Answers from the devs #2

I would hardly call a short delay between a new feature arriving on a new platform and it being released on PC/Mac a "betrayal" - as a Day 2 Kickstarter backer, I realise that there are like;y commercially attractive benefits to doing so - Microsoft does have deep pockets, after all - and now we are being told that the delay may only be a matter of weeks.

The three modes and switching have existed in the game design since the outset - everyone backing / buying the game did so with these design features in place - buying a game with the hope of having any of them removed / modified / restricted so late in the day seems to be rather an ambitious goal.

.... and it is the players themselves who choose which mode to play in - it is completely up to them (having been encouraged to "play the game how yo want to") when they play and in which mode they play in. If Open is less attractive, for whatever reason, players who find it unattractive will vote with their feet.

In a nutshell, Frontier have created a game where players can choose to be affected by other players but cannot guarantee or force interaction with others who do not want it.

If you do not find the timed exclusivity a betrayal, good for you for being so forgiving. But it just tells some of us that we can't trust FD on keeping their promises relatively tightly.

Games change, having modes removed is indeed ridiculous, but having their multiplier modified isn't so much.

FD created one complete mode: Solo, and left the a broken mode: Open.

It's great to stress how conceptually the modes are equal, but we all see Open's pragmatic downfall. Also that if people are driven more toward one mode than another, what about players that invested in ED for the less attractive mode? Does it deserve no proper attention? Player interaction isn't forced, and it cannot be forced, I agree. Then why are people who want to interact forced to deal with the current Multiplayer issues glaring ever since the beginning of Elite Dangerous? (See probably a page before where I listed the issues)
 
If you do not find the timed exclusivity a betrayal, good for you for being so forgiving. But it just tells some of us that we can't trust FD on keeping their promises relatively tightly.

Games change, having modes removed is indeed ridiculous, but having their multiplier modified isn't so much.

FD created one complete mode: Solo, and left the a broken mode: Open.

It's great to stress how conceptually the modes are equal, but we all see Open's pragmatic downfall. Also that if people are driven more toward one mode than another, what about players that invested in ED for the less attractive mode? Does it deserve no proper attention? Player interaction isn't forced, and it cannot be forced, I agree. Then why are people who want to interact forced to deal with the current Multiplayer issues glaring ever since the beginning of Elite Dangerous? (See probably a page before where I listed the issues)

Ah yes, your listed issues; -Open is getting a great deal of attention...

We are now ready for Solo/Group attention.
 
Last edited:
Not understanding the 'everyone in open has friends' argument. Even if this were true, group of friends would oppose group of friends and the original point would stand.

Yeah I don't understand that either; -checking Open players in the forums friends list; shows mostly no friends...
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Yeah, I'm hiding in a Private group right now, for convoluted reasons.
Basically there are people on my friends list who are tying to kill me, and they can see me wherever I am in open.

I got sick of the stealthed players spawn camping the station exit too :)
Its quite a strange situation.

Yes, well - I think that I can guess why that may be.... ;)
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
It's great to stress how conceptually the modes are equal, but we all see Open's pragmatic downfall. Also that if people are driven more toward one mode than another, what about players that invested in ED for the less attractive mode? Does it deserve no proper attention? Player interaction isn't forced, and it cannot be forced, I agree. Then why are people who want to interact forced to deal with the current Multiplayer issues glaring ever since the beginning of Elite Dangerous? (See probably a page before where I listed the issues)

It rather depends on what one's view as to what Open should be when considering its future. If players choose one mode more than others - that is their choice, of course.

The current multi-player issues relating, presumably, to instancing are not totally under Frontier's control - we connect using many and varied broadband connections from different ISPs with different P2P traffic shaping policies from different parts of the world - until every player's connection is low ping, unshaped and with a reliable speed, we cannot blame Frontier for every instancing related issue.
 
Report Crimes Against Me

Hi Zac

I don't know if a dev has answered this before, but I would be very interested in knowing something about this mechanism / feature. It is sometimes put forward on the forums that if you do not have this enabled in the options, a ship attacking you will not become wanted (assuming you are clean and not in anarchy space). Is this correct?

I have been under the impression that all this does is alert the authorities to a crime, and has nothing to do with the setting of wanted status of your attacker, and that is the reason that authorities will scan everyone involved in the fight when they turn up (assuming you have it set on).

Thanks
 
The Clipper is anaconda sized.

OK, I should probably rephrase my question. Yes, the sheer HULL size of a Clipper is ALMOST as big as Anaconda's but... Annie has 8 hardpoints and 8 utility slots, Clipper has only 4 of each. Annie has 11 Internal compartments where Clipper has 8. Annie's modules are mostly Class (size) 8 (4 in total) and Clipper has Class 6 as a dominant module class which also happens to be the biggest. So one my ask, if Annie and Clipper are in fact of the same size, how come Annie can fit more and bigger stuff inside? The answer can be found on the page 11 of this thread, where someone posted a picture of all the ship models. Now, what happens when you take the wings away from the Clipper model? That's right! A ship that is actually smaller than an Orca or a Python or even a Type 7 (Clipper is longer but smaller an all the other sides their number being 4) :D. So, to sum it up, the Clipper is far from Anaconda sized ship (also taking into consideration its jump range, fuel tank, shields, armor, already mentions space inside the hull for modules, weapons (no C4 wep either) and utilities ALL being inferior to Annie), but rather it is a smaller, cheaper and understandably worse Python and therefore my question stands...
Q: Will Gutamaya ever make an Anaconda sized ship that would rival it in terms of versatility and durability? (no need to confirm whether it will be the Cutter, a simple yes will suffice to allow me to sleep at night ;) )

----
EDIT: Expanded the question for extra clarity.
 
Last edited:
Questions all relating to combat and the things that filter around combat. I wish the explorers would get off their tuchus' and get their voices heard. We want more exploration content and we want it badly. And we've waiting long enough. And we aren't a small minority. And this game is sold on it's huge galaxy - let's get some love in that direction please
 
Questions all relating to combat and the things that filter around combat. I wish the explorers would get off their tuchus' and get their voices heard. We want more exploration content and we want it badly. And we've waiting long enough. And we aren't a small minority. And this game is sold on it's huge galaxy - let's get some love in that direction please

TBH mate, in my opinion you just have to wait for a bit. Once we can land an all planets we should be able to perform a one more level of scanning going even further than the advanced surface scanner. For example, if the ASS (Advanced Surface Scanner) says that there is water on the planet, you have to land, get out, find the water, put some in the probe and then bring it back. Doing it for all detected stuff by the ASS constitutes for a Level 4 (or 5, dunno how many we have right now) scan. Just imagine how awesome it would be if the ASS would say that it found some advanced life forms (that means above single-cell-organisms) and you have to land, find it, kill it, freeze it and then give it over for study and take the results to cartographics for massive money or even equip your ship with a lab and study the freak yourself. Sweet imo, but we need to wait for planets and wandering about while shooting stuff (FPS) ;)
 
TBH mate, in my opinion you just have to wait for a bit. Once we can land an all planets we should be able to perform a one more level of scanning going even further than the advanced surface scanner. For example, if the ASS (Advanced Surface Scanner) says that there is water on the planet, you have to land, get out, find the water, put some in the probe and then bring it back. Doing it for all detected stuff by the ASS constitutes for a Level 4 (or 5, dunno how many we have right now) scan. Just imagine how awesome it would be if the ASS would say that it found some advanced life forms (that means above single-cell-organisms) and you have to land, find it, kill it, freeze it and then give it over for study and take the results to cartographics for massive money or even equip your ship with a lab and study the freak yourself. Sweet imo, but we need to wait for planets and wandering about while shooting stuff (FPS) ;)

That's all amazing stuff but it's far far off . there is plenty to do with basic exploration as it stands. See my sig for the explorer's community request list and you'll see what I mean :)
 
Last edited:
Hi all,

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.

===

Currently it's more "profitable" from a merit-earning perspective to commit hostile actions in the territory of other Powers than to support your own Power's growth - unless you're willing to spend suapproachtantial credits on non-combat Powerplay actions. Are there any plans to change this, or is this working as intended?

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.

These two statements directly contradict each other. Figure out if you want to make an MMO or a single player game. This middle of the road approach is ridiculous and upsets 90% of your community.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
These two statements directly contradict each other. Figure out if you want to make an MMO or a single player game. This middle of the road approach is ridiculous and upsets 90% of your community.
true, it is. But I don't think they ever will ever pick a side. The FDEVS are desperate to cater towards everyone which is effecting this game quite severely. Now with it's release to the consoles coming soon, they will most likely be focusing more towards the single player side of the game more than ever before and putting other stuff on long term delay, as demonstrated and clearly shown in these two answers which I will quote below. Regardless though, this is their game and if they want to kill it this way then fine, no harm on me as I can play other space sims coming out soon.


When will we be able to walk on our ships?

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.

==

I think everyone here would love to see a battle around a large station. Is that not in the game for technical reasons (eg the AI keeps on crashing into the station) or artistic/gameplay reasons?

(From Michael Brookes) This is something we’re looking into changing – more details in the near future – or soon J
 
Hi all,

Last week we put up an "Answers from the devs" post which looked at some of your commonly asked questions. We asked you on the thread to tell us what else you would like to ask and we would be sure to follow up.

Never one to break a promise, here is the second "Answers from the devs" thread.

As before, if you have more questiosn you would like answers on, pop them below and we shall get another list compiled shortly!

===

I keep hearing about Xbox One updates. Is there anything to keep PC players happy?

Oh yes! The development team has never been bigger, and are split into multiple groups working on a number of different projects. A couple of weeks ago Mike Brookes mentioned there will be a trunk release for PC in one of the dev updates, we recently announced that the full game launch on Xbox One would be followed closely by the PC 1.4 CQC update, and of course we are - and have been for a long time - working hard on something we’ll be in position to announce in time for GamesCom. Our schedule is aggressive and we’re working hard to make it all happen.

===

What exactly is the mechanism behind ranking?

There are multiple types of rank. Firstly you have rank within the Pilot’s Federation for combat, trade and exploration. These ranks increase as you successfully complete tasks pertaining to each type of rank. For example Selling exploration data will go towards increasing your exploration rank. Profit from Selling trade goods will increase your Trade Rank.

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.

Then you get naval rank, which currently includes the Empire and the Federation. These ranks are awarded for completing missions for the appropriate navy’s high command. However, to gain access to such missions, you’ll need to be on good terms with the superpower involved. For example, you’ll only start seeing missions for the Imperial Navy if your reputation with the Empire is high. You can raise your reputation with a superpower by working with any minor faction that’s aligned with them. Trading, handing in bounties and supporting them in conflict are the kinds of activity that will increase your reputation with a minor faction, and when you complete them, a small amount of reputation trickles up to the superpower they are aligned with.

We are looking to give more attention to military ranks in the future, developing a more defined career structure. This should address issues of allegiance, as well as showing some love for the Alliance.

===

When will we be able to walk on our ships?

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.

===

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.

===

Currently it's more "profitable" from a merit-earning perspective to commit hostile actions in the territory of other Powers than to support your own Power's growth - unless you're willing to spend substantial credits on non-combat Powerplay actions. Are there any plans to change this, or is this working as intended?

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.

===

I think everyone here would love to see a battle around a large station. Is that not in the game for technical reasons (eg the AI keeps on crashing into the station) or artistic/gameplay reasons?

(From Michael Brookes) This is something we’re looking into changing – more details in the near future – or soon J

===

How does the game calculate where to place you back in supercruise after an interdiction? Is it back to where you started to be or where you failed/submitted?

Wherever you are in normal space when you engage the frame shift determines where you will be in supercruise, and when you drop from supercruise your location there is used to determine where you are in normal space. However, because the scale change is enormous (the frame shift drive does a great job at compressing space!) there is an amount of uncertainty during the transition. Of course, the acceleration and speed ships are capable of reaching in supercruise makes short work of any difference!

===

We’d love to see the process of a ship design from start to finish. Will we ever see such a thing?

We’d love to do this. We’ve offered glimpses of it with certain ships in the newsletter’s Peek Of The Week, but we’ll definitely look into showing a ship being designed from the first lines in an artist’s sketchbook to the finished model. Watch this space.

===

Does the background sim take system economy (health and type) into account when determining NPC cargo?

We are constantly looking at ways to refine our in-game systems. At the moment the AI archetype determines the amount of cargo they are likely to carry and the cargo is based on the economies of the starports in that system. Certain high value goods are excluded.


Funniest thing i read all day....
 
So No walking around ships, means no walking around stations either.

So when will we get actual proper player interaction ? and maybe even proper player communication tools in game ?....

Depending on what they announce at Gamescon, will be a deciding factor for me to invest any more time in game or to move on to something else.
 
So No walking around ships, means no walking around stations either.

So when will we get actual proper player interaction ? and maybe even proper player communication tools in game ?....

Depending on what they announce at Gamescon, will be a deciding factor for me to invest any more time in game or to move on to something else.
I been walking round my ship since I installed the game *taps oculus rift*
 
I guess my only question would be when will planetary landings will occur ? A long way off is way too obscure for me, sorry not trying to be contrary but this was advertised as fairly soon after release, so Idk six months a year ? And also would like to know about walking around on our ships again when & if not soon why? Please don't misunderstand the game is great & the graphics are fantastic, but a lot of folks backed this game based on these two things " Fps/EVA, walking around on ships, & planetary landings". Believe me most people understand these things take time but would just like to be kept in the loop.

Shadowma
 
Ah yes, your listed issues; -Open is getting a great deal of attention...

We are now ready for Solo/Group attention.

I defended Solo, as well, in the sense that it should deserve equality of treatment just as Open. Substantial campaign would be a good start, extensive mission as well.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah I don't understand that either; -checking Open players in the forums friends list; shows mostly no friends...

You see, this argument would stand but not everyone uses the forum for the function of keeping track of their friends. There is this thing called third party website and software...
 
It rather depends on what one's view as to what Open should be when considering its future. If players choose one mode more than others - that is their choice, of course.

Of course, I agree. But this is why we should strive for equality, for that heavily biased players that are not aware of their bias are creating quite polarizing images of what modes should be and their functionality. Which is why I am not screaming for the deletion of any mode, but just a general inspection as to how to balance the modes.

The current multi-player issues relating, presumably, to instancing are not totally under Frontier's control - we connect using many and varied broadband connections from different ISPs with different P2P traffic shaping policies from different parts of the world - until every player's connection is low ping, unshaped and with a reliable speed, we cannot blame Frontier for every instancing related issue.

Of course, since blaming everything about instancing on FD is unreasonable if we taken into consideration that P2P is the foundation. However, with the given time and available funding, we do not see any improvement in the area (even if there is not enough resources for dedicated servers). Which is why I mentioned that I don't see much movement in that department when it is such a vital part of the game.

Also that blaming P2P flaws for not being able to counter combat logging and the allowance of 15 second legitimate combat logging are just beyond me, and many players.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom