Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
We haven't seen 2.3 yet....
2.3 dev update feedback mega thread
- Thread starter Jenner
- Start date
- Status
We haven't seen 2.3 yet....
So you just admitted that your previous post on staff numbers at release was false.
Great!
Now everyone knows you are spouting stuff and as you have admitted being wrong once and proven to be so everyone knows you are talking cobblers!
Now if you have some facts regarding EDs demise I would LOVE to see them.
But as far as I can tell they are selling copies at a decent rate, player numbers on steam are up since the last patch, even though it was only a point release they are higher than the last content release! These of course are a fraction of the playerbase but it's the only numbers anyone has.
I can't see any evidence of abandonment.
Of course sales of the add on were lower than that of the base game. That isn't news to anyone. No one thought everyone who bought the base game would buy the expansion!
Now you are ignoring the fact they continued to sell and sell more than anticipated the last 6 months because it doesn't fit your theory.
They are looking at changing from a seasonal to a smaller DLC model for obvious reasons - they can't get 4 big content releases out in a year and a lot of people held off buying because they didn't want to pay full price up front, splitting it up will kill the second part of this stone dead as people will see an update for a tenner and think its more reasonable, it also allows them to budget better if they know say they can put out a major update every 5 months. Doesn't at all mean the game is dying.
And if you need 45 mins to find evidence while drinking a coffee...well first I'd suggest that proves you have none, and second I think it shows there is none and you know it, and third it shows you should go back to sippy cups as adult drinks obviously aren't your thing!
What. Just because it is the same game engine is meaningless.
Here is an example, I have a great team of developers that have used the unity engine to create a racing game, I am going to create another racing game using unity, but instead of using this great team that developed the other racing game on unity I will use another group that used unity to make a First Person Shooter game instead.
Please tell me where the logic is in that, because that is what you are saying.
Rob....
Unexplained teleporting to other people's ships (though I don't really mind this because gameplay trumps all, they didn't even try to give it context in the game)
Complete dearth of gameplay for the multicrew pilots when there were dozens of options available.
Random limitations on what gameplay does exist "in the name of balance" that really doesn't have anything at all to do with balance and is all about keeping mechanics in control of the helmsman to simplify gameplay.
Caveats thrown in that lack consistency. (Two SLF's? Wasn't this something that caught your attention?)
Etc....
This is a lazy update that lacks inspiration and polish. Pretty much everyone is in unanimous agreement. There's no need to dispute it now.
Smudgy sure loves the sound of his own voice.
I am disappointed about the instant transportation to another ship. Its immersion and game breaking. At least if there is no lore frendly explenation for how that happens.
It could make a lot of new players burn out of the game fast because it no longer takes any effort to see sights like sagA, colonia, nebulas and so on. Also new players could make millions by just joining a big ship and do nothing.
Also a bit sad that this again is only combat minded. Of cause it can become much more then that, but everything always stars out all about combat.
It could make a lot of new players burn out of the game fast because it no longer takes any effort to see sights like sagA, colonia, nebulas and so on. Also new players could make millions by just joining a big ship and do nothing.
Also a bit sad that this again is only combat minded. Of cause it can become much more then that, but everything always stars out all about combat.
Perfect logic, because the team that made the FPS made the engine, and created the foundation of the racing game. They know more about the racing game than the second team you brought in later to launch the title.
You really don't know how this works do you?
Let me reiterate. FDevs employees are under Permanent contract. They aren't going anywhere.
They are not disposable napkins, they are highly skilled professionals that can be used over and over for every project imaginable. If they weren't flexible and capable of applying their skills to any task, they wouldn't have a job, because that's what it takes to make a living as a game developer.
Given that these people have jobs, I'm pretty sure they have the skills to be a game developer, and thus work on any project they're put on.
I love the idea that its possible to be more players on one ship. But it shoild also be possible to have NPC crew in the same places as players can be.. i see no reason why a ship with more players should be able to have better turret acc and more SLF then a player unfortunet not to have frinds to play with.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Yes?
It was probably the only way to make it happen without requiring players to co-locate for boarding the ship (which would have caused howls of protest). Lowering the barriers to gameplay (specifically multi-player gameplay) would seem to be Frontier's aim.
While it may be interpreted that way, I'll wait until Beta to see for myself.
I expect Frontier are reluctant to allow helm control to be assigned to a crew-member (who could be a random, according to what I read regarding how players can join ships).
It's no surprise that MC ships will be able to launch two SLFs - as that gives the crew something to do.
Number of staff expanded by half.
Number of projects quadruples, most likely even more than that.
Shall we try this again?
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Are they? Can you link to something that lists how the headcount splits regarding employees / contractors?
Oh look what I found http://ar2016.frontier.co.uk/assets/pdf/frontier-developments-2016-annual-report-and-accounts.pdf
The PDF to the financial report for October 2016. Why would a development team put more people on a project that only sold 500k units over a product that is growing and now represents 1.8 million units?
From just quickly reading the report everything looks healthy. Stop pushing bad information that is just plain wrong, you have no proof.
Sterling MH
Banned
Apart from requiring devs to do work for that. So what other feature should be cut to allow your paint job (telepresenced paint? REALLY?)
Buddy....
All they had to do was ask you to dock before using Multicrew and people wouldn't have had a complaint. Granted that puts out Explorers who want to go back to the bubble to shoot things, but Explorers always get the shaft so that would've just been keeping with tradition and everyone would've nodded solemnly and went about their way because someone had to get the shaft.
There's no denying the lack of gameplay. The features have been listed. We have all seen longer footnotes attached to bug fixes for pre-existing features. There's nothing to it. It's a hollow, unfinished feature.
If the player allows Randy Rando to control the helm, that's his choice. There's no reason to castrate the gameplay because he might make a mistake.
Thank you for pointing out the issue with two SLF's. They didn't have enough content IN the ship to keep 3 players busy, so they kicked them out of the ship and told them to go do something somewhere else.
Sterling MH
Banned
I'm wondering if it would be better to have the gunner there operating a turret increase the properties of the gun they're using. Lower power consumption and heat, because there's no longer a CPU doing the tracking, we've got wetware to do that, so the CPU can be shut off.
And if the other crewmember gives THAT GUN an extra pip as a bonus, then the use of dummy accounts to put two nonexistent PCs in the crewmember slots becomes pointless, since the benefits are for the turret guns used by the gunner, and if there's no actual person in the gunner slot, that gun will remain silent, reducing the power of the ship by at least one gun and giving a pointless extra pip to a gun not firing.
If that isn't enough to go with, then up the damage of the turret gun to be that of a gimballed weapon. Effectively, I suppose, it could be a temporary Engineered boost (from the Fighter con? as long as he's present) to the turret guns present for increased damage.
You shouldn't be distinguishing between the two. Employees at FDev are given a contract to guarantee their future employment. We're not talking about contractors.
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-06-17-frontier-developments-240-people-and-still-indie
Suggestiong to Devs: Turret Changes to Encourage Turret Use
Suggestion to the Devs to make ships more flexible/useful in both solo and MultiCrew roles:
1. Add option to Turret controls to allow them to be used as Gimbaled weapons. Yes, their DPS will be lower than a true Gimbaled weapon, just like they would be lower than a Fixed weapon they can currently emulate. However, this would encourage commanders to make more of their weapon choices to be turrets, and thus give a gunner in multicrew more (or possibly anything, depending on the ship) something to do.
2. If option 1 isn't good, could we instead have a Turret mode of "Fire on Target, Only when I hold down the fire button?" Again, this makes turrets more attractive in both modes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Suggestion to the Devs to make ships more flexible/useful in both solo and MultiCrew roles:
1. Add option to Turret controls to allow them to be used as Gimbaled weapons. Yes, their DPS will be lower than a true Gimbaled weapon, just like they would be lower than a Fixed weapon they can currently emulate. However, this would encourage commanders to make more of their weapon choices to be turrets, and thus give a gunner in multicrew more (or possibly anything, depending on the ship) something to do.
2. If option 1 isn't good, could we instead have a Turret mode of "Fire on Target, Only when I hold down the fire button?" Again, this makes turrets more attractive in both modes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Last edited:
Nope, the Cobra engine has been around for some time now, well before ED came out. Please get your facts straight. And yes I do know how these things work. I have run my own businesses. You hire people to do a specific task. I don't hire a graphic designer to do an Artworkers job. Although the software they use is the same, the do 2 different jobs.
You really are getting desperate to prove you completely unfounded opinion, when it is unproveable.
I am not saying you are wrong, for all i know, you could infact be correct, but there is absolutely no proof of what you are saying. Everything you have given to us, all the links don't actually mean anything, and don't show anything.
Last edited:
In an effort to get back on topic.
Things I like from what I know about the update:
Commander creator, Yes I will likely only use it once, but I'd like a custom avatar even if it is just "fluff" till we get space legs
The ability to fly a SLF without having to worry the AI will cost me a fortune in rebuy because it can't fly worth a dam!
Things I am concerned about based on released information:
Possibility of effective and easy credit transfer to commanders doing nothing
Only having 1 SLF if I don't have mates available but 2 if I do sucks
3rd Person gunner cam. I see this as a slippery slope and have no idea why they chose to implement gunners thus
Magic money The value of a bounty should be the value end of, just because 3 people helped shouldn't triple it! Crew get paid less than Captains not the same! If bounties are deemed too low bounties should be increased.
Multicrew making wings less attractive, as wings share it will be far less profitable to wing up than to crew up. Have FDev thought this through? Will wings ever be developed further such as with wing missions?
Only 2 crew functions, disappointed we didn't get an engineer at least, why not? Is it planned? Or is this it? Was it not finished because they pulled people off development to faff around with if we should nerf gimbals?
No NPC crew, with 2.2 they seemed to put in all the systems needed for us to get NPC crew in other rules, yet this seems to have been abandoned, why? Did they just overthink what we needed for NPC pilots? Or will they build on this in the future?
As generally I'm far happier with the QoL improvements than headline features, and they tend to be more "obviously good" I'm sure the "what I like" list will grow as more info is released
Things I like from what I know about the update:
Commander creator, Yes I will likely only use it once, but I'd like a custom avatar even if it is just "fluff" till we get space legs
The ability to fly a SLF without having to worry the AI will cost me a fortune in rebuy because it can't fly worth a dam!
Things I am concerned about based on released information:
Possibility of effective and easy credit transfer to commanders doing nothing
Only having 1 SLF if I don't have mates available but 2 if I do sucks
3rd Person gunner cam. I see this as a slippery slope and have no idea why they chose to implement gunners thus
Magic money The value of a bounty should be the value end of, just because 3 people helped shouldn't triple it! Crew get paid less than Captains not the same! If bounties are deemed too low bounties should be increased.
Multicrew making wings less attractive, as wings share it will be far less profitable to wing up than to crew up. Have FDev thought this through? Will wings ever be developed further such as with wing missions?
Only 2 crew functions, disappointed we didn't get an engineer at least, why not? Is it planned? Or is this it? Was it not finished because they pulled people off development to faff around with if we should nerf gimbals?
No NPC crew, with 2.2 they seemed to put in all the systems needed for us to get NPC crew in other rules, yet this seems to have been abandoned, why? Did they just overthink what we needed for NPC pilots? Or will they build on this in the future?
As generally I'm far happier with the QoL improvements than headline features, and they tend to be more "obviously good" I'm sure the "what I like" list will grow as more info is released
Sterling MH
Banned
I thought you said you were over it. If you want why, then you've been given one before: your lifeless body is helpless in a traceable P2P connection in an expensive ship, easy to board and loot. The other way round, the connection is hijackable and hackers will make off with your ship and its contents.
And basically, the game doesn't do it. Write your own if you want to do that.
- Status