2.3 dev update feedback mega thread

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.

KING5TON

KING5TON
JosiahD said:
For mine I think we were also hoping for other crew stations like Engineering or Science that could provide for improved ship efficiency and such. The point being the crew stations would be 'manned' as such even if by an NPC in order to get that improvement (albeit more effectively perhaps with a player instead). But yes, the auto-turrets and NPC piloted SLF are similar to what we're getting with multicrew in 2.3 anyway......and IF that's all we're ever going to get with multicrew then it might be a suitable alternative. It'd be pretty disappointing if that's all we get though.

And personally I think having NPC multicrew would have made it easier to explain the instant crewing - simply by saying we're playing as the NPC crewmembers rather than using our own CMDR, thereby avoiding this telepresence nonsense.....
Click to expand...

Yeah, I too was hoping for a more in depth Multicrew addition. I should have known better though.
If multicrew was as it was originally described with roles like engineering etc... then yes I could understand the point to NPC multicrew and it would be something I'd like to see added (as getting my friends to play the game is a tall order due to it's current state).
As it stands now though I do not see the point so I don't see the need to discuss/request it as all your really asking for is some background stuff (people in seats that you hardly ever see when your playing. That you'll look at once or twice, go "ooo nice" and never really care again).
 

fennster

fennster
KING5TON said:
I'm not saying that PC multicrew is pointless.
Having NPC crewmembers for the current description of multicrew wouldn't change very much though (because your turrets are already controlled for you and you already have an NPC SLF).
So asking for NPC multicrew based on the current description of multicrew would be pretty much pointless.
If Multicrew was better developed then I could see the point, in it's current incarnation I don't see the point as you've basically already got it.
Click to expand...

On the same basis, why not?

AI can already pilot my ship whilst I fly a fighter, why can't it do that whilst I man the turrets?

What logical reason is there to exclude it?
 

dynamicbob

Banned
D
fennster said:
On the same basis, why not?

AI can already pilot my ship whilst I fly a fighter, why can't it do that whilst I man the turrets?

What logical reason is there to exclude it?
Click to expand...

have u considered a lack of developer resources at this time as the simple answer, i do however hope for it in the future, im interested in the additional QoL and other content for 2.3 that isnt yet annouced
 

dynamicbob

Banned
D
Xender said:
Money, money, money and dev time...
Click to expand...

we have the third IP hollywood movie title to fund and staff now, if it is jarassic park or avatar and fits in with the safari planet IP (which should be the third one, and this new one the fourth ?) may feed into flora and fauna similiar to nms in future development
 

fennster

fennster
dynamicbob said:
have u considered a lack of developer resources at this time as the simple answer, i do however hope for it in the future, im interested in the additional QoL and other content for 2.3 that isnt yet annouced
Click to expand...

I don't know. A core feature being developed for season 2 of a game I backed...

I'm not asking them to develop anything more than has already been put in place. The UI for the turrets is made, the AI has been programmed. What is it that's taking up any development time?
 

dynamicbob

Banned
D
fennster said:
I don't know. A core feature being developed for season 2 of a game I backed...

I'm not asking them to develop anything more than has already been put in place. The UI for the turrets is made, the AI has been programmed. What is it that's taking up any development time?
Click to expand...

the developer time is focused on the david braben set in stone development roadmap, thats the secret element if its not on the roadmap, its highly unlikley to get much attention
 

Winterwalker

Winterwalker
Xender said:
Money, money, money and dev time...
Click to expand...

Don't know. Maybe .. but I think we're talking about a fairly deep level code change .. take your commander, create same commander in a different 'place', know the place, know what you interact with, tag who's doing what and who they're doing it with. If you don't want to risk introducing some pretty nasty bugs makes sense to me, to leave it there and not over complicate things until your major code change is safely established first. Going on then, pushing different buttons, moving in a different place, interacting with a different person in a different way is then just a minor variation, on the major code change 2.3. If you change too much in one go .. it's possible to lose count of the changes.
 
Last edited:

Deadspin

Deadspin
KING5TON said:
IMO the biggest turn off for PVP for me is rebuy cost. I'd need to grind several hours to cover the cost of a single rebuy and I cannot face more grind.
Click to expand...

Common sense dictates that you probably shouldn't be flying something that you can't afford to fly.

As for this thread:

Telepresence: Jesus Christ, stop crying already about a single mechanic that doesn't fit into the lore in your head. There are over a dozen shortcuts and random 'Whiskey Tango Foxtrot' mechanics that exist in this game to make it more playable for the casual player. Deal with it.

NPC Crew members: Some people enjoy the idea of having those two extra seats on the Conda's bridge filled, or that co-pilot seat on the cobra filled, immensely. Those of you who continue to label it as pointless, that's some audacity. Who are any of you to claim what is or isn't pointless in this 3 mile wide, 2 inch deep game?

Frontier's development process: If you're not a developer yourself and don't have years of experience working in the game development field (console/PC) you should probably just stop. No, developing iOS/Android apps doesn't count. Neither does being an IT professional or networking guru. Yes, it would appear that their style of doing things is vastly different from current big-name development companies but everything here about methodology or management is just speculation at best. We know nothing, Mr. snow. Please stop acting like you have the inside seat on monthly FDev program reviews.

(Really guys?! < Yes it is. Family friendly forums FTW > as an acronym is censored? Are we 12 here?)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bobbydylan

Bobbydylan
Robert Maynard said:
Frontier chose to listen to the community - and sought to ensure that as many players had the opportunity to vote on it (by not using the forums for the poll as there's no requirement to own the game to vote in a forum poll) - before implementing the design originally discussed in the DDF (i.e. delayed and with cost) rather than forcing in the feature as developmentally cheaply as possibly for 2.2.
Click to expand...

iirc, the results for the official poll closely aligned to the forums ones. If anything it shows that the opinions on the forum are fairly representative.
 

[VR] Deggial

[VR] Deggial
I have a question that wil surely drown in this mega thread due to much more pressing discussions.
Anyway, I'll just try....

The question concerns the use of missiles with a gunner.
Fixed and gimbaled weapons are operated by the pilot, turrets by the gunner. So far, so good.
But what about missiles? Will they be completely under the gunner's control?
Or will both - pilot and gunner - share access to these weapons?
 

Xender

Xender
There are so many emotions and controversies about this topic. Dear Frontier, when we can expect any news from your side? :)
 

Bobbydylan

Bobbydylan
Xender said:
There are so many emotions and controversies about this topic. Dear Frontier, when we can expect any news from your side? :)
Click to expand...

I think they're keeping mum on the matter till either there's a unified voice (like there was on ship transfer) or the whole thing simmers down as players come to terms with a crappy multi-crew feature.
 

Weps

Weps
Deggial said:
But what about missiles? Will they be completely under the gunner's control?
Or will both - pilot and gunner - share access to these weapons?
Click to expand...

This question is one that should be answered in a future livestream, but if I were to speculate, I'd say that both players will have access to missile launchers (helm via regular fire groups, gunner via the advances sensor system).
 

Xender

Xender
Muetdhiver said:
Hell no. FD should grow a pair and decide what they want their game to be, and stick to their vision, whatever it is.
Click to expand...

I disagree, the official poll for ship transfer was one of the best design choices in Elite development history. They should stick to it and treat community feedback really serious. I understand the point that telepresence is great opportunity to promote cooperative gameplay, however it can be handled better. If we already agreed on handwavium like telepresence, we can agree on jump gates between major locations and station to station transfer.
 

Muetdhiver

Muetdhiver
Robert Maynard said:
I'm fairly sure that Frontier decided what they want the game to be, in general terms, before they launched the Kickstarter.
Click to expand...

To me it seems that their vision is highly flexible to the forums winds. Then again, I might be wrong ^^.

To their defense, most of what they do is totally awesome. It's just that everthing related to multiplayer seems (to me) rather unfocussed / half-measures,
which gelds the potential of the game in that area. In solo it's a fantastic game, don't get me wrong.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom