Elite Dangerous is the Largest Empty Sandbox Ever Made

[babelfisch]

whats the problem with player controlled stations/outpost?:O

1. Priorities. That's the most important point, everything else is debateable. I want that they work on the features they 'promised' like walking around, atmospheric planets and NPC crew first.
2. It wouldn't fit to the game if an individual player could own a Coriolis Station. It's already bad enough that everyone runs around in Cutters and Corvettes.
3. Because of 2. it must be limited to player groups. Who decides what happens to the station, what exactly can you do with it?
4. It would create areas of the game where certain groups feel like they are in charge. They would tell me that I am not allowed in their system. When they find out I can go there in Solo they would demand that the mode gets removed from the game.
5. I don't want to play another stupid generic standard MMO.

Pretty sure there are more reasons against it.

 

[Goose4291]

A lot of valid points and things that have been brought up in the past before, but that doesn't make it any less relevant or valid as feedback goes.

These comments were limited but let's not go down the route of "another of these threads," "oh, another white knight defending FD," or "it's just a bunch of whinging" folks. It's not especially constructive and just derails things unnecessarily.

The volume of sand, or lack thereof as far as the feedback on this and the reddit thread goes, is something I see comments about a lot. There's not much I can comment on it just yet but I thought it prudent to drop in and at least acknowledge it. We see it a bunch, and while I'm not always in agreement, it's hard to really deny people's perceptions of it... both sides of the argument make a good case for their side. I can't say that this will be resolved completely because that's a bit of a stretch when a lot of it is also down to what people want at the individual level. That said I am hopeful that future updates in the Beyond updates and (for lack of a better word) beyond will go a long way to address many people's umbrage with ED.

I appreciate that 2.4 wasn't well received (which the reddit thread was talking about.) We said from the very beginning that it was a different way of doing things. Criticism is an opportunity to learn, so this is what we will continue to do. Feedback is gathered regularly so as we move forward we will keep a note of what aspects worked and which parts received the harshest reception to help inform future content releases. We're immensely proud of what we've done but humble enough to learn and do better every time.

I like the honesty and fully respect it. Im glad that youve learnt the lesson of 2.4: that your non-hardcore fans respect it (as we saw with the reaction to the ax missile nerf vs the taipan nerf).

My only criticism beyond honesty is just this: if a game feature is broken/not appreciated, dont abandon it due to 'lack of interest' like Sandro announced. If NMS can take the feedback and recraft it accordingly and pull it back from the abyss without a diehard fanbase, you chaps can too.

 

[babelfisch]

I like the honesty and fully respect it. Im glad that youve learnt the lesson of 2.4: that your non-hardcore fans respect it (as we saw with the reaction to the ax missile nerf vs the taipan nerf).

My only criticism beyond honesty is just this: if a game feature is broken/not appreciated, dont abandon it due to 'lack of interest' like Sandro announced. If NMS can take the feedback and recraft it accordingly and pull it back from the abyss without a diehard fanbase, you chaps can too.

Yes, that statement about Multicrew really was the weirdest thing I ever heard. Well actually it doesn't even come close, but you get the idea.

 

[Cosmo]

[*]Availability of giant ‘executive control’ ships to players <--- Squadrons and with it, Fleet Carriers, are going to be a Thing. Rejoice.

Yes I hope that the Fleet Carrier will be the first player owned capital ship with executive control. The Squadron CEO/Leader could give executive control orders to the Fleet Carrier to move it around in a system and hyperspace jump to other systems. The leader could delegate this task to other authorized squadron members.

Sounds like it to me, there'll be wailing and gnashing of teeth if executive control means they can't be parked in Eravate with orders to kill all noobs.

Newbie systems should have high security so it's too risky for a squadron to cause mayhem there. If a Carrier attacks innocents in a high security system then an NPC Farragut or Majestic would show up to restore order.

I'd be happy depth to a lot of features; such as multiple ways to mine, multiple ways to trade. With space legs, I'd want things like .. being able to see my cargo being loaded up. Buying an apartment on a space station. Buying things for the apartment from around the galaxy. Maybe a "Hutton Mug" for one of my shelves. Or a "Beagle Point" poster (only available from.. yeah, beagle point; maybe add a small science outpost on one of the planets ). Things like that. Nothing game changing.. but something to draw me in and make me feel like I want to be there.

Seconded. It's the dream of living in the Elite universe as a person rather than a ship.

I'm an SC backer, too. I'd love for ED to be what SC is promising.... but I'm also a realist. I know better, and I also know that ED isn't set up that way- fundamentally. It was never implemented that way, and to change the core basics of this game to satisfy those who want it to be what SC promises would take waaaaay too much time and too many resources, they'd practically have to rewrite the game from scratch. From the networking framework all the way to the design level of ships, etc.

Well I'm not so fond of the stereotypical space sim they're aiming for (anti-gravity, "United Empire of Earth" lol sounds like a kid thought that up, human-like aliens).

Elite is a different kind of universe that I prefer, it's darker, more epic scale, and more hard science fiction. Also the EVA is certainly do-able, they don't have to redo the ships. Ships of the same manufacturer can use the same internal compartment modules with a few tweaks.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Yes I hope that the Fleet Carrier will be the first player owned capital ship with executive control. The Squadron CEO/Leader could give executive control orders to the Fleet Carrier to move it around in a system and hyperspace jump to other systems. The leader could delegate this task to other authorized squadron members.

Elite : The Office

 

[mbar]

Yes I hope that the Fleet Carrier will be the first player owned capital ship with executive control. The Squadron CEO/Leader could give executive control orders to the Fleet Carrier to move it around in a system and hyperspace jump to other systems. The leader could delegate this task to other authorized squadron members.

I am extremely curious to see how fleet carriers will work. Who would own it? Where would it be stored? Will it crawl out of hyperspace via a thick black cloud and lots of french horns like the capital ships? Does it matter to me anyway because I play solo? Who will buy paint jobs for it?

 

[S3B4ST13N]

1. Priorities. That's the most important point, everything else is debateable. I want that they work on the features they 'promised' like walking around, atmospheric planets and NPC crew first.
2. It wouldn't fit to the game if an individual player could own a Coriolis Station. It's already bad enough that everyone runs around in Cutters and Corvettes.
3. Because of 2. it must be limited to player groups. Who decides what happens to the station, what exactly can you do with it?
4. It would create areas of the game where certain groups feel like they are in charge. They would tell me that I am not allowed in their system. When they find out I can go there in Solo they would demand that the mode gets removed from the game.
5. I don't want to play another stupid generic standard MMO.

Pretty sure there are more reasons against it.

1. Fair point.

2. I'd say an introduction of "player" stations could work; perhaps sort of like a larger version of an outpost.
Modular based. Each module provides a different feature; Research, Mining/Processing, Landing etc.
Each "Landing segment" can support 4 large ships, 8 medium, or 32 small ships. One large ship? All small ships? 2 medium, 4 small?

Example:

Spoiler

3. If it's controlled by a group, then the group owner / council / whatever. That's for the group to decide.

4. So? You laugh and go on your way. I doubt this would be such a regular occurrence for it to be a real problem.

5. Don't build your own outpost then. Some people genuinely would like to. I know I would. I'd start my own trading company. Pick a quiet system with a good turn around; and trade from it. Hire NPC traders, whatever. Bring goods to my system to stock up my outpost for other traders to buy from/sell to.

If it's implemented properly, and thought out well .. it could be a nice addition to the game.

 

[Enderby]

Here's hoping that Beyond delivers some of that much-needed sand.

From what I saw of the expo stream, it sounds like that's the aim.

As always with ED, there's always hope.

 

[babelfisch]

1. Fair point.

2. I'd say an introduction of "player" stations could work; perhaps sort of like a larger version of an outpost.
Modular based. Each module provides a different feature; Research, Mining/Processing, Landing etc.
Each "Landing segment" can support 4 large ships, 8 medium, or 32 small ships. One large ship? All small ships? 2 medium, 4 small?

Example:

Spoiler

https://i.imgur.com/bVpe3MT.png

3. If it's controlled by a group, then the group owner / council / whatever. That's for the group to decide.

4. So? You laugh and go on your way. I doubt this would be such a regular occurrence for it to be a real problem.

5. Don't build your own outpost then. Some people genuinely would like to. I know I would. I'd start my own trading company. Pick a quiet system with a good turn around; and trade from it. Hire NPC traders, whatever. Bring goods to my system to stock up my outpost for other traders to buy from/sell to.

If it's implemented properly, and thought out well .. it could be a nice addition to the game.

On 2: No, that's definitely too big. It should be a small tent that can be set up as research, mining or fortified camp. And we should have the ability to buy an appartement in stations. It should also only be visible for people in the same instance. How should they handle outposts for 3 million players?

 

[withnail]

I appreciate that 2.4 wasn't well received (which the reddit thread was talking about.) We said from the very beginning that it was a different way of doing things. Criticism is an opportunity to learn, so this is what we will continue to do. Feedback is gathered regularly so as we move forward we will keep a note of what aspects worked and which parts received the harshest reception to help inform future content releases. We're immensely proud of what we've done but humble enough to learn and do better every time.

Are you saying that we've seen everything 2.4 has to offer?

I think the concept is good, it is just that it is so drawn out and the CG'S are clunky.

A blitzkrieg type attack with both solo and wing combat would have been better. Conventional weapons working at first but then both sides adapting technologically.

CG's would then have been ok (but I'm sure you can think something better up) if players could have been shooting at stuff and fighting a war in the meantime.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

As long as you can murder other cmdrs, this game works as intended. I dont see any issues with it, still login every day, extract some nacl and enjoying myself.

Yesterday I murdered a viper cmdr 3 times becsuse he couldn't understand that the thargoid poaching is illegal and hunting season is over. I had to do my part since I am RP as thargoid park ranger in the CG.

You have to create your own content, dont expect the game to do it for you.

 

[babelfisch]

Are you saying that we've seen everything 2.4 has to offer?

I think the concept is good, it is just that it is so drawn out and the CG'S are clunky.

A blitzkrieg type attack with both solo and wing combat would have been better. Conventional weapons working at first but then both sides adapting technologically.

CG's would then have been ok (but I'm sure you can think something better up) if players could have been shooting at stuff and fighting a war in the meantime.

No, I don't think this is what he said.

 

[babelfisch]

As long as you can murder other cmdrs, this game works as intended. I dont see any issues with it, still login every day, extract some nacl and enjoying myself.

Yesterday I murdered a viper cmdr 3 times becsuse he couldn't understand that the thargoid poaching is illegal and hunting season is over. I had to do my part since I am RP as thargoid park ranger in the CG.

You have to create your own content, dont expect the game to do it for you.

I really like you since I found out that you are parodying PvPers!

 

[Ozric]

Are you saying that we've seen everything 2.4 has to offer?

I very much doubt it. I think we're only on Chapter 2 of the book so far, of course a lot of people want to just skip to the end to see what the last page says, but there are plenty of us who don't.

 

[Stigbob]

I really like you since I found out that you are parodying PvPers!

He's done more for group mode than Mobius ever will.

 

[ALGOMATIC]

He's done more for group mode than Mobius ever will.

Good, less carebears in open is a good thing.

 

[Red Anders]

I like the honesty and fully respect it. Im glad that youve learnt the lesson of 2.4: that your non-hardcore fans respect it (as we saw with the reaction to the ax missile nerf vs the taipan nerf).

My only criticism beyond honesty is just this: if a game feature is broken/not appreciated, dont abandon it due to 'lack of interest' like Sandro announced. If NMS can take the feedback and recraft it accordingly and pull it back from the abyss without a diehard fanbase, you chaps can too.

Yes, that statement about Multicrew really was the weirdest thing I ever heard. Well actually it doesn't even come close, but you get the idea.

Considering that Sandro made that comment pretty much right at the start of multicrew's introduction, I interpreted it as this:

'Honestly, we know it's less than you wanted but even this has taken us a long time and we've realised it's not really feasible from a time vs benefits point of view to spend the amount of additional time that would be needed to add the various new mechanics required to support expanding multicrew into things like a dedicated engineering role'

Thing is if that's something like right, I wish he'd just said it because it's a lot easier to understand and accept that than it is to try to take what he did say which, paraphrasing (sorry Sandro if you're reading...) was basically 'Here's a feature which is half-baked at best but if for some reason you all go wild for it despite that, we *mumbles* might *mumbles* do something more with it. Please don't though. Please.'

It wasn't the simple fact that multicrew arrived pretty much dead in the water that troubled me, more the suggestion that there may be a potential route to get it improved but only by spending a significant amount of time playing something which is pretty limited to begin with. Nobody was ever going to do that, so just have the front to say 'yeah we tried this, realised that it wasn't really working out. Sorry and all that, now let's put it behind us and get on with something better.'

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Good, less carebears in open is a good thing.

They should be tempted out of Open with a BGS bonus. I'm thinking 25%

 

[ALGOMATIC]

They should be tempted out of Open with a BGS bonus. I'm thinking 25%

I agree, actually make it 100%

 

[playfuldreamer]

A lot of valid points and things that have been brought up in the past before, but that doesn't make it any less relevant or valid as feedback goes.

These comments were limited but let's not go down the route of "another of these threads," "oh, another white knight defending FD," or "it's just a bunch of whinging" folks. It's not especially constructive and just derails things unnecessarily.

The volume of sand, or lack thereof as far as the feedback on this and the reddit thread goes, is something I see comments about a lot. There's not much I can comment on it just yet but I thought it prudent to drop in and at least acknowledge it. We see it a bunch, and while I'm not always in agreement, it's hard to really deny people's perceptions of it... both sides of the argument make a good case for their side. I can't say that this will be resolved completely because that's a bit of a stretch when a lot of it is also down to what people want at the individual level. That said I am hopeful that future updates in the Beyond updates and (for lack of a better word) beyond will go a long way to address many people's umbrage with ED.

I appreciate that 2.4 wasn't well received (which the reddit thread was talking about.) We said from the very beginning that it was a different way of doing things. Criticism is an opportunity to learn, so this is what we will continue to do. Feedback is gathered regularly so as we move forward we will keep a note of what aspects worked and which parts received the harshest reception to help inform future content releases. We're immensely proud of what we've done but humble enough to learn and do better every time.

Whatever my opinions of the game and its development, you, Sir Dale, are one of the best CMs in the business. Thank you for your response here.