For some strange reason I cannot rep you.
I agree that storage is badly needed. A complete fix? Not sure about that, but it would be a step in the right direction.
For some strange reason I cannot rep you.
I agree that storage is badly needed. A complete fix? Not sure about that, but it would be a step in the right direction.
Indeed.
Multicrew sounds great if we could get ship % boost with hiring crew. BUT if it IS only with "online friends" it'll be another unused feature for me.....another.....
Thank goodness that at least CQC - oops, I mean Arena, wasn't in the same category...
Indeed. I was disappointed that there wasn't a comment. Something on the lines of...
1) "We've listened to your feedback and have some changes we think you'll be excited about. We will share them with you in a week or 2. Stay tuned!"
OR
2) "We've listened to your feedback and after careful consideration we are NOT going to:
- increase the material/data limit
- make it easier to track what data/materials you are missing
- decrease the data/materials available
- introduce module storage
Here's some 3rd party tool links which may help you plan your upgrades."
Or a combination of the above 2 points.
Bzek, your comments on the psychology of game design are well taken. I'd like to complement your point with the understanding that its more than psychology alone, as there are ethical, political, economic, and social dimensions that are also at play. This is so because games like Elite are social even if virtual worlds. There has been quite a bit of academic work on the issue, and Frontier would benefit from thinking about all these dimensions.
Good speed in grad school!
THIS !! So Totally this!
Totally agree. That is in part what I mean with the complexity of Elite. I mean, even consider the types of players and the types of activities you can engage in the game. Making everyone feel their participation counts and that it is rewarding and meaningful... it is a huge and daunting undertaking. There is also emergent gameplay to consider, which is something you want to incentivize rather than stifle.
There are more and more layers to that onion, some of which go way over my head.
Thanks! Conversely rolling out my prototype next week. It is a small game used to capture gameplay data for the purpose of psychology research. The hypothesis being that game 'immersion' helps elicit more authentic responses than dry 'hypothetical situation' traditional questionnaires (i.e. ecologically valid) for statistical analysis.
Pretty nervous about this final stretch!
Stopped playing the game last October because I was bored with the constant grind, and the huge, but repetitive universe.
Thought I'd give 2.1 a go, got the hang of landing, contacted my first engineer, and guess what, another grind.....
After a few hours of gameplay I have put my joystick away, and I doubt that I will be able to raise the enthusiasm to play again.
I actually bought a laptop so I could play ED, so to say I am disappointed is an under statement. The actual gameplay is still something from the 1980's.
I think that FD are counting their lucky stars that NMS was postponed until August.
Thought I'd give 2.1 a go, got the hang of landing, contacted my first engineer, and guess what, another grind.....
After a few hours of gameplay I have put my joystick away, and I doubt that I will be able to raise the enthusiasm to play again.
I actually bought a laptop so I could play ED, so to say I am disappointed is an under statement. The actual gameplay is still something from the 1980's.
I think that FD are counting their lucky stars that NMS was postponed until August.
I agree so much with the OP.
I fail understand why they are taking the game in this direction. Is this what David Braben envisioned? His idea of an immersive and fun game? I find that hard to believe. So why? Almost every major update have been failures.
Wings - good, but very unfinished (buggy and limited)
CQC - boring
Powerplay - boring grindfest
Planetary Landings - good, but very unfinished
Engineers - boring grindfest
The base game is really good (but also has its issues, especially after the 2.1 update), but the updates effectively amount to almost nothing, for a lot of players, myself included.
I hope the recent slience means they've taken the time to sit down and think about the future of this game and where they want to take it next, because it really needs that.
I fail understand why they are taking the game in this direction. Is this what David Braben envisioned? His idea of an immersive and fun game? I find that hard to believe. So why? Almost every major update have been failures.
Wings - good, but very unfinished (buggy and limited)
CQC - boring
Powerplay - boring grindfest
Planetary Landings - good, but very unfinished
Engineers - boring grindfest
The base game is really good (but also has its issues, especially after the 2.1 update), but the updates effectively amount to almost nothing, for a lot of players, myself included.
I hope the recent slience means they've taken the time to sit down and think about the future of this game and where they want to take it next, because it really needs that.
Two of the quotes which reflect my feelings precisely:
The big complaint about the Engineers is the grind-RNG aspect. But one additional complaint has to be the motivation behind using them. The only reason to craft stuff is to counter the power creep the Engineers itself introduces. Not to mention that the crafting mechanic itself is very basic, apart from the scavenger hunt, the player isn't really required to think or react in order to craft.
They could have done so much more with the Engineers. Where are the enhanced surface scanners and limpet controllers? Where are improved heat vents and the custom built SRVs and hover bikes? They could have even implemented mechanics mentioned in the past as being new technology offered exclusively by them. Take for example the heat map showing an asteroid's resource distribution, which could have been made possible through a module exclusive with an engineer, and could have completely changed mining both from the viewpoint of the gameplay mechanic as well as the profitability of the occupation itself.
Whenever the DDA is mentioned, people keep saying that it did not represent any kind of promise, that FDEV are not obliged to implement anything from it. This is true, however I believe one thing needs to be said: a lot of people purchased the game not because they were expecting the DDA stuff to be in the game, but because they were hoping it will. The DDA is full of good stuff, stuff which has been already discussed by like-minded customers and which shows FDEV what the customers want from the game.
I wish they would bring this kind of discussion back, not to carry out design by committee, not to give any kind of power to the community, but to "take the pulse" of the community, see if they approve of new ideas or outright dislike them, so that the company can focus its resources on game additions which are guaranteed to be a hit with the existing playerbase.
The big complaint about the Engineers is the grind-RNG aspect. But one additional complaint has to be the motivation behind using them. The only reason to craft stuff is to counter the power creep the Engineers itself introduces. Not to mention that the crafting mechanic itself is very basic, apart from the scavenger hunt, the player isn't really required to think or react in order to craft.
They could have done so much more with the Engineers. Where are the enhanced surface scanners and limpet controllers? Where are improved heat vents and the custom built SRVs and hover bikes? They could have even implemented mechanics mentioned in the past as being new technology offered exclusively by them. Take for example the heat map showing an asteroid's resource distribution, which could have been made possible through a module exclusive with an engineer, and could have completely changed mining both from the viewpoint of the gameplay mechanic as well as the profitability of the occupation itself.
Whenever the DDA is mentioned, people keep saying that it did not represent any kind of promise, that FDEV are not obliged to implement anything from it. This is true, however I believe one thing needs to be said: a lot of people purchased the game not because they were expecting the DDA stuff to be in the game, but because they were hoping it will. The DDA is full of good stuff, stuff which has been already discussed by like-minded customers and which shows FDEV what the customers want from the game.
I wish they would bring this kind of discussion back, not to carry out design by committee, not to give any kind of power to the community, but to "take the pulse" of the community, see if they approve of new ideas or outright dislike them, so that the company can focus its resources on game additions which are guaranteed to be a hit with the existing playerbase.
Could be fun if empty slot were completed by AI, and by the way resolve the unbalanced level issues.
Could be fun if once at RANK 5, we should not work to grind again to keep at rank max and keep rewards. It will be better to spend this grind time in doing stuff like PREPARATION...
Remove RNG, Engineers : 5th rank, more tools to find and located materials, materials market, inventory system.
Indeed - one of the disappointments is that there are so few ethical pointers or choices, and that the portrayed universe is not so much dangerous as utterly corrupt, and that you either fall in with the round of assassination or destruction missions, or - as in the case of the people who refuse to trade in slaves - realise that holding out against them makes no difference whatsoever to the game universe. In the end, it's not so different from Grand Theft Auto - grab some weapons and do what the hell you like - egged on by the governing factions.
Yep....Multicrew will be another fail unfortunately. I remember when they first announced it there was a lot of scepticism on here. People basically told them straight out that if they didn't have hireable AI crew as well then they would probably never use the feature. At the time they also said they had no plans to develop hireable AI crew either. So its not as if FD don't know what their customers want because they do. They are just unwilling or unable to give it to us in many instances.
I think would be better, or added to the information you're taking about, would be to make more use of the already available scanners. Especially, the detailed surface scanner. Or, hell , have another scanner. Something to narrow your search down.
Agree with OP. I actually tried the engineer stuff. Got a blueprint, found some materials on a planet surface. But after checking lots of uss still haven't found the other material. I really hate it to have to do random sweeps to find stuff. Where's the fun?
I am now at the point that I'm actually reluctant to fire the game up, which is a shame since I have been a fan since the kickstarter campaign....
I am now at the point that I'm actually reluctant to fire the game up, which is a shame since I have been a fan since the kickstarter campaign....
Another issue that they have on the back burner is the problem of winging up. Here in Australia we cannot wing up with anyone in the US. Multiplayer has been in existence now for years and the tech is hardly new. I submitted a ticket and was told its an ongoing issue and get a vpn which I did. Yes, the vpn has fixed the issue to a large degree and its only a few dollars a month. The point is I shouldnt have to do it.
ED has massive potential, 2.1 for the most part is good, I love the missions however there is much that is not good and that needs to be fixed.
Yes it is quiet at FD this week.
ED has massive potential, 2.1 for the most part is good, I love the missions however there is much that is not good and that needs to be fixed.
Yes it is quiet at FD this week.
Truely?! No hireable AI crew? I was skeptical at first (about multicrew), but now I am downright worried that FD have lost their minds. Why would you develop a MultiCrew system when the Netcode is not up to snuff and there are fewer players online at any given time? Doesn't make sense.
I think this is what happens when leadership plans way to far ahead on confidence that local development will be successful, and then refuse to accept that there were failures and continue pushing forward anyways. Now it's like they're working to "technically" achieve their promises without really delivering.
Last edited:
Yep...that's what they said at the time. Don't know if they've since changed their minds about that but if they have they haven't announced it. 12 months ago I used to have about twenty "friends" in my list that I could potentially wing up with.....now I'm lucky to see even one online at the same time. The only other thing I'm really looking forward to this year is the passenger missions as I believe Multicrew will be an even bigger white elephant than PP was. Hope they prove me wrong...but I'm not going to hold my breath.