As I have said before, why aren't the Powers & the Factions affiliated in any way? Factions could offer Power-Play specific missions, ones that gain players Merits as well as credits & reputation, whilst also aiding a Power towards a specific in-system goal.....& aiding a Faction's Influence could likewise feed into a Power's control of a system.....& vice versa. That's what I want to see, more inter-connectivity between various game-play loops.
News Focused Feedback Forum Content Schedule
- Thread starter Edward Lewis
- Start date
As I have said before, why aren't the Powers & the Factions affiliated in any way? Factions could offer Power-Play specific missions, ones that gain players Merits as well as credits & reputation, whilst also aiding a Power towards a specific in-system goal.....& aiding a Faction's Influence could likewise feed into a Power's control of a system.....& vice versa. That's what I want to see, more inter-connectivity between various game-play loops.
Yes! Things should be more connected. More integration between the different forces and functions. How about one of the factions representing the power itself, so the missions for that faction would strengthen their influence in the system and adjacent systems where the missions go to.
That is pretty much what I was going for. Likewise, why not have *all* the Engineers be affiliated to a Specific Faction, like Liz Ryder is? Have Faction Rep play into Engineer Rank, & vice versa?
Yeah, I hardly use them but have had problems where I was trying to chat to someone, thought they were ignoring me, but they just weren't seeing the messages (woder if that's behind some of the 'they killed me without even talking' instances).
Even the stream last night they couldn't see each other - and that was on FD's own site! Seems madness to introduce another way to annoy people by failing to let them cooperate when the current ones are so clearly broken.
But maybe part of squadrons is looking at that code. If so I recommend a looooong (open) beta
I read it too and I saw some that was thoughtful, nuanced and detailed. Some I saw was radiculously unrealistic (C&P feedback) and mostly just there own personal wish list.
I never once mentioned rants and so on. I even talked about how I would have prefered engineers with a completely different system to the way it was and is (my own personal wishlist), but to be honest most of it was never going to happen.
The basics are set in stone, what the focus feedback is for, is for the finer details, not the overall mechanic which had already been decided upon. It doesn't matter how much maths and thought was put into those post, they were still not going to happen just like my own.
It has nothing to do with my attitude. The vast majority of the feedback was ignored because it was irrelavent as stated above. But the facts are is that Engineers and the Crime & Punishment has been improved due to player feedback, yes the overall mechanics haven't changed but the smaller details have done, such as with engineers the amount of rolls needed to grade up your modules is now determined by your engineer rank, the pinned blueprints are now a whole range instead of just one grade, the ranges of the engineers bonuses were tweaked, for Crime and Punishment a notoriety system was added (needs expanding in my opinion) and there are other changes going on regarding the KWS to come in and some others due to, yes you guessed it, player feedback.
To say that feedback was ignored is a lie and just shows your own attititude. You can call it disrepectfull and pointless all you want, doesn't stop you from being wrong.
More transparency and communication would help a bunch I think. Not only with avoiding all the rage complaints and angry rants on the forum, but also with expectations and people who avoid games when there are a few things not working correctly, like me. That said, I still play, but it feels a little bit like beta testing, and in general I really don't like beta testing. Not saying Elite really feels like a beta. It does _not_, it's just a few functions that are not working correctly.
I really appreciate the hard work the dev team puts into the game, and bugs happen, the more complex and procedural a system, the more likely. Hearing more from the team and on what they are working at the moment, and what's the problem with this or that would be greatly appreciated. And since we're at it: where are the Discovery Scanner streams? I really enjoyed those a lot. Moar!
Last edited:
Regarding bugs: FDev are not only actively hiring a Senior QA Tester, but a Build Engineer “to work with [their] game and technology teams in driving forward the way [they] test games and tools. The successful candidate will innovate and improve [the] existing automated testing and build procedures to support these projects, and will manage the various builds both internally during development and for external releases.” That's the sign of a company that acknowledges the issues and is looking for long-term solutions.
While many (myself included) would probably like to see a dedicated, persistent test-server for ED, the truth is that many of us would probably just swap to the test server, right? I mean if ED does one thing spot on, it’s the immense joy of being the absolute first to discover something in a seemingly endless game-world.
As for all the bugs that have been reported and don't have anything to do with in-game "mysteries"... I can second that they get annoying after some time, especially when it's unclear whether they are being looked into or not, as mentioned by other users here. So, again, improved communication is key.
I agree. I understand that the Developer can't reply to every quibble, and certainly not instantly, but I do think that some form of periodic round-up would be really helpful. Perhaps even a scheduled one, like every month or two.
I also agree. A lot of credit is due to Frontier, and I should say that in the bug report example I used (about the penetrator dumbfires) I just bumped the thread after a month and QA promptly and helpfully replied, o7
You read my mind. I was also thinking that the engineers should have unique missions (like Ram Tah) that you can pick up at their locations, and just like Ram Tah, these missions would unlock new things, exactly what I don't know, but new types of missions and new types of rewards would be interesting. Perhaps new types of SLFs and SRVs would be tied to doing a certain mission to some engineer etc (one or two missions though, not overdoing it with hundreds of missions for a simple thing).
I appreciate your sentiments Alec but I'm not asking for enhancements. Just a better balance of what exists already.
Right now I can be destroyed by any well armed small to medium ship with impunity. Given the amount of work I put into obtaining and kitting out this ship it should at least be reflected in its ability to put up a good defense.
Oh and before anybody says "Git Gud" I can take out NPC gunships with my iEagle so I'm not all that terrible.
o7
Considering other people do manage it very well, and there are tons of vids on youtube showing it, I suspect it may not be the ship that is the problem.
I can see a scenario where a squadron can use such a carrier as a base for very protracted galactic exploration/mapping missions.
Being able to hand in exploration data at the carrier instead of rushing back to civilised space may also encourage more detailed surveys of systems rather than only scanning systems likely to include Earthlikes.
o7
Last edited:
There is a pointless discussion. If you simply are ok with the basics being "set in stone", fine. The basics were the problem in the first place, and thousands of posts pointed that out. Replacing one grind variant with another and even making the game much more a grind for players that don't care about minmaxing - that is not an improvement. Then this whole grandfathering and power creep mess. The feedback post was made in early December. Then week by week Sandro promised to reposed to the feedback, until the beta hit in early February(?). Stating that they value out time is just ridiculous. Not only does the game design waste our time, the feedback forums were just another pointless time sink. The improvement that you point out are simply no-brainers. Pinned blueprints cover a whole range now? Wow, how generous! And when they cut guardian grind in half all will be alright? No! They basic design principles will still suck because it will still be centered around mindless repetition. I honestly believed Beyond will change their approach to game design, and that the feedback forums will be a place where new mechanics will be discussed. Mechanics that are fun and meaningful. I have no interest to simply negotiate the number of repetitions to shift it from ludicrous to just bearable.
I agree, there is a lot of game play potential with the Squadron concept.
But then there also was with Multicrew and SLF's too, yet both of those ended up being just combat content.
Want to bet anything that we find out Squadrons are also combat only next week?
Last edited:
I never said that I was happy about it, but that is what is going to happen, the feedback they need is how to improve on what they have already created, if you thought otherwise then I feel for you, that was never going to happen with the small time frame they had available. I know Sandro said he was going to respond to the feedback, but he obviously ran out of time.
As to grind there isn't any for people who are not bothered about min-maxing. If you are not bothered, grade 2-3 modules should be perfectly fine and you do not need any grind to get those materials. I find getting grade 5 modules far easier now then I ever did in the old version without having to grind for stuff either.
Anyway, as a casual player who does not min-max I don't have any real issues with the current version of engineers apart from power creep. It is considerebly easier to get the engineered modules I want in my experience. What is the issue is how we go about getting the mats in the first place, they are not that great. In some cases that is now easier with the materials broker, but USS's are still not a great mechanic and some people do not like driving the SRV and shooting rocks which is also an issue.
But those issues were never part of the Engineers updates. That is coming in Q4 with the exploration/scanning mechanics and the mining update.
As to mechanics that are meaningful, that is another issue entirely. That is the holy grail isn't it. Engineers is never going to do that or the Exploration and Mining updates. That is all tied into the background sim. Whether that gets changed in the future we shall see. I certainly hope so.
I don't want to argue and in some ways I agree with you, but I think you are looking at these focus forums the wrong way. While people add a lot a great ideas like I did myself (well I thought it was great) who's do they pick. It can't work like that. All they can do is go with what they think is good and then let the community find the holes and issues with it to try to make it a better system overall.
No matter what they do it isn't going to to please everyone.
I agree, there is a lot of game play potential with the Squadron concept.
But then there also was with Multicrew and Wings too, yet both of those ended up being just combat content.
Want to bet anything that we find out Squadrons are also combat only next week?
I think you are being a bit harsh with wings there. I have done a number of trade runs in a wing. But regarding multicrew there really isn't much they could do with it apart from combat.
I mean what do you want them to do with exploration. Press the scan button on system entry and thats it. Maybe with the new scanning mechanics coming they will add another role. While the pilot concentrate on scooping and piloting, the multicrew guy can do the scanning mechanics and plot routes.
Need to have the mechanics in before adding the roles.
Last edited:
Multicrew I'll accept - while every single use I've made of it has been non-combat tourism, the only ones with decent mechanical support are for combat. Even if they just let the gunner role aim the surface scanner...
But Wings? There are lots of non-combat uses there:
- navlock and share vouchers for faster and more profitable trading
- shared prospecting and collecting in mining
- navlock, beacons and better instancing for exploration meetups or bringing item collections to Guardian sites, or optimising distances between ships on a volcanism search
- navlock and beacons for fuel rat rescues
- limited (but so far all there is) in-game group chat
- shared exploration scanning and group first discovery tags
- wing trade missions
- easier coordination of rares collection for CGs or engineer unlocking
I mean, sure, you can use Wings to shoot stuff faster too. But it wasn't until 2.3 - two years after the original implementation - that this actually became more profitable than shooting stuff on your own. And it arguably wasn't until 2.4 - two and a half years after the original - that they actually added any content to the game where shooting it together was, if not absolutely required, then at least advantageous.
YES! Exactly!
I have to be honest, I meant SLF's, not wings. My mind was thinking one thing and typing another, my bad. I've used wings a lot while out on exploration expeditions.
Last edited:
I agree, there is a lot of game play potential with the Squadron concept.
But then there also was with Multicrew and SLF's too, yet both of those ended up being just combat content.
Want to bet anything that we find out Squadrons are also combat only next week?
I'd recommend on keeping expectations as low as possible until we get some solid news. Mobile bases for huge exploration fleets sounds awesome, but I think we're lightyears (sorry) from that.