What feature do hope will be updated/refreshed for early 2023?

[Frank]

I don't see what is not making sense to you. You responded to my point about quality of life being sacrificed for the sake of artificial incentivization, as opposed to letting it be optional and up to player choice, with the claim that you've never encountered a situation outfitting your ships where you encountered that artificial barrier. Which runs contrary to the oft-repeated idea that there's anything meaningful behind the artificial module restrictions, and that it contributes anything to the level of fun in the game.

Just because there is nothing meaningful in the way FDev have set up the artificial restrictions to the module loadouts doesn't mean that it should be thrown out along with the bathwater. Elite is a game, and games need restrictions

It should be possible to make swapping modules for certain tasks more fun. I don't know how to do that, because I'm not a game designer. But I get this feeling that there aren't any game designers at FDev either. Sure there are plenty there that can make pulling a swift turn in a spaceship feel just right, and bouncing along on the surface of a moon a pleasure... but there don't seem to be many there that are good at setting up the rules to play a game

 

[Sethioz]

I hope it will be something to do with planets and life on them, exobiology I hope.
I have so many cool ideas, wish devs would read them .. but they think they know the best because they are the devs, but that's wrong :/

I'd like to see planetside 2 planetary combat, more vehicles, possibility to overtake an entire planet! a war that goes on for days or even weeks, something where players can hop in/out of battle without the fear of losing their ship. something like mix of CQC and open play. Some sort of a queue system that teleports and drops you into the battle, this way all players can participate without having to physically go there, which would result in more players playing.
Imagine having hover tanks, goliath drones ..etc available for players to pilot. Add few more planetary vehicles ..etc.

Then add ability to land on proper atmospheric planets
more biological features on planets
actual lifeforms that can attack you (look bit into NMS)

I have hundreds of amazing ideas, but all would be in vain, because devs would never read ... I posted some amazing ideas into the suggestions and they never even got approved, clearly they dont care.

 

[Darkfyre99]

And yet, in the current state of the game, is detracted from by the XP reduction for having a crew aboard, let alone the stability of multicrew...or even the mere presence of your crew in the seats on your ship....

Which is why I said hiring crew is one of the few meaningful decisions that remain in this game. The benefits to having crew need to be weighed against that XP penalty. This is a good thing in my book. This game needs to reverse the trend of removing meaningful decisions in the game, rather than exacerbate it.

 

[Factabulous]

Which is why I said hiring crew is one of the few meaningful decisions that remain in this game. The benefits to having crew need to be weighed against that XP penalty. This is a good thing in my book. This game needs to reverse the trend of removing meaningful decisions in the game, rather than exacerbate it.

Yup - one of the easiest* ways they could add much needed CR sinks would be a requirement to hire a full NPC crew with the affecting ship performance depending on rank. One day ...

* not necessarily easy, and would cause many toys to be ejected from many prams

 

[Robert Maynard]

I would hope that Private Groups would see some Dev love - their management could benefit from some options, i.e.:
For PvP:

• Enable mass-lock delay on hyper-jumps if due to player ship? [yes/no]
• Increase menu exit delay if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
• Disable menu exit option if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
• Disable weapon healing effects? [yes/no]
• Disable premium ammunition? [yes/no]
• Disable Shield Cell Boosters? [yes/no]
• Lost connection while "in danger" due to player attack results in destruction / rebuy? [yes/no]

For PvE:

• Disable player / player interdiction? [yes/no]
• Disable player / player wake following? [yes/no]
• Disable player / player wake dropping? [yes/no]
• Disable "friendly fire"? [yes/no]
• Session & PG kick player on attacking another player? [yes/no]
• Session & PG kick player on destroying another player? [yes/no]
• Remove menu exit delay if "in danger" flag was only set due to player attack? [yes/no]

For all play-styles:

• Move player to another instance after a period of inactivity on a landing pad.

 

[Riverside]

I would hope that Private Groups would see some Dev love - their management could benefit from some options, i.e.:
For PvP:

• Enable mass-lock delay on hyper-jumps if due to player ship? [yes/no]
• Increase menu exit delay if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
• Disable menu exit option if "in danger" determination includes player attack? [yes/no]
• Disable weapon healing effects? [yes/no]
• Disable premium ammunition? [yes/no]
• Disable Shield Cell Boosters? [yes/no]
• Lost connection while "in danger" due to player attack results in destruction / rebuy? [yes/no]

For PvE:

• Disable player / player interdiction? [yes/no]
• Disable player / player wake following? [yes/no]
• Disable player / player wake dropping? [yes/no]
• Disable "friendly fire"? [yes/no]
• Session & PG kick player on attacking another player? [yes/no]
• Session & PG kick player on destroying another player? [yes/no]
• Remove menu exit delay if "in danger" flag was only set due to player attack? [yes/no]

For all play-styles:

• Move player to another instance after a period of inactivity on a landing pad.

I think most some of those options would need to be accompanied by a warning BGS effects would be disabled for that session. I guess for most purposes that would be a reasonable compromise, depending on how 'BGS effects' were defined. What I have in mind is that shadow server naughty players are said to be sent to.

I like the idea of moving pad blockers, that would be something useful in all multiplayer instances.

edit: replaced most with some

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think most of those options would need to be accompanied by a warning BGS effects would be disabled for that session. I guess for most purposes that would be a reasonable compromise, depending on how 'BGS effects' were defined. What I have in mind is that shadow server naughty players are said to be sent to.

I like the idea of moving pad blockers, that would be something useful in all multiplayer instances.

Given that large PvE Private Groups have existed since before the game launched, I'd see any attempt to penalise players in PGs using these rules as simply another attempt to penalise the effects of players in PGs (and Solo for that matter) on the shared galaxy, something that has been proposed many times over the years.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Given that large PvE Private Groups have existed since before the game launched, I'd see any attempt to penalise players in PGs using these rules as simply another attempt to penalise the effects of players in PGs (and Solo for that matter) on the shared galaxy, something that has been proposed many times over the years.

I think @Riverside made the same initial mistake I did, and didn't fully grok that you list mostly PvP effects under the "For PvE" heading, and a lot of effects that are also useful to PvE are under the "For PvP." Aside from disabling "friendly fire," none of what you listed makes PvE easier, and several of the "For PvP" options would make PvE harder.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I think @Riverside made the same initial mistake I did, and didn't fully grok that you list mostly PvP effects under the "For PvE" heading, and a lot of effects that are also useful to PvE are under the "For PvP." Aside from disabling "friendly fire," none of what you listed makes PvE easier, and several of the "For PvP" options would make PvE harder.

The "For PvE" options would be functionally no different than playing in a PvE PG with players who abide by the rules of that group.

 

[Riverside]

I think @Riverside made the same initial mistake I did, and didn't fully grok that you list mostly PvP effects under the "For PvE" heading, and a lot of effects that are also useful to PvE are under the "For PvP." Aside from disabling "friendly fire," none of what you listed makes PvE easier, and several of the "For PvP" options would make PvE harder.

What I see is a bunch of ways to further optimise a min/maxing playstyle. If we assume these little inconveniences have no influence on BGS manipulation those options would not need to be applied to a private group, and they could simply be player specific options.

If some players want to set up a private group that has different rules to the rest of the game (for example a PvP tournament), having those options would be handy (and those players in this example would accept that if they did a mission in that session it would not count for inf). But in those kind of circumstances there is potentially an advantage to be gained. Whether an option is for PvP or PvE doesn't really matter here because that difference already exists between open and PG (eg you could have a PG with no enemy players, and a player can freely switch between the modes anyway (don't Clog)).

ETA I've double-checked the list & these are the two that I think would need to be accompanied by disabling BGS effects:

For PvP:

• Enable mass-lock delay on hyper-jumps if due to player ship? [yes/no]

For PvE:

• Disable "friendly fire"? [yes/no]

Updated my earlier post to use the word 'some' instead of 'most'.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Updated my earlier post to use the word 'some' instead of 'most'.

Thanks.

In what way would either of those options give any additional advantage to players playing in those groups, noting that the first would likely appeal to PvP players and the latter would be part of the "it's a PvE group, don't shoot at other players" aim of the PvE options in general (noting that there are experimental effects that remove weapon damage to wing members already)?

The last one could easily be removed of course - as it's effectively covered by an earlier rule, in the context of "don't shoot at other players"..

 

[CMDR Von Abrahart]

7. New performance featuring re-built engine to allow zero g and walking around interiors ( whilst ship is moving lol )
8. Alien pyramids built by space cats

 

[Riverside]

Thanks.

In what way would either of those options give any additional advantage to players playing in those groups, noting that the first would likely appeal to PvP players and the latter would be part of the "it's a PvE group, don't shoot at other players" aim of the PvE options in general (noting that there are experimental effects that remove weapon damage to wing members already)?

The last one could easily be removed of course - as it's effectively covered by an earlier rule, in the context of "don't shoot at other players"..

I have no concerns with premise of your list, and agree they would be a good QoL feature for PvP specific groups and PvE only groups.

For the rules I selected as exploitable, in the masslock case I am imagining a bunch of players, all on the same side hauling in Cutters. As they jump to supercruise from a station instance there is a time saving by enabling the rule you propose. It isn't much but it's there.
For the friendly fire one I think that would lower the skill level required to accumulate bounties for example, probably not that significant but it would also eliminate a significant time-sink if a friendly fire incident were to occur and a fine needed to be paid off, even if it were PvP friendly fire only.

I think the majority of players that would want choices like this would accept the downside of having BGS inf disabled, and for those that wish to do BGS work in PG the cost of not being able to take advantage of those rules would be acceptable (compared to using solo where no player assistance is available or open where there may be opposing players to contend with).

 

[Robert Maynard]

I have no concerns with premise of your list, and agree they would be a good QoL feature for PvP specific groups and PvE only groups.

That was the explicit aim of proposing them.

For the rules I selected as exploitable, in the masslock case I am imagining a bunch of players, all on the same side hauling in Cutters. As they jump to supercruise from a station instance there is a time saving by enabling the rule you propose. It isn't much but it's there.

The masslock option would remove the ability to hyper-jump when mass-locked by player ships - it would not affect jumps to super-cruise.

For the friendly fire one I think that would lower the skill level required to accumulate bounties for example, probably not that significant but it would also eliminate a significant time-sink if a friendly fire incident were to occur, even if it were PvP friendly fire only.

It could at that - I'm not that attached to it so it's easily removed from the proposal.

I think the majority of players that would want choices like this would accept the downside of having BGS inf disabled, and for those that wish to do BGS work in PG the cost of not being able to take advantage of those rules would be acceptable (compared to using solo where no player assistance is available or open where there may be opposing players to contend with).

I don't see why they'd have to see their effects on the BGS disabled - as the options are simply codification of ways that players can already play in Private Groups - players can already be kicked (and session kicked, if playing in the PG) from the PG by its owner for breaking the out-of-game rules of the PG.

I can see that removing the BGS effects of players in PGs would appeal to those who don't want to share the galaxy with players who don't need to play among them - in which case the equitable solution would be to duplicate the galaxy and give those who don't want to share the option to play in an "Open Only" mode where only players in that game mode affected the new galaxy state, leaving the existing tri-modal shared galaxy for those who are content to share.

[fixed broken quotes and lack of some responses]

 

[Riverside]

I can see that removing the BGS effects of players in PGs would appeal to those who can't accept that the galaxy is shared between all players in terms of affecting mode shared game features.

Now you're just being bitter There is no ill intent in my responses & I am not an open only advocate.


ETA I see you have added to your post. Jumps to another system are not affected by masslock from other ships, only jumps to supercruise.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Now you're just being bitter There is no ill intent in my responses & I am not an open only advocate.

Glad to hear it. Which makes it odd then that the proposal to remove BGS effects from players in Private Groups who chose to make use of what would be QoL options that in and of themselves would have either no or a very small no effect on the BGS, i.e. no more than players choosing to play in a particular way in a Private Group, was made....

 

[Riverside]

Glad to hear it. Which makes it odd then that the proposal to remove BGS effects from players in Private Groups who chose to make use of what would be QoL options that in and of themselves would have either no or a very small no effect on the BGS, i.e. no more than players choosing to play in a particular way in a Private Group, was made....

I'm just pointing out potential exploits & a potential solution. That's not contingent on your agreeing (and neither would be game breaking)

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'm just pointing out potential exploits & a potential solution.

Trivially small, not sure that they qualify, as "exploits" and straight to the most onerous solution, IMO YMMV.

That's not contingent on your agreeing (and neither would be game breaking)

In which case it's a case of agree to disagree. Removing the BGS effect of players does effectively break the game for those players as we are all meant to both experience and affect the shared galaxy regardless of which game mode we play in - and it's a punishment, whether temporary or permanent, that Frontier reserve for players who have actually broken the rules of the game.

.... it would also create delicious exploit potential if players could choose whether or not they affected the BGS.

 

[Riverside]

.... it would also create delicious exploit potential if players could choose whether or not they affected the BGS.

I'd not considered that angle, what do you have in mind?

 

[Robert Maynard]

I'd not considered that angle, what do you have in mind?

Off the top of my head: trading - as if players did not affect the BGS then they would not affect station stock levels or buy / sell prices.