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

[Darkfyre99]

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

Which describes 90% of the jumps out there. Intra-system travel is the exception, not the norm.

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.

That's not quite correct. The mass lock effect has a greater impact on supercruise jumps vs hyper-jumps, but that effect is still there. There's nothing more frustrating during a Buckyball Race than realizing there's a Beluga along your exit vector, when every second is precious. Even if you're just racing to beat your best time.

And just to be clear, I'm not an open-only advocate either. I'm perfectly happy to let open remain for those who choose it. The tri-mode system, with the game itself being mode-agnostic, has led to this being the most pleasant "open-PvP" MMO I've ever played. I'm simply not in favor of any mode being favored over another. The two Riverside mentioned are the only ones that give private group players an advantage, no matter how slight.

Ah... the conversation is going so fast!

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.

Stock and prices are affected by the economic sim, with limited input from the background sim. The background sim affects things like influence, who controls the system, and what factions control which facilities. But now that you pointed this out, not affecting the BGS would allow players to farm anarchy factions without destroying the very thing their farming in the first place, so you do have a good point.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Stock and prices are affected by the economic sim, with limited input from the background sim. The background sim affects things like influence, who controls the system, and what factions control which facilities.

In which case, as it's an input to the BGS (if it is indeed to be considered separate from it), stopping players from affecting the BGS would necessitate stopping them affecting the economic simulation.

But now that you pointed this out, not affecting the BGS would allow players to farm anarchy factions without destroying the very thing their farming in the first place, so you do have a good point.

Ta.

 

[Rubbernuke]

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

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.

It all depends on FDs current view on what a 'shared galaxy' is and means going forward. Currently 'shared' dilutes the ability of players to directly* affect other players in situations because solo and PG allow evasion- if FD see value in that absolute interaction and its outcomes. For example the Salvation CGs and player resistance might be much more profound and complex if you had to fight anti Salvation players directly.

*as opposed to indirectly as we have now.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It all depends on FDs current view on what a 'shared galaxy' is and means going forward. Currently 'shared' dilutes the ability of players to directly* affect other players in situations because solo and PG allow evasion- if FD see value in that absolute interaction and its outcomes. For example the Salvation CGs and player resistance might be much more profound and complex if you had to fight anti Salvation players directly.

*as opposed to indirectly as we have now.

Indeed it does - however, with over 12M copies of the game either sold or issued, and with one Dev indicating (some years ago) that Frontier were "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP (which is also supported by the recent Inara showing that the vast majority of players don't get involved in PvP), deciding this late in the day to change the optional nature of other players (and therefore PvP) when engaging in game content seems to be a fairly large step - and not one without risk.

As mentioned previously, if Frontier were to be seriously considering to PvP-gating content, then the equitable solution would be to duplicate the galaxy and give those who don't want to share the galaxy with players who don't engage in PvP 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.

 

[angusmadmac1]

But whose open would only affect BGS ? EDH Xbox ? EDH PS? EDH PC ? EDO PC ? I'm confused ? Each of these cannot see each other not can they interact with each other ? . Sort of blows out the Open only BGS argument ? Don't you think ?

 

[Riverside]

But whose open would only affect BGS ? EDH Xbox ? EDH PS? EDH PC ? EDO PC ? I'm confused ? Each of these cannot see each other not can they interact with each other ? . Sort of blows out the Open only BGS argument ? Don't you think ?

Any Open only proposal is about the PvP aspect like being able to theoretically blockade system & chase away opponents. It can work in a client/server based multiplayer environment, I don't think it would work in ED's peer to peer networking even if we don't consider any other aspect of players having to be in Open all the time.

All players on all platforms, modes and DLCs affect the BGS. (ETA except the shadow servers naughty players get put onto, I don't remember the details or even their proper name and I've never visited them).

 

[Rubbernuke]

Indeed it does - however, with over 12M copies of the game either sold or issued, and with one Dev indicating (some years ago) that Frontier were "well aware" that the majority of players don't get involved in PvP (which is also supported by the recent Inara showing that the vast majority of players don't get involved in PvP), deciding this late in the day to change the optional nature of other players (and therefore PvP) when engaging in game content seems to be a fairly large step - and not one without risk.

As mentioned previously, if Frontier were to be seriously considering to PvP-gating content, then the equitable solution would be to duplicate the galaxy and give those who don't want to share the galaxy with players who don't engage in PvP 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.

It all hinges on what 'feature update 2023' includes. It may be something such as Powerplay being radically overhauled and becoming the PvP feature for the game....but it also might be something far more wide reaching- we'll never really know until next year where FDs view on ED solidifies again. It might be that FD have 'run out of road' with the three modes and that something seismic is required going forwards.

It comes down to how FD see PvP - as an enabler of more complex interactions (such as BGS and / or Powerplay), and that by extension only those who can directly affect others can affect the BGS and things like CGs. Its certainly interesting to ponder how ED would change and how said change would alter how players approach mundane tasks.

Ironically you might get a light version of your parallel galaxy with this- very close to the old design of Open and offline- Open players exist and influence the BGS while offline (in this case solo or PG) play but can't directly influence.

All I can say is roll on 2023.

 

[myothershipisacobraiv]

I think the feature overhaul is most likely to be a rework of engineering to tie it into the narrative features they are adding and make it more straightforward and engaging to engineer your ship, making it more like a normal videogame plays. After that I think it would be a rework of exobio to make it do whatever it was they were originally intending.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It comes down to how FD see PvP

Indeed it does - and they've not decided to make it anything more than optional so far (apart from CQC, of course).

There's also the consideration that they know that they have sold the game as it is with optional PvP to all players - and can only speculate how many of those players would be content to see PvP made less optional / non-optional.

Ironically you might get a light version of your parallel galaxy with this- very close to the old design of Open and offline- Open players exist and influence the BGS while offline (in this case solo or PG) play but can't directly influence.

There was no Open online without Solo and Private Groups - all were announced as part of the game design at the same time. Offline was added to the scope about halfway through the KS then cancelled a few weeks before launch.

All I can say is roll on 2023.

Indeed.

 

[angusmadmac1]

The major over haul is crossplay and then we can speak about open BGS

 

[Robert Maynard]

The major over haul is crossplay and then we can speak about open BGS

The BGS was shared by the three game modes in the game before any console version was confirmed, much less released.

 

[Frank]

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

Who could argue against that?

Definitely no poets tho. If you need an in-game explanation for the lack of poets you could say that the space cats ate all of them

 

[Rubbernuke]

Indeed it does - and they've not decided to make it anything more than optional so far (apart from CQC, of course).

There's also the consideration that they know that they have sold the game as it is with optional PvP to all players - and can only speculate how many of those players would be content to see PvP made less optional / non-optional.

There was no Open online without Solo and Private Groups - all were announced as part of the game design at the same time. Offline was added to the scope about halfway through the KS then cancelled a few weeks before launch.

Indeed.

It comes down to how (hypothetically) how solo or PG players would react to not being able to influence the BGS unless they do it in a mode that allows direct oppostion (i.e. via PvP). You can still play the game, just not have input into the BGS or Powerplay.

This is what I inferred with the offline / Open analogy- solo and PG players can play but are offline from the BGS. So when you go on a BGS binge you can be stopped in person just as you can indirectly compete.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It comes down to how (hypothetically) how solo or PG players would react to not being able to influence the BGS unless they do it in a mode that allows direct oppostion (i.e. via PvP). You can still play the game, just not have input into the BGS or Powerplay.

I doubt the reaction would be very favourable - as removing a player's effects on the game is a punishment meted out by Frontier for actually breaking game rules. Punishing those who don't want to engage in PvP when affecting game features that have consciously been implemented as pan-modal has been on the wish-list of some players since the game design was first published - over nine and a half years ago. We all bought the game on the same basis, i.e. three game modes and a single shared galaxy that we all experience and affect - and the vast majority of us don't seem to get involved in PvP - no matter how much the minority that does, and wants to force others to engage in it to engage in existing mode shared game features, would wish that it were otherwise.

This is what I inferred with the offline / Open analogy- solo and PG players can play but are offline from the BGS. So when you go on a BGS binge you can be stopped in person just as you can indirectly compete.

Indeed - which is why a galaxy split would be equitable - add to the game rather than deny players the ability to affect game features - let those who don't want to share the galaxy with those who don't want to engage in PvP affect their own galaxy and leave the existing one to those who are prepared to share.

It seems unlikely, to me at least, that Frontier would seriously consider pandering in the proposed manner to those who bought the game for something that it is not at the expense of those who bought it for what it is.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Is that I a band I hear warming up offstage?

 

[EdzUp]

I think one feature that needs a rework for odyssey is VR, why not put ED back in the forefront of the best VR experience.

 

[myothershipisacobraiv]

I think one feature that needs a rework for odyssey is VR, why not put ED back in the forefront of the best VR experience.

People can't even run Odyssey at screen resolutions let alone VR resolutions twice over for a depth-supporting runtime like VR. Also, in base Elite you're sitting down, whereas in Odyssey you're looking at separate control schemes for "vanilla" and possibly also room-scale VR.

Simple answer is cost. A lot of engineering not spent on DEPTH and instead spent on foundational VR systems. Possibly additional hiring just for this purpose. Design<->programming iterations taking up time otherwise spent on DEPTH or dinosaurs or drag racing etc.

Really simple answer is cost. High cost, low install base. Would supporting it do more for them marketing-wise than Armstrong moment did? I would say no. So why do it?

Maybe it would be a good idea, and Elite would be ready for some situation when VR starts to come into the fold, but it seems not so likely.

 

[Chaparral]

1) Engineering.
Ask yourself, what is the least amount of coding that could be done to diminish the whine about the grind?
a) Increase material rewards via the various harvesting modes (6 instead of 3).
b) Reduce the material needs for unlocks and upgrades (reduce the RNG wheel progression at a given level, one mat set buys a level)
c) Increase mission material rewards (see a))
d) Sell materials at the going equivalent reward rate (about 300k / G5 mat) - this requires the most amount of coding effort so it won't happen.

2) C&P.
Ask yourself, what is the least amount of coding that could be done to diminish the whine about FPS penalties?
a) It's all fines boys. No more go to jail for FPS murder of theft. Go be a criminal on the ground so that some one bothers to play their FPS.
b) A complete rework of the hot ships mechanic so that players are actually individually held accountable for their actions - Nope, this isn't going to happen.

3) Exobiology.
This is what NMS and Starfield are for. You get your 50ish static models with various colors. It's a sandbox - go imagine that you are doing important work you witless door handle. No changes coming here.

4) VR
smh - you're kidding right?

5) Thagoid FPS
a) At the very best, Thargoids will "infect and control" their current human models. They will paint them with green goo, given them a few Fargodish dialogue lines and call it an AX warzone. Don't forget, green haze, lots of green haze. They'll use their current base assets with some green goo decals. That's if we are lucky.

 

[jojon]

Well, "infect and control" could be lore compliant, if they stick with Holdstock's Thargoid larvae developing inside living hosts. :7

 

[Rubbernuke]

I doubt the reaction would be very favourable - as removing a player's effects on the game is a punishment meted out by Frontier for actually breaking game rules. Punishing those who don't want to engage in PvP when affecting game features that have consciously been implemented as pan-modal has been on the wish-list of some players since the game design was first published - over nine and a half years ago. We all bought the game on the same basis, i.e. three game modes and a single shared galaxy that we all experience and affect - and the vast majority of us don't seem to get involved in PvP - no matter how much the minority that does, and wants to force others to engage in it to engage in existing mode shared game features, would wish that it were otherwise.

Indeed - which is why a galaxy split would be equitable - add to the game rather than deny players the ability to affect game features - let those who don't want to share the galaxy with those who don't want to engage in PvP affect their own galaxy and leave the existing one to those who are prepared to share.

It seems unlikely, to me at least, that Frontier would seriously consider pandering in the proposed manner to those who bought the game for something that it is not at the expense of those who bought it for what it is.

Again it all hinges on how FD see ED going forwards- what 'vision' do they have since at every turn they try to build more elaborate ways to play together? The BGS and Powerplay can't seem to escape the limitations imposed by the modes- Powerplay in particular (while the BGS is on the edge) thrives on direct player actions but is always disrupted by solo.

It also comes down to how FD view the BGS and Powerplay too. Personally I feel Powerplay should be the Open mirror to the modal BGS, but you always have the tenuous link to the BGS underpinning (and complicating) things which would need resolution.

So I'm (as usual) hopeful that Powerplay will see the love it needs in 2023, however I do wonder what (or how) that dovetails into ED, and that to justify that love FD go all in (with wider ramifications).

Is that I a band I hear warming up offstage?

The Birdie Song?