Sandro 2.3 Q&A Summary

[StiTch]

And here we are at a Point where you have two fundemental opinions of the community. One half is for realism (non-predictable, engineered builds), the other is for "fair" PvP.

No need for the community to get involved; FD already made the conscious decision to oust skill-based combat and put it forward publically when they were discussing hull changes to the big 3.

Utterly, utterly laughable that anyone has the right to complain about "people ganking instead of looking for a straight fight" then really isn't it

So glad that's the direction PVP is being encouraged in... -_-

 

[Bobbydylan]

No idea. It's supposed to be fun with friends but it brings in a boat load of combat advantages because the devs thought peoole need an incentive to use a fun with friends feature???

The devs have zero experience and sense of PvP so in their desperation to 'sell' people on MC they tragically decided to make a joke out of combat balancing in order to further entice what I can only assume is the ganker and murder hobo crowd in to using MC. Because people who want fun with friends would use MC regardless of any magic combat advantages.

Ironically, this makes Open even less appealing to me.

 

[Martian Successor]

I've only played Gunner side, but I suspect there will still be some tactics available. Hanging out in vicinities where only the weakest turrets can reach you will still be viable, and speed for smaller ships well help make keeping lock harder.

Wings. If you want to be safe in the busier parts of Open from 2.3 onwards you best start flying in a full wing of PvP fit ships or try to group up 4 or more multi-crewed ships.

In a 1v1 there is simply no counter to an opponent that can shoot you in a 360° radius that has no blind spot and is unnafected by chaff or silent running. Even if you can do the same it comes down to whoever gets the first few hits in at the start will eventually win the fight due to attrition - provided both opponents have relatively decent aim.

- - - Updated - - -

The effort of coding it.

Literally the same amount of effort that went into coding hollow squares/triangles.

Show me a hollow diamond for multi-crewed ships. Job done.

 

[iFred]

No need for the community to get involved; FD already made the conscious decision to oust skill-based combat and put it forward publically when they were discussing hull changes to the big 3.

Utterly, utterly laughable that anyone has the right to complain about "people ganking instead of looking for a straight fight" then really isn't it

So glad that's the direction PVP is being encouraged in... -_-

Believe it or not, but back in Alpha we also had the same discussion and it should not be a surprise, especially not for FD, that things have developed as they have developed now. This was 100 % forseeable for everyone who has gathered some knowledge about this game.

 

[StiTch]

Believe it or not, but back in Alpha we also had the same discussion and it should not be a surprise, especially not for FD, that things have developed as they have developed now. This was 100 % forseeable for everyone who has gathered some knowledge about this game.

Which is fine, but then the community has to accept that Open will consist of players that are looking for a reason to fight. For reasons good or bad it will be inevitable if you deliberately shake the foundations of what PvP is

 

[Martian Successor]

I totally agree and understand what you are trying to say. But again, you will never see "fair" or "skill based" PvP in Elite. If you (we) want fair PvP, we need same ships and the same builds.

And here we are at a Point where you have two fundemental opinions of the community. One half is for realism (non-predictable, engineered builds), the other is for "fair" PvP.

Oh wait, it´s 70:30 (no poll needed).

We already have a fair playing field in the form of the flight model - we all have the same things to learn in order to 'git gud' at flying. Fairness in the technical sense beyond that is virtually impossible unless we pit two identical robots against each other.

What I like is primarily skill based PvP where your skill, knowledge and experience are the deciding factors rather than your 'gear level', or how many alt accounts you can shove into your ship to get 2 magic pips. I realise that went sailing out the window since the RNGineers introduced the grindy gear chase entry barrier to high end PvP. MC simply rubs salt in the wound so to speak but I'd at least like a way to know if I'm facing a multi-crewed ship so I can make the decision to either try my luck or go "Fudge that noise. Mo-powah to tge friendship drive!"

I would hope the devs can at least realise the basic importance of that much without us needing to take their hand, tussle their hair and talk them through how a part of their own bloody game works!

 

[Martian Successor]

You still could try to grope a MC ship with long range weapons and an agile fighter while trying to keep the distance.
Even if you can't win you probably suck the fun out of such "fun boat".

I like your thinking

However with the big 3 you'd need a wing of small fighters with long range rails and even then due to uber shields the MC ship would just leave out of boredom after 2 hours of not even tickling their shields. Now cascade torps might be interesting

But again we'd need a way to see if we're facing a multi-pew ship. A simple shape such as a hollow diamond on the radar would suffice.

 

[askavir]

[*]CQC assets etc, what gameplay will be added? Standard gameplay (bounty hunting) all there, but megaships are a gateway feature. We've got datalinks coming up, but nothing more to announce now.

This is the most disheartening thing I read about the game in a long time. Those awesome new installations being mere glorified nav beacons.

How can people be thinking spacelegs will come soon, if there isn't even gameplay for ships beyond the most basic.

 

[Blackcompany]

Completely agree. While there are some tiny bright spots in the next patch....I do love the creator and some of the small improvements they made to some geology, there just isn't anything enjoyable for us explorers and again no hints of tools or expansions to come. The Alien stuff could be cool if they get it working right out of the gate instead of having to wait months to be fixed, but if it's more of these puzzles like we have I may not be interested. Besides, that story is all at the control of FDev and not us, explorers want things to engage with at any time not when FD are ready to move story forward.

It appears they may have added more organics, but surprise now way to find them or narrow down a location, I get they want secrecy but , without giving us any idea or even a few sites in Beta to find, who knows if they are working correctly or not. Sometimes the secret isn't needed. Or at least keep the reason but allow the location to be easier to find.

Anyways, I agree. It'll be interesting to see what coming after this patch but I feel the more and more they just focus on one career...they'll start losing players of the rest and those are even more numerable then combat players...for the moment.

Time is running out though. The open world, sandbox space game is coming back with a bang and they may be overrun.

Hell even NMS is starting to be reborn into something worthwhile. Honestly, there are times when I want my exploration fix that I'll suffer through some of it's mess because it does have the exploring exotic worlds part down.

Been Exploring in NMS recently, and it's far and away more engaging than Elite. Not perfect, but much more enjoyable.

 

[Knightshark]

[*]CQC assets etc, what gameplay will be added? Standard gameplay (bounty hunting) all there, but megaships are a gateway feature. We've got datalinks coming up, but nothing more to announce now.

What is a gateway feature?

 

[Vlad Tepes]

[*]Will MC ships be identifiable to other players? Not at the moment. Will consider if it's an issue. Think it is do-able


I guess Sandro did not know we can already identify a multicrew ship, just like you see any wing

 

[Martian Successor]

What is a gateway feature?

I think it means that it is something which will enable further gameplay or content down the line because of mega ships. So it's like a gate that opens into a new area/avenue - the mega ships being the gate.

[*]Will MC ships be identifiable to other players? Not at the moment. Will consider if it's an issue. Think it is do-able


I guess Sandro did not know we can already identify a multicrew ship, just like you see any wing

http://i.imgur.com/KWDpYAF.png

Well that's reassuring. Why does it have 1/2? Aren't player crew instantly placed in the ship or does it reserve a space for them a little beforehand/after they leave?

EDIT: Oh, right. It's saying there's 1 crew member on board out of a possible 2.

 

[VR Golgot]

In a 1v1 there is simply no counter to an opponent that can shoot you in a 360° radius that has no blind spot and is unnafected by chaff or silent running.

Only spit-balling, but I noticed when NPCs were behind the Conda I was in, with only 2 smalls brought to bear on them, I was doing next to no damage. Seems there's still some room for a single small craft to be a pain in that scenario no?

This is the most disheartening thing I read about the game in a long time. Those awesome new installations being mere glorified nav beacons.

It is very disappointing they're going live purely as space pretty (or just another place to bounty hunt), but it seems that they hit some roadblocks: '...Much of our planned gameplay for these sites has been slightly delayed due to several reasons I can't go into, but we hope to implement them in the future...'

What is a gateway feature?

Well I guess they're supposed to be the basis for multiple gameplay scenarios. IE some of them seem to have been designed to allow flight through their interior spaces, some to potentially have prison related scenarios (we could guess breakouts and prisoner transfers that might get hijacked?), possibly the giant asteroid-headed one or the bulk carriers can be raided? Etc.

(Passingly I wonder if the close-flying CQC structures will play into Sandro's musings about tasks that only small ships can complete?)

[*]Will MC ships be identifiable to other players? Not at the moment. Will consider if it's an issue. Think it is do-able


I guess Sandro did not know we can already identify a multicrew ship, just like you see any wing

http://i.imgur.com/KWDpYAF.png

Hah nice one, adding to the OP

 

[fennster]

Well that's reassuring. Why does it have 1/2? Aren't player crew instantly placed in the ship or does it reserve a space for them a little beforehand/after they leave?

I guess it's just how the game identifies the CMDRs, since you can only target the CMDR at the helm, he is crew member 1 of 2.

 

[cmdr underhill]

• Anything Fighter pilot can do when not in fighter? Passive menu screens, vanity cam mainly.
  
• Camera crew role? Yep that's the Idle role. Nothing planned for anything more just yet but will see how it goes.
  
• Can prospector limits be fired in 360 arc? Yes
  
• Add target bounty in gunner view? We should add, will discuss with UI
  
• Can crew plot routes? They can view maps and nav panel but not plot routes [23m45s]

Excellent, please make sure these are so. All roles should be able to use maps and plot routes.

• No bobbleheads for crew
  
• Can crew access station menu? Nope, need clarity of control for now. Could look at it.
  
• Why can't enter outfitting with crew? Thinks it's a tech / UI limitation
  
• Helm authorisation, IE allowing crew to use synthesis, with Helm saying yes or no, or be given further clearance? Would complicate it, undermine ease of access a bit, UI tricky, but got fire groups working, so possible. No plans at mo [16m30s]

Needs fixing. Menus and synthesis, fine they are not in now, but please put them in the pipeline.

[*]Who controls utility mounts? Gunner

Utilities should be either assignable or universal. In fact I think all things that can be a in a firegroup should be assignable or universal. Possible exception of fixed weapons. Best way to approach from a UI standpoint may be to just give both helm and gunner access to their own firegroups for all things assignable and let them decide how to divvy it up. Also 2 extra pips may be a little much, something like universal control may be better. If 2 players can't find an agreement over weapon/utility and power distribution control, kick or leave is probably best option, not forcing them to use a limited play style. This is supposed to be COOP. Helm could possibly lock down assignables or control of a given number of pips.

[*]Do gunner targets have sway or jitter? Centre circle adds generous auto aim. Prioritises nearer ships. When you target lock it switches off the auto target. Belives they don't get jitter, is supposed to be one of the benefits [26m00s]

Conceptually this is good. Please make sure target lock and auto aim stuff doesn't do unexpected things. If you can't make that happen, I would be glad to use manual aim with a much smaller reticle. Also sub-targets are a must.

• How does MC affect combat logging and 'ungraceful exits'? No effect. That's still an issue they're interested in though. Not his remit but looking at a karma system. If we get that in, or something like it, we'd be able to affect it.
  
• Export Cmdr creations? Save them? Transfer from Beta? Suspect they won't transfer, and sharing not in. Would like to say they'll look at it.
  
• Saves for HoloMe slots and multiple users? Might be looking at multi-saves for accounts. [59m55s]
  
• How will Telepresence and Multicrew work in the future with Space Legs and EVA gameplay? 'Just to set the record straight, Space Legs and EVA gameplay, that's way off in the future. That's a goal. I've talked to David and it's always been part of his core vision for what Elite really is, even from way back in the day, it's always been about you're a person in a real futuristic setting, not just a ship. However, I think it's also fair to say Space Legs is effectively dovetailing a whole new game into Elite. We take steps towards it, it's our end vision, but we're not there yet, we're... it's a long way off. And when it does, by the time, if we get there, if we manage it, I'm sure we'll have the time to sort out any consistencies that need to be sorted out. [68m04s]
  
• Option to turn off portraits in chat to show more text? Not at the moment. Have had a lot of feedback about comms. Possibly it's a bit too strong, maybe ability to customise.
  
• Are NPC faces generated via their names, or will we see a different face each time? At the moment believes it's the latter. That will change if and when they get towards a more persistent level of NPCs [72m00s]
  
• Yellow and orange text unclear, can it be tweaked for release? They're investigating

Good to see these are in the pipeline. Along with body customizations. Do those. And chat customizations. And anything that gives a player more control over how they run their ship. I.e. more customizations = good thing.

• Default keybindings for camera? Thought there were going to be. Will check. [75m40s]
  
• Filters and other tools within camera? Hazards a guess that if it sees a lot of use there's a compelling argument there to improve the feature.
  
• Will camera suite be available for Mac users and others stuck at 1.X? Doesn't think so, will check.

Camera is a QoL improvement. This really should be for 1.x too. Headline feature for this update is "The Commanders" not "The Camera" (even if we REALLY LOVE the camera).

Default keybindings need to be in. Filters are a plus. Can we PLS get movable interior cameras?

• Extended content? Gunners for Capital ships, defending bases? At the moment it's player ships. Have discussed using for cap ship and bases guns. No guarantees but have discussed. Probably on a list somewhere
  
• Can players hitch rides with megaships. Can we store ships on them? Nooooo comment. [83m30s]
  
• Along with bounty-tracker limpets. Sandro 'Really Really Kinda Wanna Do It' Sammarco. [86m25s]

Bounty tracker limpet?

+rep Golgot!

 

[Thetele]

Such hypocrites!

They said they wont put things in store that effect gameplay as they dont want people using real money to get an in game advantage, but thats exactly what this does!

and same tim3 MC don't give merits or BGS effect.

 

[Martian Successor]

This is the most disheartening thing I read about the game in a long time. Those awesome new installations being mere glorified nav beacons.

How can people be thinking spacelegs will come soon, if there isn't even gameplay for ships beyond the most basic.

Well this has been FD's modus operandi since forever as far as I can tell (I started ED with Horizons). They drop the placeholder in the game (with or without some very basic fetal gameplay attached) and then either return to it months/years later or if it's not a combat related feature then not at all.

Only spit-balling, but I noticed when NPCs were behind the Conda I was in, with only 2 smalls brought to bear on them, I was doing next to no damage. Seems there's still some room for a single small craft to be a pain in that scenario no?

Could be, I can't say for sure without trying it myself. My gut feeling tells me that it is going to be a very niche tactic that only works if the perfect set of circumstances are met - i.e. high skilled small ship pilot vs mediocre big ship pilot and/or poor team communication (because even if they can't shoot the small ship the gunner has control of the external turret camera and can thus relay crucial intel to the pilot as to where his pursuer is and which way he is drifting if they have a mic).

It's certainly worth trying to test the waters but small agile ships haven't been a threat to the medium or large combat orientated ships since a little bit before 2.2 introduced SLFs so I'm not entirely confident in small ships being anything more than a mild flea bite in the best of cases as a form of counter to Multi-pew.

 

[Martian Successor]

Multi-account exploits? Double profits by being idle and pip bonus etc? Don't really see that as a problem. If someone's willing to buy game twice to get mild benefits, maybe big benefits, we're not going to stop them.

Such hypocrites!

They said they wont put things in store that effect gameplay as they dont want people using real money to get an in game advantage, but thats exactly what this does!

^ Can't really argue against this. FD really are being very contradictory here because using an alt account to get extra pips is exactly a form of pay 2 get advantages. And yet by Sandy's statement it seems Frontier don't really care that they have willingly coded in an exploit into their game. What's worse is that it is a developer made pay 2 exploit loop hole.

This one is going to leave a permanently bad stink in my opinion if FD don't do something to address it.

 

[Alec Turner]

^ Can't really argue against this. FD really are being very contradictory here because using an alt account to get extra pips is exactly a form of pay 2 get advantages. And yet by Sandy's statement it seems Frontier don't really care that they have willingly coded in an exploit into their game. What's worse is that it is a developer made pay 2 exploit loop hole.

This one is going to leave a permanently bad stink in my opinion if FD don't do something to address it.

Just been catching up on the stream and saw that bit. To be honest Sandy looked very tired, he was doing his best (and it was brilliant) but I think he spoke out of turn on that one and/or chose his words badly. What he said may be his own personal "off the cuff" (and possibly ill-considered) opinion but I suspect it's a case of "opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of Frontier Developments".

 

[NMS]

That stuck out to me as well.

It's a bit confusing because the Keelback came in as part of development on Horizons, so the only real explanation I can see is that multicrew was developed very late and underwent numerous iterations.

Weirdly this part:

"Keelback was designed before MC, and missed out. Might still get a spare seat."

...makes me sad.
I've always assumed there is a ton of long term planning that we just can't see on this end.
That line makes me think maybe not.

I said this in other topics and i was massacred by the white knights. Every new content update is always developed on the eve of its launch, so it is always accompanied by many problems and definately are rushed causing a lot of bad decisions in terms of game design.