C'mon FD - we really need a way of hiding these troll threads
If FD wake up and take some of the more sensible feedback on board the threads just might stop coming, all by themselves.
The epic fail of Beyond
- Thread starter Marcus Tullius
- Start date
- Status
If FD wake up and take some of the more sensible feedback on board the threads just might stop coming, all by themselves.
If I was working for Fdev and I kept reading these forums about every new proposal THAT ISN'T EVEN OUT YET describing it as an "epic fail". I'd be tempted to down tools and tell folk: you think you can do better, do it your flipping ungrateful selves!
Some folk have already decided that Beyond is going to be a failure so any issue with it is just going to confirm that bias.
What and flaming see!
Sweet Zombie Cheeses, it's the last day of the year people looking to unwind a bit and instead: All your efforts for the next year are doomed to failure!
Well somebody needs to cheer up these Mystic Megs. Maybe the reason they're so unhappy is that they can't sit comfortably because of their giant crystal balls!
Some folk have already decided that Beyond is going to be a failure so any issue with it is just going to confirm that bias.
What and flaming see!
Sweet Zombie Cheeses, it's the last day of the year people looking to unwind a bit and instead: All your efforts for the next year are doomed to failure!
Well somebody needs to cheer up these Mystic Megs. Maybe the reason they're so unhappy is that they can't sit comfortably because of their giant crystal balls!
Nope, if they take one set of feedback that one group finds "sensible" another group will be outraged, and that other group would make these threads.
What would be required to stop these threads would be for people to stop hyping up their own expectations and remember that there's a huge list of things coming, that requires a lot of dev time even when you have over 100 developers on Elite alone.
What one finds sensible could kill the game for others.
Good points, Squadrons and Fleet Carriers should allow deep sandbox, emergent gameplay. The players must be put in charge of their own Fleet Carrier and Squadron which can operate independently without forcing people to do any community goals nor serve an NPC power.
To make Elite Dangerous a proper deep sandbox the players must be empowered with tools, they must be able to become a type of power themselves such as in a star system. Not just NPC characters, because that's less interesting than real people.
It's much more fun to lead your own independent Squadron and make a mark in the galaxy. Rather than be a bigger cog in a machine, a servant of an imaginary NPC power.
Calling Beyond an "epic fail" is getting ahead of things. We first have to see what Squadrons will be like. I hope Frontier listens to our feedback.
Last edited by a moderator:
Sorry but that just makes it a different type of sandbox. I very much doubt that squadrons will be a power in a system. I doubt you will be able to control whom has access to stations in a system etc. I am sure squadrons will have control over their fleet carriers and who can land on them though and be able to jump to different parts of the galaxy map, probably once a week or so.
I only read the OP but I start to think that some people are just waiting for ED to fail, that they want FD to screw up.
Sheesh lighten up man, it's a game and it's doing just fine.
Sheesh lighten up man, it's a game and it's doing just fine.
Last edited:
It could still sorta work to control the system in a way if squadrons were made up of player factions, and they used their carrier(s) in their home system.
My concern with Beyond is from what I've heard and read it all seems to be fairly basic changes and improvements to mechanics.
Don't get me wrong they are all welcome if they do actually improve the game but I don't think they go far enough.
I'm really hoping for more fundamental changes...one example would be system security status actually meaning something. When you fly into an low or zero security anarchy or feudal system it should be dangerous, extremely dangerous. Equally if you are in a high sec system you should be fairly safe with highly responsive system police. This way the game play changes depending on where you play, you get to pick your own level of difficulty.
The original Elite in 1984 had this, not sure why it's not in ED.
It's at this level where I think the core changes and development for beyond should focus first, flesh out the base layer of the game, the BGS, the way you interact with factions/npc and vice versa. Then when that is done you layer on the mechanics like missions, trade, exploration, mining, wings, bounty hunting, C&P, smuggling etc...
Fiddling with engineers is not going to 'make' ED come alive and realise it's potential.....start with the basics, the foundations of the game, improve those then go from there.
Nothing I've read or heard addresses these issues and that is my main concern.
Don't get me wrong they are all welcome if they do actually improve the game but I don't think they go far enough.
I'm really hoping for more fundamental changes...one example would be system security status actually meaning something. When you fly into an low or zero security anarchy or feudal system it should be dangerous, extremely dangerous. Equally if you are in a high sec system you should be fairly safe with highly responsive system police. This way the game play changes depending on where you play, you get to pick your own level of difficulty.
The original Elite in 1984 had this, not sure why it's not in ED.
It's at this level where I think the core changes and development for beyond should focus first, flesh out the base layer of the game, the BGS, the way you interact with factions/npc and vice versa. Then when that is done you layer on the mechanics like missions, trade, exploration, mining, wings, bounty hunting, C&P, smuggling etc...
Fiddling with engineers is not going to 'make' ED come alive and realise it's potential.....start with the basics, the foundations of the game, improve those then go from there.
Nothing I've read or heard addresses these issues and that is my main concern.
I'm not advocating for Squadrons to determine who has access to a star system and stations. This is impossible, because people can play in solo or private groups to circumvent a squadron. However, a squadron could be like a small faction that is player driven.
This game must evolve into more than a shallow sandbox. That's been stated for the last few years, if it is to survive and bring back the hundreds of thousands of inactive players as well as new players in the coming years.
We don't want to be limited to repainting the walls and ceiling. We want tools and materials to build our own stuff.
Yes, seconded.
Last edited:
"Fiddling with engineers" is in fact only one small item on a very large list for Beyond. Security in a system is another item on said list. Here's the list, which devs said specifically weren't everything, just everything they had time to go over during the Expo: https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...ite_dangerous_2018_roadmap_regularly_updated/
If FD really believes that players like working together, why not fix the broken multiplayer aspects already present in the game? Adding more content to a broken platform is just so,... FD...
Sorry, I really love this game, but dress a turd and it's still just that. Squadrons are an insult in my opinion. Fix the core (multiplayer/instancing) game first.
Better security ships and C&P in a system is not what I was talking about...you missed the point...and that list is very basic, most of which in Q1 could be described as fiddling with engineers.
I've still not seen or heard anything to suggest improvements to the core foundations of the game
I've still not seen or heard anything to suggest improvements to the core foundations of the game
That's pretty much what we have with factions anyway. You can just use your fleet carrier to push the BGS faction or use powerplay etc. I don't think your squadron will be tied to a faction, that will be a choice for the members/leaders of whom they want to back.
Last edited:
If it's anything like the gnosis then the squadron will have control over where it goes (but it is still limited in jump range), but no control over docking rights etc. Even if there was control you can get allied to PF in-game without the forum power trippers having any say like they seem to want - which will hopefully incense them further.
![[VR] Frank_G](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/59/59394.jpg?1553527111){kind=avatar}
Most people are over-saturated and demand of the Devs to change that, which is simply not possible. The only ones to blame are themselves, because they just over-played the game... and like with every repetitive thing, it just satisfies less and less over time... That is, what sadly most people don´t get. They should have bought Elite in 3 years or so instead of flooding the forum with negativity.
So overhauling trade, and the entire code for planetary surface generation, and C&P aren't "core foundations" of the game? Mining and exploration aren't core parts of the game?
Are we playing the same game?
Seems perfectly reasonable to me, after all, the customer is always right! Plus, if they hadn't wasted time on CQC, Powerplay, Multicrew & whatever, I'd have had other landable planet types by now
You do realise they get paid for working, probably wouldn't if they downed tools, plus, can you imagine where this game would be now if modding was allowed? a gosh darned sight further than it is now. The amazing things I've seen modders do in things like Skyrim, No Mans Land, Dying Light - you wouldn't believe.
Happy new year Fdev and Everybody (white knights and haters - we're all here because we see something worth returning to), may Beyond improve this game to sights and gameplay loops wondrous to behold...
Wow cool story
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status