If all one has, in order to form an opinion, is the rather selective information given by 'influencers', one would obviously have no real perception of on-foot activity and how it is played.
What feature do hope will be updated/refreshed for early 2023?
- Thread starter Phoenix_Dfire
- Start date
Telepresence is its whole own set of problems other than controlling an SLF, its a narrative workaround a technical problem (other pilots be they player or NPC as crew for your ship) and the less it's mentioned the better we'll all be.
Given it does exist, the solution works. Sort of. Ignoring the while why wouldn't i also do X [other life risking thing] in an android body?
Thats the problem- one mode (well, two) dictate the pace of the game, and that activities such as hauling fortification are never stopped by PvE NPCS but are via players when they should.
Plus, as it currently stands "attackers and defenders have the same tools available to them" is not really true. Attacking is very difficult while defence very easy via non game ways.
For example- fortification is automatically won if the defender reaches 100% regardless of what an attacker has done. Defence (although pot luck sometimes via 5C) is made easy via the consolidation mechanic and attackers can do nothing about it. Prep races have to be done via haul races, when destroying haulers would be one way to slow your enemy and give your haulers an advantage. PP BGS work (in a BGS that makes direct aggressive moves difficult) stacks the deck even further. Lastly the defender has maths on thier side, because systems fall off in turmoil in a specific order, meaning a lot of the time attacks have to be overwhelming. And even then the UI instantly alerts defenders to an attack, so one slip and that effort is wasted.....and if you are lucky and unnoticed even at 100% undermining sometimes nothing will fall off. This does not include PG farming, where merit bombs can be gathered at leisure.
In a feature where intercepting vital cargo and traversing 'dangerous' enemy territory is rendered pointless via modes, Open well, opens it up. Suddenly station proximity, ship type, defences, pilot skill, teamwork, nerve etc all become important. Using smaller, faster ships increases suitability but increases the amount of runs required. Attackers can seriously mess up a rival directly, or come across suspect activity.
Well they did, twice (well, 2.5 times via weighting) all via Sandro with three proposals. I'd pay good money to know what FD think now and 2023 might be that time.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
That's a consequence of buying (or backing) a game where PvP is an optional extra.
Not sure that we were told, when the latter 1.5 were clear to be an investigative topic and not a fait accompli - especially when Sandro went on to say, in what seems to have been his last stream appearance on the project:
Which is why I consider the equitable solution to this issue to be the addition of an Open Only game mode with its own galaxy to affect - then those players who don't want to share the galaxy with players who don't engage in PvP would be able to affect their own galaxy, safe in the knowledge that only they could affect it - and would not encounter or affect those who play in the existing tri-modal shared galaxy.
Last edited:
Maybe roll back the pc master race swagger just a little scosche.
I can personally run Odyssey well enough to enjoy everything in it. I do not consider myself a part of the wave of negativity against Frontier for Odyssey's performance levels. Though I do recognize that Odyssey is impossible to run for many. I have no problem with Odyssey being a demanding game or people who shelled out for overpriced PCs (because after the SKUing, pandemic, and cryptocoins, that's 100% exactly what they were my friend) having demanding games to run. But I'd guess maybe 25 - 35% at most of Odyssey's playerbase get truly good framerates. Running Odyssey in VR would take that down to 5 - 15, probably on the lower end of that. It would be a lot of doing for an unsustainably small market, which would run their VR Odysssey at Odyssey launch levels of performance or worse.
Sorry but if a generalised comment is made, and implying it is everyone, then the comment is to be expected, surely?
(I play games, my PC is built to do just that, it does appear that some of the ED players solely play ED and have PCs that are getting a little 'long in the tooth')
Last edited:
I think, at launch, that figure would be even lower than it might be today. It was pretty dire then - but has improved considerably.
EDO in VR plays fine on my Index, now, but the hardware I have is still heavily loaded in doing so - I'd agree with the comment of it being the lower end.
I don't know if Frontier will ever manage to get EDO optimised sufficiently to approach the performance of EDH, but one can hope.
Well that's fair I suppose. But I guess it comes down to whether you would sooner imagine "all" in front of "people" or "some". I would personally imagine "some".
You're right that it seems that this was the unlikely distribution ED's playerbase seemed to have. I never would have guessed that ED was played on so many weaker machines. Aging machines is a little more understandable, but in those cases I don't understand why those people don't have more understanding themselves. I guess it comes down to the degree of the performance burn.
If I had any idea it was like this I never would have been saying back in whenever it was that Frontier shouldn't be afraid to increase the requirements. My benchmark was WoW and others. It worked for WoW but it didn't here. As for what I'm hoping, my only concern now is that Frontier's next DLC is received well.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
to me that is part 2 of my main hope.
Part 1 is i hope Frontier are making another paid DLC for Elite.
and if that happens, then i am with you in the hoping it is well received..... but the 1st hurdle is one which worries me.
You may have read a post or two of mine in passing, since EDO launched - I'm not a habitual knocker of the expansion, I've only loaded EDH when moving my FC any distance (EDO still doesn't permit transfer of stolen Tritium from FC hold to ship, only as a purchase from Secure Storage - EDH doesn't have this issue!) and have been having great fun in EDO since launch - with added frustration earlier on when some extraction bodies knocked my FPS down to single digits every few seconds.
I'm certainly hoping there will be one!
The wider game is fine, Powerplay however is not for the reasons I listed. Being able to destroy or chase away rivals (something the NPCs are laughably bad at) would bring much more tactical gameplay to the fore.
Well Sandro had two PvP proposals and weighting suggested. In the end FD did nothing, because EDs focus shifted when the project entered the Chaos Period™.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
For a relatively small subset of the player-base. Frontier should be thinking about the player-base as a whole - as that's who they sold the game to.
Powerplay is what it is, an actual conflict between groups and struggle for dominance that you opt into (which is unique in ED). If no conflict occurs or is essentially sidestepped the design has failed and needs to change. Since FD want more group play then making Powerplay open only does that in a contained way.
FD have made radical choices before- ending Mac and consoles being two. Making Powerplay something other than a failed BGS adjacent feature and proper foil to the BGS actually fills a niche.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
PvP is a subset of group play engaged in by a minority of the player-base. Powerplay is indeed a conflict between groups, as implemented - none of which requires PvP.
Both of those decisions related to shortcomings in the platforms in relation to the game. There's no such consideration to be made for Powerplay.
And because of that several aspects are sub par or are massive loopholes. As I stated Powerplay is as near real time as ED gets, and yet that immediacy is negated by modes where significant resistance can be gotten around. Whereas the BGS is designed to be an aggregation of effort over one tick period, Powerplays tick is essentially every second with the final whistle in seven days.
Still bold choices though, and frankly to make waves FD need something to make Powerplay stand apart and not be a BGS wannabe- because if they do that its a year of essentially standing still since we already have a BGS.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
From the perspective of players who enjoy PvP - who don't comprise the whole player-base (even though they seem to have no issue proposing that game content be effectively removed from players who don't enjoy PvP).
There seems to be an assumption that waves need to be made - which, if the waters were to become too muddied, could have an unnecessary adverse effect on the player-base.
Its from a perspective of making the most of what is there. The problems are well known, and aside from a total rewrite making players into NPCs is the most direct approach because it gets around issues of NPCs being persistent, appearing intelligently and having consistency across systems, power territory etc. No NPC can plan or execute an attack like Power groups can, or defend against them in equally equipped ships.
We don't honestly know how people would react either, especially since if it were to be Powerplay only people might actually enjoy fighting in a way that frees them from the BGS C+P (assuming PP C+P is kept). The other is that this is the only new content on the radar, its got to sell itself and attract people from outside the game.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The simplest way would be to be bold, as suggested, and offer those who enjoy PvP a galaxy of their own - adding to the game rather than taking away from players who don't enjoy PvP.
Not long before the PPOOFF discussions I proposed a new layer of manipulation, a kind of PP 2.0 that was influenced by PvP.
I don't think there would be much benefit to a separate, parallel galaxy but there could be some set of assets or values that are only influenced by those that are prepared to PvP. Not Open PvE but something for PvPers to fight over. Like PP was reportedly supposed to be.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If those assets or values had any effect on those who could not affect them (from modes other than Open) then that'd be enough of a reason to create a separate galaxy. Everyone affects all aspects of the shared galaxy, regardless of game mode, and it's obvious that some players don't want to share with those not in Open - the most equitable solution then is to give them their own galaxy to affect, unaffected by those who share the existing galaxy.