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

[EdzUp]

It would make sense if Powerplay were made Open only.

Fixing that is not inextricably linked with making the feature Open only.

It doesnt have to be open only if the opposing vessels actually got more difficult the higher the experience they were, yes 2.1 had issues but to rip up the entire rulebook because one glitch is complete madness. I would say fix the glitch, even the player field make it so the opposing AI players have the same limitations that we have no infinite ammo or repairing ships. When the player field is level the enjoyability of the game will increase no end. For Elite players and NPC's they should be a real challenge they didnt get where they were by being a slouch so nor should the AI. If there is a sea of tears maybe this isnt the game for you, yes I am a casual player and I played in the 2.1 days and still won against the AI's it was a little more tricky but much more enjoyable when I won.

Before everyone asks yes I flew exclusively in a Sidewinder back then so yes winning against 2.1 Annacondas was a feat

 

[LeatheryEggs]

I'd love it if they made the suits a little more like ships, letting you swap different modules in and out, preferably armor pieces with cosmetic effects as well (which could of course be altered in livery as well). That and more tool variety and tool swapping in the suits. It could add a lot of expressiveness and progression to the on foot gameplay without having to force players into the weird grindy scavenger hunt of engineering.

I'd also love a real holistic rework to a few systems, like having powerplay be more dynamic and interesting, maybe working in a player economy, there's some really cool things they could do with engineering materials and player owned production facilities that could remove some of the grind and also interface with the bgs in very interesting ways. Best case the overhaul would wrap these systems into each other in more interesting and engaging ways.

 

[Felix DiCestria]

And, in an earlier response to you I point out how attack and defence are not equal in Powerplay. Defence is far easier than attack by miles.

As it should be. Sun Tzu estimates a successful attack requires 3X the power of defence.

 

[Rubbernuke]

As it should be. Sun Tzu estimates a successful attack requires 3X the power of defence.

If its too hard to attack, then nothing happens and for long...looonnngg stretches Powerplay becomes gardening. In a feature about territorial conquest thats not good. Nearly everything is stacked in favour of defence- consolidation, mode protection, BGS trends, turmoil orders, '100% and safe' fortification, ship loss reports, PP UI feedback in real time.

And even then there is no guarantee anything will fall off, or that to drop one system you have to follow the turmoil order until it drops, rather than just being able to drop that system.

It also highlights and contrasts 5C attacks with actual real attacks- 5C being devastating.

 

[Sethioz]

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.

if you don't like the features, DONT USE THEM! I always go by the FACT that "better have it and not need it, than need it and not have it"

 

[Darkfyre99]

if you don't like the features, DONT USE THEM! I always go by the FACT that "better have it and not need it, than need it and not have it"

Limitations are necessary for actions to have consequences. Consequences are necessary for decisions to have meaning. Decisions need to have meaning for a game to have depth. Games need to have depth so that they don't become a dull repetitive grind that sucks all the fun of playing them.

This game already has far too many cracks in it, ones which easily transform this game into a dull repetitive grind when followed by the unwary, who will then complain about their effects. Frontier seems be not only unwilling to fix the cracks, but they often respond to player complaints about following them by widening them instead. There's no real need to exacerbate the situation further.

 

[[VR] Bulbulunufus]

if you don't like the features, DONT USE THEM! I always go by the FACT that "better have it and not need it, than need it and not have it"

Well it's more "put the dev time into developing that and therefore not have something else that would be more desirable and in keeping with Elite's game concept".

 

[Sethioz]

Games need to have depth so that they don't become a dull repetitive grind that sucks all the fun of playing them.

This is exactly why I suggested those features, the more the merrier! However I DO understand the concept where there's not enough players, so if there are lot of features, you'd have like 10 players in each. For example in CQC I have never gotten a single match, I guess nobody plays it. Longest I waited was about 10 mins.
So I can see that same may happen with the conflict zones / battles, but this is why we can have bots!

I don't mind playing with and against bots, but I don't want to always seek out the battles myself. Right now i'm in colonia, it would be cool if i could just hop into a battle every now and then. Remote battles / queue system should give 10% less credits, maybe even 25% less, but at least it would be FUN for those who want few quick combats.
Not only it would give people something new to do, but it would reduce the amount of gankers, they can then rock their socks off in those combat zones.

Also I'm disappointed over the fact that they removed destroy skimmer missions .. they took them out because devs didn't like the idea of players making "easy credits" and they never put them back, they tried nerfing them couple times, but instead they just completely removed the feature, this was really sad :-(
Apperently making 30-100 million per hour in tactical combat was too much, but making 10 BILLION in a day with carrier is ok? .. go figure :/
I refer to the tritum CG while ago, I only did like 12000 tons or so and made 10 billion and there's no risk at all, just load and offload, but the skimmer missions were quite tactical, you couldn't shoot from ship, because of base defenses, so you had to go out with SRV and even then there were turrets shooting at you. I did it with some friends and they managed to even blow up couple times, I really liked those missions, not only for credits, but because they were DIFFERENT from the daily grinds.

Imagine if Planetside 2 would merge with Elite Dangerous! It's one of my gaming dreams btw ^^ (to have game similar to that, where you can have planetary combat, base building, exploration ..etc all in one).

 

[Cmdr. Numa]

Long range smuggling says hello, another feature that was axed, not fixed.

 

[Darkfyre99]

This is exactly why I suggested those features, the more the merrier! However I DO understand the concept where there's not enough players, so if there are lot of features, you'd have like 10 players in each. For example in CQC I have never gotten a single match, I guess nobody plays it. Longest I waited was about 10 mins.
So I can see that same may happen with the conflict zones / battles, but this is why we can have bots!

I don't mind playing with and against bots, but I don't want to always seek out the battles myself. Right now i'm in colonia, it would be cool if i could just hop into a battle every now and then. Remote battles / queue system should give 10% less credits, maybe even 25% less, but at least it would be FUN for those who want few quick combats.
Not only it would give people something new to do, but it would reduce the amount of gankers, they can then rock their socks off in those combat zones.

Also I'm disappointed over the fact that they removed destroy skimmer missions .. they took them out because devs didn't like the idea of players making "easy credits" and they never put them back, they tried nerfing them couple times, but instead they just completely removed the feature, this was really sad :-(
Apperently making 30-100 million per hour in tactical combat was too much, but making 10 BILLION in a day with carrier is ok? .. go figure :/
I refer to the tritum CG while ago, I only did like 12000 tons or so and made 10 billion and there's no risk at all, just load and offload, but the skimmer missions were quite tactical, you couldn't shoot from ship, because of base defenses, so you had to go out with SRV and even then there were turrets shooting at you. I did it with some friends and they managed to even blow up couple times, I really liked those missions, not only for credits, but because they were DIFFERENT from the daily grinds.

Imagine if Planetside 2 would merge with Elite Dangerous! It's one of my gaming dreams btw ^^ (to have game similar to that, where you can have planetary combat, base building, exploration ..etc all in one).

But what @CMDR Rabbit was commenting on weren't features. They're requests to remove consequences to player's actions and decisions, which removes depth from the game, which in turn makes playing the game a dull grind to inevitability, rather than a fun, engaging experience. Frontier repeatedly doing this is what has contributed to the current state of the game. Frontier may not be intending to do this, but its the results that matter, not their intentions.

 

[Danieros]

If its too hard to attack, then nothing happens and for long...looonnngg stretches Powerplay becomes gardening. In a feature about territorial conquest thats not good. Nearly everything is stacked in favour of defence- consolidation, mode protection, BGS trends, turmoil orders, '100% and safe' fortification, ship loss reports, PP UI feedback in real time.

And even then there is no guarantee anything will fall off, or that to drop one system you have to follow the turmoil order until it drops, rather than just being able to drop that system.

It also highlights and contrasts 5C attacks with actual real attacks- 5C being devastating.

All that really needs to change to stop the long gardening until someone falls asleep or makes terrible mistakes is changing the turmoil order. If it was lowest income rather than highest upkeep then there wouldn't be such a need to stay with positive balance.

 

[V'larr]

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

If you are consciously having to make restrictions for the sake of restriction in the process of game design, you are probably already doing something wrong. Over the years Fdev has made several decisions that seem to take your point of view that "games need restrictions" as the main focus, to our collective detriment. (Dare I remind everyone how expensive ship transfers were going to be, a feature that Fdev themselves stated was meant as a QOL feature?)

I have never, not once, experienced a game where I felt an artificial restriction in place and thought to myself, "wow, this game is definitely more fun thanks to the lack of QOL in this feature".

 

[V'larr]

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.

Complete nonsense. The only meaningful decision I've made since finding out about the XP reduction is to quit playing the game. Any number of games with crew/party mechanics have all the meaningful decisions in the world you can ask for, and yet don't seem to feel the need to apply an XP reduction to slow down your gameplay.

In what part of your idealized world of "meaningful decisions" does the specific reduction of your XP gains because you took the time and effort to invest in a crew-capable ship, finding a crew member you wanted, bringing them aboard, mounting weapons and a ship-launchable fighter so they can be of use in combat, offer even the SLIGHTEST amount of "meaningful decisions" to you?

 

[V'larr]

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

Under current game mechanics, this is one of the worst ideas they could possibly consider.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

If you are consciously having to make restrictions for the sake of restriction in the process of game design, you are probably already doing something wrong. Over the years Fdev has made several decisions that seem to take your point of view that "games need restrictions" as the main focus, to our collective detriment. (Dare I remind everyone how expensive ship transfers were going to be, a feature that Fdev themselves stated was meant as a QOL feature?)

I have never, not once, experienced a game where I felt an artificial restriction in place and thought to myself, "wow, this game is definitely more fun thanks to the lack of QOL in this feature".

I see your point and in some cases would agree...... however as a general rule i think it is important for a game which is attempting to have any sort of verisimilitude to have rules.

take your ship transfer example. I am not going to argue about price.......... there was a time i would have cared deeply but FD have ruined their economy now so badly that i think it is beyond repair. (I would much rather had a sensible economy but have almost everything in game purchasable via credits)

but i digress, ship transfer. ..... there was a time when FD were going to make it instant. if i take you literally i imagine you would be in favour of this, however i think it was an awful idea. it would have completely killed a portion of the game. as it is some player downsize the drives in their ships to the point of them being broken, and it would have made instant transfer the defacto way to do anything. there would be no point ever flying a short range heavily armed ship as you would just go everywhere in your long range jumper and then magic in your ships.

imo doing it yourself should always be the fastest way to do anything.
this is just 1 example where what you may consider an artificial restriction i think is a vital game mechanic which helps keep the 4th wall intact.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Under current game mechanics, this is one of the worst ideas they could possibly consider.

ahhh i wish i had seen this before my last reply, as it makes it very clear, we both want elite to be very different games.... i dont think we will have much common ground on this. npc crew is for me up their with VR support as the most important features the game needs.

 

[V'larr]

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

Except...that's what got us Engineers. Games improve far more when developers listen to ideas from their playerbase.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Except...that's what got us Engineers. Games improve far more when developers listen to ideas from their playerbase.

i wont say player feedback has never lead to improvements. (i still have my issues with engineers but that roullette wheel was terrible - bordering on immoral for a game with an age rating of 7 and it was players who complained about that)... but imo over all FD pandering to some players has been a net loss to the game.

 

[V'larr]

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.

I don't think pooling "Open" into its own galaxy is a good, or technically feasible, idea. (What timestamp of the BGS would you even start such a mirror galaxy from? And what would happen to Galnet? Community goals? To say nothing of the technical difficulties of such a project....)

The simplest path forward is to have an official PvE mode and leave the rest as-is. PvP gamers will just have to accept that you cannot force gamers uninterested in competitive PvP combat into said competitive PvP combat. Competition on the BGS game board will be just that, a competition played on the BGS game board by manipulating the rules of the BGS to succeed. Powerplay has many detailed and well-thought-out proposals to be improved and enhanced in ways that would be welcomed by both kinds of gamers alike. At no point do either PvP gamers or PvE gamers need to be corralled off into their own separate world; we simply need to be allowed to have our boundaries and the means to have those boundaries respected.

 

[V'larr]

When NPCs did get smarter at the release of 2.1 (alongside some bugs relating to engineeered weapons on NPC ships) Frontier rolled it back quick smart - presumably after seeing what the enhanced AI (and the bugs) did to players' play-time.

As I recall, all of those issues were totally unrelated to AI behavior. (I miss SJA hanging around the forums, updating us about her work on that.) All of those events occurred because of incredibly broken bugs, such as NPC-mounted Plasma Accelerators firing as though they were beam lasers.

At some point, I will say, I think the quality of combat against AI opponents declined, when they started to joust more and move in ways that just are not humanly possible because it requires totally precise use of all lateral thrusters at all times - the net effect being, they're just more annoying to engage and keep within your engagement range than used to be the case.