2.3 dev update feedback mega thread

[fennster]

Ah, I had never noticed that before - and of course it also explains why the turret as the name O'Hara and not Cmdr O'Hara.

Well it was an interesting thought anyway. (Unless of course Frontier are planning on introducing remote control of skimmers )

The idea is out there now...

 

[[VR] Deggial]

What do you see happening when the pilot logs off?

Are the crew stranded on a menu screen waiting days/weeks until their captain logs back in? Or are the crew teleported back to a station?

And this is THE reason, why instant multi-crew hopping is the only viable solution!
Really, I don't know why there is even the need for further discussion after this argument.

With "physical" presence, there are basicly two possibilities:
a) The ship owner delivers each crew member to a station where he parked one of his ships - at the end of each and every play session! Or
b) Crew members are "teleported" back to their "starting station" whenever a play session ends. But this already undermines the idea of "real" presence and FDev can go the whole way right away!

 

[Knightshark]

Ah, I had never noticed that before - and of course it also explains why the turret as the name O'Hara and not Cmdr O'Hara.

Well it was an interesting thought anyway. (Unless of course Frontier are planning on introducing remote control of skimmers )

I think it is save to assume that we will not get these features.

- - - Updated - - -

The idea is out there now...

Like many others. And like those it will likely dissipate in the heat death.

 

[Xender]

And this is THE reason, why instant multi-crew hopping is the only viable solution!
Really, I don't know why there is even the need for further discussion after this argument.

With "physical" presence, there are basicly two possibilities:
a) The ship owner delivers each crew member to a station where he parked one of his ships - at the end of each and every play session! Or
b) Crew members are "teleported" back to their "starting station" whenever a play session ends. But this already undermines the idea of "real" presence and FDev can go the whole way right away!

Crewman could depart in capsule this is first the second, crewman should be able to pilot ship on their own. Imagine that you and few your friends are on the same ship, you trust them, and you know they will continue your journey.
... ... ...
I write it again and again and again as answers to player who is worried about physical multicrew limits and no one from "worried community" answered me. Is that caused by that my counter arguments are so valid that they can't continue discussion?

 

[Andi8P]

I have a few suggestions here:

I don't like the teleportation to the ship at any moment. You should be either in the same instance or you can join on a other ship if you are docked on a station and the other ship is docked as well. It doesn't need to be the same station, just a station. If i join him on his ship i get teleported from my ship at my station to his ship on his station. If I want to leave or get kicked out, I get teleported back to the station were my ship is docked.

It would prevent things like teleporting to a frend who is at beagle point. to visit beagle point without actually going there. You would have seen beagle point, but have you really been there?

 

[Xender]

This topic is really hard convenience simplicity vs advanced multicrew. To be honest many peoples doesn't count Elite as typical MMO game but just look at "Looking for crew" option and telepresence it is very similar to "Looking for party for dungeon" and teleportation in typical MMO. Still I think that teleportation between stations and jumpgates will work better in Elite. To instantly quit multicrew you can use escape pod pretty the same when your ship is destroyed. That solutions sound much better for me and only one situation in which it is lesser than telepresence it is deep space exploration, because you can't join someone in that way - but ask yourself is it bad? This is the only usage of size of Elite game world, it is the entry point to far journeys. If Frontier remove this "entry point" they could lower the size of galaxy, condensate it or increase FSD range significantly.

 

[Deadspin]

It would prevent things like teleporting to a frend who is at beagle point. to visit beagle point without actually going there. You would have seen beagle point, but have you really been there?

Tell me, aside from being able to say "I've been there.", which has no actual in-game value at all, why exactly is this even considered an issue for you? The player who teleported to the ship still has no ship, no way to navigate on his own away from there. He/She is stuck to the whims of the captain of the ship.

The same goes for any landmark (spacemark?) out there. There is no in-game value earned from visiting these locations. Even the ruins, the player who owns the ship gets whatever comes out of the ruins, not the guy tagging along. You can't teleport the artifacts back to your ship, wherever it is.

Of course, mechanics talk is speculation at best but I highly doubt Frontier would allow it.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The same goes for any landmark (spacemark?) out there. There is no in-game value earned from visiting these locations. Even the ruins, the player who owns the ship gets whatever comes out of the ruins, not the guy tagging along. You can't teleport the artifacts back to your ship, wherever it is.

That rather depends on whether materials / data will be duplicated in the same way that bounties and vouchers are expected to be for Multi-Crew.

 

[Blaize Meduenin]

If the feature cant be implemented without breaking in game lore and logic with instant teleprescence from thousands of lightyears away that isnt consistently used for other game elements such technology would be (such as trading market info), and that the only way to get players to use it is by bribing them with free duplicated credits then it isnt worth implementing.

If what they want to implement insta play together they should do what another poster suggested, add npc crews to ships (no benefits just another avatar in the seat which they are adding anyway) then allow players to control this npc in a friends ship. No logic or lore breaking needed. But credits should be shared not free duplication.

If what they want is multi crew you should pick them up physically at a station, and the travel with that ship regardless if online or off, until they leave at another station, or decide to abandon ship in an escape pod to dock at a station. This gives interesting proper multicrew gameplay such as group exploration, player taxi services etc...

These two options together satisfy ALL camps - insta play with friends, npc crew on the bridge (which all the needed assets are n game anyway as all thats needed is an avatar in a chair), and indepth reel multi crew mechanics (this is the part that we need to wait for as they obviously haven't approached it like that).

 

[Xender]

If the feature cant be implemented without breaking in game lore and logic with instant teleprescence from thousands of lightyears away that isnt consistently used for other game elements such technology would be (such as trading market info), and that the only way to get players to use it is by bribing them with free duplicated credits then it isnt worth implementing.

If what they want to implement insta play together they should do what another poster suggested, add npc crews to ships (no benefits just another avatar in the seat which they are adding anyway) then allow players to control this npc in a friends ship. No logic or lore breaking needed. But credits should be shared not free duplication.

If what they want is multi crew you should pick them up physically at a station, and the travel with that ship regardless if online or off, until they leave at another station, or decide to abandon ship in an escape pod to dock at a station. This gives interesting proper multicrew gameplay such as group exploration, player taxi services etc...

These two options together satisfy ALL camps - insta play with friends, npc crew on the bridge (which all the needed assets are n game anyway as all thats needed is an avatar in a chair), and indepth reel multi crew mechanics (this is the part that we need to wait for as they obviously haven't approached it like that).

I totally agree, that solution will satisfy much more players. However it looks like Frontier started to implement multicrew from the "other side" with usage of place holders instead of proper mechanics.

 

[lokvette]

I have a few suggestions here:

I don't like transportation to the ship at any moment. You should be either in the same instance or you can join on a other ship if you are docked on a station and the other ship is docked as well. It doesn't need to be the same station, just a station. If i join him on his ship i get teleported from my ship at my station to his ship on his station. If I want to leave or get kicked out, I get teleported back to the station were my ship is docked.

It would prevent things like teleporting to a friend who is at beagle point. to visit beagle point without actually going there. You would have seen beagle point, but have you really been there?

I like it but people still complain about even getting to their friends, but I'm done with that argument.

As for the 2nd point No if you haven't been there if you haven't been there, one thing I love about and got ED for was to fly my own ship from A to B and think yeah I did that its about doing something for me even if it is just a game and not in any shape or form relevant to my real life.

But FD seem to want to make this game into a quick fix arcade pew pew with your mates, which is fine as long as they dont forget the rest of us who thought we were getting a decent space game, which we do have I still love playing the game and will continue after 2.3 I;m sure of that, FD are adding something for those who want it, those of us who dont that be me, dont have to use it. its not going to effect my enjoyment because billy over there has jumped 65k Ly to johnny good for them, I dont care how others play the game.

 

[Bobbydylan]

Maybe an official vote?

On what? The lack of depth in their Multi-crew concept isn't something they're going to ask us about. I gather we can like it or lump it.

 

[Ian Phillips]

I gather we can like it or lump it.

Or - you could actually try it first, then decide.

 

[Xender]

I like it but people still complain about even getting to their friends, but I'm done with that argument.

As for the 2nd point No if you haven't been there if you haven't been there, one thing I love about and got ED for was to fly my own ship from A to B and think yeah I did that its about doing something for me even if it is just a game and not in any shape or form relevant to my real life.

But FD seem to want to make this game into a quick fix arcade pew pew with your mates, which is fine as long as they dont forget the rest of us who thought we were getting a decent space game, which we do have I still love playing the game and will continue after 2.3 I;m sure of that, FD are adding something for those who want it, those of us who dont that be me, dont have to use it.

So it looks like Frontier is trying to turn Elite into something simple as CQC which is almost dead . It is interesting how fast multicrew matchmaking will be dead ;D

 

[[VR] Deggial]

Crewman could depart in capsule this is first the second, crewman should be able to pilot ship on their own. Imagine that you and few your friends are on the same ship, you trust them, and you know they will continue your journey.
... ... ...
I write it again and again and again as answers to player who is worried about physical multicrew limits and no one from "worried community" answered me. Is that caused by that my counter arguments are so valid that they can't continue discussion?

More the willingness to enter endless debate (at least in my case) and the knowledge that both sides won't come together anyway. At the end, all we can do is to express our thoughts and let FDev sort it out. (Additionally, it is really hard for me to argue in a foreign language and look up ervery other word just to be sure not to write utter nonsense ....)

Anyway, I'll give it a try:

- The "escape capsul" argument could be used to justify "telepresence" (I'll just stick to this term, even if I don't believe in it) as well. At the end, there is no difference in respect to game mechanics. (Yes, I recognize that you will have to meet at a station in order to form a crew and this would feel more real for sure. But only friends will be willing to spend so much time to meet and this will oppose FDev's desire to make this feature also interesting for players without a large friends list.)

- Handing your ship over to other players opens the way to so manny potential issues! Just one that comes to my mind without further pondering: What, if your friend gets destroyed without enough credits to pay the excess? Will you find yourself back in a sidewinder, when you log in again? Or your friend? But the later wouldn't make any sense game wise. Additionally, the argument holds true again: You would only allow a friend to take over your ship. This excludes people without trustworthy contacts.

- Other arguments in respect to accessibility come on top of all this. Without easy use, multi crew will just go the way of CQC. Personally, I would have prefered a "multi crew lounge" at the game menue. But I "conceded" to the accessibility in this respect, too.

--

Edit: And the thread already has moved on ...

 

[Xender]

More the willingness to enter endless debate (at least in my case) and the knowledge that both sides won't come together anyway. At the end, all we can do is to express our thoughts and let FDev sort it out. (Additionally, it is really hard for me to argue in a foreign language and look up ervery other word just to be sure not to write utter nonsense ....)

Anyway, I'll give it a try:

- The "escape capsul" argument could be used to justify "telepresence" (I'll just stick to this term, even if I don't believe in it) as well. At the end, there is no difference in respect to game mechanics. (Yes, I recognize that you will have to meet at a station in order to form a crew and this would feel more real for sure. But only friends will be willing to spend so much time to meet and this will oppose FDev's desire to make this feature also interesting for players without a large friends list.)

- Handing your ship over to other players opens the way to so manny potential issues! Just one that comes to my mind without further pondering: What, if your friend gets destroyed without enough credits to pay the exess? Will you find yourself back in a sidewinder, when you log in again? Or your friend? But the later woulsn't make any sense game wise. Additionally, the argument holds true again: You would only allow a friend to take ver your ship. This excludes people without trustworthy contacts.

- Other arguments in respect to accessibility come on top of all this. Without easy use, multi crew will just go the way of CQC. Personally, I would have prefered a "multi crew lounge" at the game menue. But I "conceded" to the accessibility in this respect, too.

The problems with ship sharing could be solved with "Permission Control" you can grant higher access to your friends and lesser to random players. If multicrew ship is destroyed you will be transported back to your last ship (it may be Anaconda, Cobra or whatever else) or to last stations, decision is yours.

Accessibility could be solved with jumpgates or other sci-fi cannon solutions like star gates (from Star gate) on station. Just think about that the size of portal is really limited and can transfer only a person.

 

[[VR] Deggial]

... If multicrew ship is destroyed you will be transported back to your last ship (it may be Anaconda, Cobra or whatever else) or to last stations, decision is yours.

Yes, but who pays if the crash-pilot is broken?

Accessibility could be solved with jumpgates or other sci-fi cannon solutions like star gates (from Star gate) on station. Just think about that the size of portal is really limited and can transfer only a person.

Which would make it necessary to bend so much of the lore and influence other game features, just to make this one possible! Just one example: why wouldn't you be allowed to jump right away to stations where you parked a ship even without the desire to form a multi crew?

Comments in the quote.

 

[Bobbydylan]

Or - you could actually try it first, then decide.

Decide between what? Liking it or Lumping it? Isn't that exactly what I said?

 

[Xender]

Comments in the quote.

When you play with friends, you trust them... They could decide to pay insurence, pay it partial, or not pay at all. Then you after logging in pay the rest.

And yep I will use jumping between stations not only for multicrew. It would be great feature!

 

[Deadspin]

Or - you could actually try it first, then decide.

You expect these people to actually be patient and evaluate a feature based on it's actual implementation? But that..

..that's common sense?! HOW DARE YOU.

This man's moderator roles need to be revoked immediately.