[Video] Open letter from community to Elite Dangerous

[Nerth]

Shall we call this a Pyrrhic win for pedantic determination?

It's not about wins. It's about being understanding about why some people feel let down by the current state of Elite/Frontier/management etc.

Not all of us have the same issues and not all of us hate Frontier and not all of us are determined to convince everyone that Elite is terrible and Frontier are evil. But neither will we be told that our concerns don't matter by people who aren't bothered by issues that don't affect them. If you see no problems with Elite, current development, comms, bugs etc then bully for you. I respectfully disagree and want to voice constructive criticism.

 

[Nerth]

Allowing solo players access doesnt degrade it as a squadron feature. The only thing that's lost is exclusivity to squadrons, which given we can set up one player squadrons for ourselves was never a real issue anyway.

They just recognised that plus player base desire to access game content and widened the scope to fit.

Nothings lost, other people gained something.

Be happy for them.

I have explained what fleet carriers represented to Squadrons and I'm tired of repeating myself. Please refer to my previous posts.

 

[Stigbob]

I have explained what fleet carriers represented to Squadrons and I'm tired of repeating myself. Please refer to my previous posts.

Sharing is caring.

 

[Nerth]

I do agree here... it was announced as a Squadron feature... I'll give you that... promised.... not sure about that?

...but... if it works the way FD have made most activities in this game work, so far... as in...

Grouping up = benificial
Solo = lots more work...

IF... IF, what I write here is true... what is your take on it then?

I think it will be as pointless as wing missions, multicrew, station repairs, PowerPlay and every other "multiplayer" activity that people either do solo or ignore.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Prove it!

Your other half told me last night.

 

[Cageman]

I have explained what fleet carriers represented to Squadrons and I'm tired of repeating myself. Please refer to my previous posts.

This is because you've assumed that personal carriers will not benefit from winging up / group play, and you have done that while totaly neglegting the fact that most activities in Elite benefits from coop gameplay, but are not exclusive to coop gameplay.

 

[Factabulous]

If you're referring to me and the FC issue that I raised as an example of poor communication, you've misunderstood.

Not particularly - Rubbernuke and his PP obsession, Stuart and SDC buddies. Lots of people with beliefs around here. Not sure how you're going to keep them all together if fdev do surrender to your letter, because I'm not convinced you actually agree about much other than that fdev should talk to you all rather than ship what they decide

 

[EUS]

This is because you've assumed that personal carriers will not benefit from winging up / group play, and you have done that while totaly neglegting the fact that most activities in Elite benefits from coop gameplay, but are not exclusive to coop gameplay.

AFAIK the "group play" will be severely hampered by the limit of one PC per instance.

 

[Cageman]

I think it will be as pointless as wing missions, multicrew, station repairs, PowerPlay and every other "multiplayer" activity that people either do solo or ignore.

Really?

"Gather 3000t of Gold, earn 50 mil"

Solo play, 720t cargospace = 5 runs, and profit will be lower.
Wing of 4 with 720t cargospace = 1 run each, + another run for 1 player, profit will be much higher and it takes almost 1/5 of the time to do it.

"Pointless"?

 

[Enderby]

Credits seem a bit pointless at the moment.

 

[Mohrgan]

AFAIK the "group play" will be severely hampered by the limit of one PC per instance.

That's not hard to understand, with all of the 'control features', like docking permission, ect., that will have to be in place for things to be stable.

Pitting a fantasy wish list of imaginary features, against what can be practically done, is a big cause for the angst we see on the interwebs. It's like a old episode of 'I love Lucy', where one word taken wrong allows for a 1/2 hr of hilarity. Only now it comes with anonymous, world-wide, commentary.

 

[Cageman]

AFAIK the "group play" will be severely hampered by the limit of one PC per instance.

Well... time for me to make an assumption... Carriers can not be destroyed (this is, a fact though, assumption follows), so, this could mean that a Carrier that I place somewhere, will be available across instances as well as game modes even if I am logged out.

 

[zimms]

Sharing is caring.

So you agree with the sentiment of the letter now?

 

[Cageman]

Credits seem a bit pointless at the moment.

It is an example... just an EXAMPLE of what Solo vs Group entails for gathering a certain resource.

 

[Enderby]

It is an example... just an EXAMPLE of what Solo vs Group entails for gathering a certain resource.

Fair enough!

 

[babelfisch]

Allowing solo players access doesnt degrade it as a squadron feature. The only thing that's lost is exclusivity to squadrons, which given we can set up one player squadrons for ourselves was never a real issue anyway.

They just recognised that plus player base desire to access game content and widened the scope to fit.

Nothings lost, other people gained something.

Be happy for them.

I wonder, when they add NPC wings, does that mean it's no longer a multiplayer feature? Will people complain about it?
Who am I kidding, people will complain anyway because it destroys the holy PvP balance...

 

[Stigbob]

people will complain anyway

Spot on .

 

[Mohrgan]

Well... time for me to make an assumption... Carriers can not be destroyed, so, this could mean that a Carrier that I place somewhere, will be available across instances as well as game modes even if I am logged out.

If docking is available to someone other than the owner, the Carrier would have to have some persistence, or else something teleporty would have to handle a docked Commander trying to play, while the carrier's owner is logged off. I'll guess that permission to dock is fundamentally the permission to enter the appropriate instance. The instance will 'boot' for anyone with permission, and is in-system. Logging in? You are logged into an instance of that carrier.

 

[zimms]

I didn't say that, I said you were unhappy with the outcome of your choice after you explained that you were unhappy with exactly that.

Give me an example of a false promise and I'll fact you on it.

What about powers in PP being able to crumble and be removed?

I don't do PP or follow it so you'll have to dig up the dev quote and then I'll be happy to explain phrases like "we plan" and "hopefully" to you.

"A power that is in the bottom three ranks of the galactic standing list is at risk of collapsing and vanishing altogether. Simply being in the bottom three ranks does not automatically put the power at risk. It also has to fail to achieve any expansion during the cycle. The more cycles a power is ranked in the bottom three and fails to expand, the more likely it will collapse. Supporters of a collapsed power are freed from service; once they have come to terms with the ignominy of failing to save their power they are free to pledge to a new power."

Sorry, I couldn't find any quotes including the words 'hopefully' or 'we plan'.

You'll need to post a link rather than snip out just the one paragraph without context.

It was in the original Powerplay manual published by Frontier as a feature which existed and had been implemented.

It was only after a power (Delaine, I think, was the first) met the documented conditions for an extended period with no effect that Frontier said that it wasn't in yet but they planned to add it later.


Note the complete absence of phrases like "we plan" and "hopefully"

EDIT:
https://d1wv0x2frmpnh.cloudfront.net/elite/website/assets/English-PlayersGuide_v2.00-Horizons.pdf page 127 - as you can see, it's an official Frontier document which neither of us have taken out of context

So its not a false promise its a work in progress then.

2-0 to Stigbob.

Wow, I swear if you move the goal post any further it will leave the Milky Way.

I didn't give you the power collapse example because I'm an entitled PP fanatic (which I'm not), but because you asked for it.

But I've learned my lesson. Trying to have a discussion with you seems like playing chess with a pigeon.

 

[Stigbob]

Wow, I swear if you move the goal post any further it will leave the Milky Way.

I didn't give you the power collapse example because I'm an entitled PP fanatic (which I'm not), but because you asked for it.

But I've learned my lesson. Trying to have a discussion with you seems like playing chess with a pigeon.

You put a work in progress forward as an example of a false promise. That's why you are wrong.