall game is designed so players wouldn't be forced to directly compete against each other.

 

[essidus]

Will we ever have a proper second screen experience on the mobile app? I can't speak for the entire community, but I personally would be absolutely thrilled if menu screens (in-station menus, galaxy map, system map, orrery, game settings, news, etc) could be handled off of my iPad, for example.

 

[Samosa]

Exposing the underlying mechanisms opens the game up to more exploits

Only if there are holes in the game logic.

Anyway, while I'm at it, since Sarah Jane Avory didn't notice the question I asked a couple of times: since she's said she's going to make the higher-ranking NPCs more difficult, will there be a corresponding increase in contribution to combat rank score?

 

[rootsrat]

Thanks for these Zac&The Co., good read!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Tinman again.

There... I tried.

Have some rep for trying, Commander

 

[Roybe]

The dismissive tone of this response suggests that Frontier have not bothered to follow the substance of the 600+ pages worth of discussion on this on these forums, which if true is hugely disappointing.

It is the primarily balance between contributions between Open and Solo that are the problem - the fact there is more risk and slower reward in Open, compared with minimal risk and fast reward in Solo, when participating in Community Goals or Powerplay. Have Frontier even considered this argument or do they look at that thread and assume the contributors all sit at the extremes ("Ban Solo" etc) with no middle ground?

Addressing the balance issue *might* encourage more players into Open, which in turn would encourage the 'confrontational' aspect of Powerplay, which without evidence of in the game, makes the whole thing feel unconnected and non-immersive.

Can we get a better answer to this?

PvP pew pew (shooting others) is a role playing device only.

The ONLY PVP THAT MATTERS is the collection of PvE trophies between opposing sides (or against time).

There is no balance necessary to move players from one mode to another....either play in one to farm...or the other to 'ineract'.

Working as designed and intended.

Any other discussion can be had in the Open vs. thread.

Or add your comments to the Vox Populi thread....(read the first post of the thread to learn how to be heard...of contact a mod if you cannot figure the instructions out!)

 

[Cosmos]

It's not a dismissive answer.

It's a very clear answer.

It's a very clear answer precisely because they have followed the discussion.

It's also an answer you don't like, but that is beside the point.

I dont see why the need for your patronising and condescending tone. Its a huge area of complaint amongst practically everyone I ever talk to about ED. Frontier are deluding themselves if they think people are happy about this situation.

 

[ozrix84]

Only if there are holes in the game logic.

There's nothing wrong with making the progression more transparent in-game, but the exact logic is not supposed to be exposed. Players tend to build around that knowledge min maxing, cheats, exploits, etc.

 

[jabokai]

I dont see why the need for your patronising and condescending tone. Its a huge area of complaint amongst practically everyone I ever talk to about ED. Frontier are deluding themselves if they think people are happy about this situation.

I'm happy with it.

 

[vsTerminus]

Powerplay allows the background simulation to dynamically change on a much larger scale than interactions with minor factions. These changes are generally at their most interesting when they involve conflict – that’s partly why the premise of Powerplay is about territorial control; conflict is a great way of generating drama. With this in mind, we’re happy that hostile actions are incentivised.

This sounds totally wrong to me, both from a gameplay and a roleplay perspective.

Why would all 10 powers be warmongers? Shouldn't the most profitable activities vary amongst the different Powers?

I mean, take Edmund Mahon for example. He is quoted (emphasis mine):

On this day we remember the brave who fell so that the Alliance was born and free from Federal and Imperial aggression

• "Hi, I'm Edmund Mahon. I run a peaceful, trade-focused economy. Ranking up with my faction will boost the value of your resources, especially the rare kind!"
  
  
• "Golly gee Mr. Mahon, that sounds swell! I sure do enjoy trading. What's the fastest way to increase my rank with your organization?"
  
  
• "Well, that's simple, Timmy. Just outfit your trading ship for combat, head into the nearest hostile system, and murder innocent civilians for several hours every week."
  
  

........ wat?

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I dont see why the need for your patronising and condescending tone. Its a huge area of complaint amongst practically everyone I ever talk to about ED. Frontier are deluding themselves if they think people are happy about this situation.

It's because everyone is tired to hear about this. FD has given answer many many times. People still don't accept that. People try to make it more important, how many people are complaining about it.

Can we move on from this topic?

 

[Samosa]

There's nothing wrong with making the progression more transparent in-game, but the exact logic is not supposed to be exposed. Players tend to build around that knowledge min maxing, cheats, exploits, etc.

As a programmer, you're never, ever going to convince me that exact logic shouldn't be exposed.

"Information wants to be free" -- Stewart Brand

 

[who?]

Combat works slightly differently, this is done on the number of kills, but the points you get for each kill are based on the combat rank of the target relative to your combat rank so if you are harmless and kill an Elite ship you will get a large number of points were as if you are Deadly and kill a ship below Expert you will not get any.

Did not know this. Could have wasted a lot of time killing lots of lower-ranked NPC pirates with no ranking reward. It'd be really nice if this kind of info was collated somewhere into a guide, rather than in a thread like this - while very informative!! - is likely to fade down the thread list.

We have nothing to announce on this one, now or at Gamescom. Walking around on ships is in our plans, for sure, but it’s a very long way off.

If you can't walk around on ships, then presumably you can't walk around in stations, or get out of the ship on planets. So I'd guess the big reveal at Gamescon will either be atmospheric entry, possibly with landing on surface stations/outposts. Getting out of your ship would be a later stage.