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

[Robert Maynard]

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.

While some might consider that pan-modal activities "thrive on direct player actions" - it's not supported by the data, i.e. most players don't interact that way. That game features that some players like to add PvP to are considered to be, by some, limited by the modes ignores the obvious - PvP is an optional extra that no player needs to engage in when engaging in any game feature except CQC.

Being able to play together does not mean requiring to fight each other.

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).

Their stance on the BGS seems clear, given the clear statement that it was not even on the list of game features that might possibly be made Open only in Sandro's Flash Topics - followed by the later reiteration as to who the BGS is for, after Sandro left the project.

As ever, it's a case of agree to disagree on the perceived need, or lack thereof, to remove player choice as it applies to engaging in existing pan-modal game features.

The Birdie Song?

It's by some rather famous "birdies" - and has been continuously on repeat since 2015..

 

[Rubbernuke]

While some might consider that pan-modal activities "thrive on direct player actions" - it's not supported by the data, i.e. most players don't interact that way.

Being able to play together does not mean requiring to fight each other.

Indeed, but as I stated the BGS (and Powerplay in particular) are team activities that get get undermined by other modes when engaged with seriously. If you are sat dropping data all day, running missions all day, undermining all day then to me its only fair you can be stopped by blowing them up, not just by matching that activity. Otherwise what happens (as does now) it becomes a grind race and not very tactical or real time (since things can be done in large quantities in isolation).

And to be honest I think 'most players' don't bother with the BGS, or Powerplay.

Their stance on the BGS seems clear, given the clear statement that it was not even on the list of game features that might possibly be made Open only in Sandro's Flash Topics - followed by the later reiteration as to who the BGS is for, after Sandro left the project.

It's by some rather famous "birdies" - and has been continuously on repeat since 2015..

And to be clear I don't want the BGS to be Open either for various reasons. The issue is for me Powerplay should, and its ensuring separation- which depends on how hypothetically FD chose to design things.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

It’s a far better idea than giving every ship free automation, or moving some popular modules from optional slots to their own dedicated slots. At least the decision to hire crew is a meaningful one, one of the few that remain, despite the general drive to remove all depth from this game, leaving nothing but a grindy Skinner box.

oh absolutely. ships crew and the potential gameplay which could surround hiring them / training them or replacing them with better is a huge part of the DDF game that is missing which imo would be an incredible.addition. I actually bought a bunch of cosmetics despite having no interest in cosmetics I got out of game purely as a "thanks" for the SLF crew. I (mistakenly) thought that SLF crew was the 1st stage of the actual crew mechanics from those early designs.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

but they think they know the best because they are the devs, but that's wrong :/

I don't know if this is a positive thought from me or a negative however.... I think you are wrong.

FD DO know the kinds of things which would be cool in the game and they detailed it all in their original pitch back in KSer. (with the help of the most invested players)
For what ever reason, be it lack of talent or lack of financial investment , FD hugely cut many of the features and we now have what we have.

but it isn't because FD have a lack of imagination. Many of the things in the game for years I thought were temporary to get the game out of the door and not finalised. years on I have to accept i was wrong.

TLDR FD don't need more ideas from us. they need to implement the ones they already put in their design decision docs.

 

[CMDR Rabbit]

something where players can hop in/out of battle without the fear of losing their ship.

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

And to me, and i say this with no snark, sarcasm or insult intended, this looks like you might be playing the wrong game.

Those two at least are awful suggestions, complete opposites of what Elite is to me.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Indeed, but as I stated the BGS (and Powerplay in particular) are team activities that get get undermined by other modes when engaged with seriously. If you are sat dropping data all day, running missions all day, undermining all day then to me its only fair you can be stopped by blowing them up, not just by matching that activity. Otherwise what happens (as does now) it becomes a grind race and not very tactical or real time (since things can be done in large quantities in isolation).

The BGS and Powerplay are pan-modal PvE activities that offer opportunities for asynchronous indirect competition - that some players who like PvP think it's "unfair" that no-one needs to present themselves to be shot at while engaging in those activities is to be expected but ultimately has no bearing - as those are out-of-game "rules" that no player needs to abide by.

Regarding fairness, is it fair to remove access to one or more existing pan-modal game features from players who choose to play in modes other than Open, or can only play in Solo, just because a subset of the player-base think it's "unfair" that those players don't need to engage in PvP when engaging in those features due to other players being optional in this game, that we all bought on the same terms, where all players experience and effect the mode shared galaxy?

And to be honest I think 'most players' don't bother with the BGS, or Powerplay.

.... yet the demographic split of players who do is likely to reflect that of the game as a whole, i.e. most don't engage in PvP.

And to be clear I don't want the BGS to be Open either for various reasons. The issue is for me Powerplay should, and its ensuring separation- which depends on how hypothetically FD chose to design things.

Understood, even if not agreed.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Removing player oinput into the BGS means removing a dynamic factor in the dynamic simulation - this might have fetrimental effect on the overall dynamic sim.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Indeed, but as I stated the BGS (and Powerplay in particular) are team activities that get get undermined by other modes when engaged with seriously. If you are sat dropping data all day, running missions all day, undermining all day then to me its only fair you can be stopped by blowing them up, not just by matching that activity. Otherwise what happens (as does now) it becomes a grind race and not very tactical or real time (since things can be done in large quantities in isolation).

Slight clarification.

The purpose of the background simulation is create change within the game. It’s in the the very name. The fact that some players manipulate the BGS for a variety of reasons, ranging from roleplay to a proxy for empire building, does not obviate it’s actual purpose.

 

[Rat Catcher]

People can't even run Odyssey at screen resolutions let alone VR resolutions twice over for a depth-supporting runtime like VR

You forgot to preface that with "Some", or even make it personal and state that you can't?

Although, granted, those with a PC from 2012 might find things challenging in EDO, and certainly in many modern games, but should be able to run a current word-processor without too much lag.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Is that I a band I hear warming up offstage?

i miss that old thread..................... (and i can never get too much of that song!. )

 

[Rubbernuke]

While some might consider that pan-modal activities "thrive on direct player actions" - it's not supported by the data, i.e. most players don't interact that way. That game features that some players like to add PvP to are considered to be, by some, limited by the modes ignores the obvious - PvP is an optional extra that no player needs to engage in when engaging in any game feature except CQC.

Being able to play together does not mean requiring to fight each other.

Their stance on the BGS seems clear, given the clear statement that it was not even on the list of game features that might possibly be made Open only in Sandro's Flash Topics - followed by the later reiteration as to who the BGS is for, after Sandro left the project.

As ever, it's a case of agree to disagree on the perceived need, or lack thereof, to remove player choice as it applies to engaging in existing pan-modal game features.

It's by some rather famous "birdies" - and has been continuously on repeat since 2015..

Well of course PvP is extra because you can side step it, meaning you can't design with it in mind or count on its effect. In something like Powerplay which is as real time as it gets (as far as action > feedback) its quite a problem and limits the feature.

Being able to play together does not mean requiring to fight each other.

Except in features like Powerplay, that would be the most direct way of warding off rival players in high activity areas. It would make things like hauling races much more fraught.

 

[Darkfyre99]

I don't know if this is a positive thought from me or a negative however.... I think you are wrong.

FD DO know the kinds of things which would be cool in the game and they detailed it all in their original pitch back in KSer. (with the help of the most invested players)
For what ever reason, be it lack of talent or lack of financial investment , FD hugely cut many of the features and we now have what we have.

but it isn't because FD have a lack of imagination. Many of the things in the game for years I thought were temporary to get the game out of the door and not finalised. years on I have to accept i was wrong.

TLDR FD don't need more ideas from us. they need to implement the ones they already put in their design decision docs.

And to expand upon this, when Frontier adds something, it’s usually pretty good… at first. There are some exceptions, of course, and inevitably there is some kind of flaw that’ll need to be fixed, but on the whole what they’ve introduced has an sufficient depth to make things interesting. There’s numerous routes for achieving your goals, with the best results requiring skill, strategy, and engagement. But then some players inevitably find the crack:

GD Column 17: Water Finds a Crack

The following was published in the March 2011 issue of Game Developer magazine… “This is what games are for. They teach us things so that we can minimize risk and know what choices to make. Phrased…

www.designer-notes.com

In the case of Elite Dangerous, the crack is that there will inevitably be a no-skill, no-strategy, no-engagement route. And that’s the one that gets spread all over the forums and internet. And then the players who followed this route complain about how grindy it is, and how long it takes. Sometimes this complaining is justified (such as large ship hulls and modules being exponentially overpriced relative to their linear performance gains.) More often than not, the complaining is self inflicted.

And Frontier inevitably decides that the best way to address these complaints is to improve the performance of the crack. Not fixing the flaw that's ultimately the cause of the thread. Not adding another alternative to the no-skill, no-strategy, no-engagement route. And certainly not teaching, via official guides and tutorials, new players that alternatives to the crack exist.

And by improving the performance of the crack, Frontier often eliminates the route that required skill, strategy, and engagement, by altering the game mechanics that enabled that route in the first place. And when it isn't eliminated entirely, Frontier has made the crack far easier to find, and thus more players flow down it... complaining all the effects all the way.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Slight clarification.

The purpose of the background simulation is create change within the game. It’s in the the very name. The fact that some players manipulate the BGS for a variety of reasons, ranging from roleplay to a proxy for empire building, does not obviate it’s actual purpose.

Indeed, the problem arises that a system that was supposed to be an abstracted mechanism to bring subtle change has become one of the main tactical focal points of the game, ironically becoming the focus while the intended (well, IMO at least) feature for that (Powerplay) was left.

 

[Darkfyre99]

Indeed, the problem arises that a system that was supposed to be an abstracted mechanism to bring subtle change has become one of the main tactical focal points of the game, ironically becoming the focus while the intended (well, IMO at least) feature for that (Powerplay) was left.

I think Powerplay would've been far more popular if it had the variety of activities that BGS manipulation offers, via Powerplay missions. Right now, your choices to participate in Powerplay remain:

• A-B-A cargo runs
• NPC farming

And that's it. If you don't enjoy either of those activities, then you're out of luck. Meanwhile, BGS manipulation has something for everyone, especially those of us who consider variety the spice of life.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The BGS and Powerplay are pan-modal PvE activities that offer opportunities for asynchronous indirect competition - that some players who like PvP think it's "unfair" that no-one needs to present themselves to be shot at while engaging in those activities is to be expected but ultimately has no bearing - as those are out-of-game "rules" that no player needs to abide by.

Regarding fairness, is it fair to remove access to one or more existing pan-modal game features from players who choose to play in modes other than Open, or can only play in Solo, just because a subset of the player-base think it's "unfair" that those players don't need to engage in PvP when engaging in those features due to other players being optional in this game, that we all bought on the same terms, where all players experience and effect the mode shared galaxy?

.... yet the demographic split of players who do is likely to reflect that of the game as a whole, i.e. most don't engage in PvP.

Understood, even if not agreed.

While I agree wholeheartedly regards the BGS being asynchronous PvE, Powerplay is as far removed from that as can be. The PvE in Powerplay is paper thin and highly repetitive as well as being monotonous alone. Powerplay is also 95% abstraction free and the polar opposite of tick the based BGS- activity shows in real time, merit totals appear in near real time, pledges are explicit, territory is explicit. But because you can accrue huge amounts of merits in total safety in solo, and quadruple that in PG it is unfair since you can't do anything about it except grind back even when you know at that very minute someone is there (instance and technicals aside, obviously).

most don't engage in PvP.

Except we never really know how much of that is from PP players though. Its a gestalt figure that is not specific to the bits that IMO need change.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I think Powerplay would've been far more popular if it had the variety of activities that BGS manipulation offers, via Powerplay missions. Right now, your choices to participate in Powerplay remain:

• A-B-A cargo runs
• NPC farming

And that's it. If you don't enjoy either of those activities, then you're out of luck. Meanwhile, BGS manipulation has something for everyone, especially those of us who consider variety the spice of life.

I would think so too, but at the same time just making Powerplay Open (on paper at least) changes those thin mechanics and pushes real time team activity to the fore, as well as tactical considerations re ship size, speed, dangerous areas etc that are largely absent in solo and PG. All the near real time aspects then make sense and are useful.

But even if you added in BGS like activity, its still potentially duplicating what already exists, which to me is a waste because Powerplay then becomes BGS with trinkets and not something beyond what I'd do in the BGS.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

IF FD did it properly I think an open only PP which encouraged PvP would not bother me, even as someone who would not do it.

ideally they would put something for those outside of open in there so that they could still get involved ........

however for me the sticking points would be 2 fold... and these would have to be fixed otherwise it would be 1) unfair and 2) spoil the game.

1) all unicorn gear done for PP should be removed and given to tech brokers (or the general sales)

2) IF PP is not to be in modes outside of open then it needs removing from all modes outside of open. as it is the annoying PP targets which sometimes completely take over an instance spoils the game for me.... as they spawn in place of pirates and useful targets....... its annoying now, but it would be even more so if these ships had categorically no use for anyone not in open, therefore they should only spawn in open.

 

[Robert Maynard]

While I agree wholeheartedly regards the BGS being asynchronous PvE, Powerplay is as far removed from that as can be. The PvE in Powerplay is paper thin and highly repetitive as well as being monotonous alone. Powerplay is also 95% abstraction free and the polar opposite of tick the based BGS- activity shows in real time, merit totals appear in near real time, pledges are explicit, territory is explicit. But because you can accrue huge amounts of merits in total safety in solo, and quadruple that in PG it is unfair since you can't do anything about it except grind back even when you know at that very minute someone is there (instance and technicals aside, obviously).

The attackers and defenders have the same tools available to them. That having the same tools as the opposition is "not fair" because no-one needs to present themselves to be shot at is just another "this game feature that doesn't require any player to engage in PvP (in a game where other players, and therefore PvP, are an optional extra) is not fair because I can't shoot at players who engage in it" argument, i.e. it's perceived to be unfair by those who don't accept that no-one needs to play with them to affect game features.

Except we never really know how much of that is from PP players though. Its a gestalt figure that is not specific to the bits that IMO need change.

I expect Frontier know - but they're not telling.

 

[Old Duck]

And to me, and i say this with no snark, sarcasm or insult intended, this looks like you might be playing the wrong game.

Those two at least are awful suggestions, complete opposites of what Elite is to me.

Well, there is precedent for it. Players could telepresence into android bodies (you know, those androids on some of the advert banners) and fight via proxy. If your android explodes, then you need to synchronize (respawn) into a new android body, until all the spare androids are expended and the war is won / lost.

The caveat being that all androids are generic (no highly engineered gear), so going to a combat zone in person would give a player a tactical advantage if they have top-tier gear, thus rewarding "traditional" Elite players for their efforts.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

We're already at the point of being Space Marines amongst the cannon fodder in just G3 gear.
There is no risk involved.
Taking over entire systems is jaw droppingly simple. #OWH