2.3 dev update feedback mega thread

[Ian Phillips]

Brett is indeed the Community Manager. Part of what he does is collate posting trends and report them to the devs, who then know what are hot topics - across all forums, not just this one.

Edit:
And as has been mentioned, please keep posts to the thread topic - which is actually about responses to the announced 2.3 release content.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

He's still a member of staff capable of taking note of community feedback and passing it on.

Which is going to change what before the beta begins?

They're already committed, bud. They're not going to pop in here Monday and announce they're delaying the beta to make changes as a result of community feedback. Their only choice is to soldier on through the incoming fire and deal with it when that process starts.

 

[JesusRocks1988]

Brett is indeed the Community Manager. Part of what he does is collate posting trends and report them to the devs, who then know what are hot topics - across all forums, not just this one.

Edit:
And as has been mentioned, please keep posts to the thread topic - which is actually about responses to the announced 2.3 release content.

So, in the case of the same idea or issue or wish being posted constantly by different people, he'd make a note of that and say "Hey guys, the general consensus from the community is XYZ"?

 

[Martian Successor]

Brett is indeed the Community Manager. Part of what he does is collate posting trends and report them to the devs, who then know what are hot topics - across all forums, not just this one.

Edit:
And as has been mentioned, please keep posts to the thread topic - which is actually about responses to the announced 2.3 release content.

You'd think they have enough responses to that in the News update sticky. Isn't this threadnaught of lost souls supposed to be about feedback and balance questions?

 

[JesusRocks1988]

Which is going to change what before the beta begins?

They're already committed, bud. They're not going to pop in here Monday and announce they're delaying the beta to make changes as a result of community feedback. Their only choice is to soldier on through the incoming fire and deal with it when that process starts.

Well we don't know what's actually been committed to yet because we have so little details. For all we know FD could have almost completely coded, say, a ship defences or engineering station, but decided to drop it at the last minute because they didn't think it would be well received... Then oh suddenly they see there's people asking for that exact feature, and decide it might be worth completing it and putting it in the beta after all.

For example...

 

[Magic Man]

I'm still failing to see what the fuss is about. I'm all for believable methods, functionality and immersion, but this implementation of multi-commander doesn't have to touch any of those.

People keep talking telepresence - it hasn't been mentioned by FD - stop attributing multi-commander to telepresence.

We can log out of the game and into solo, group or open. We can log into CQC. There's no lore needed to explain those because they are just game mechanics.

There's no law needed to explain multi-commander other than as a game mechanic. It's not your pilot in another ship whether in person or virtual. It's just your avatar playing the game now as crew on another ship exactly the same as if you logged out and back into CQC

Stop over-thinking it...

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

Well we don't know what's actually been committed to yet because we have so little details. For all we know FD could have almost completely coded, say, a ship defences or engineering station, but decided to drop it at the last minute because they didn't think it would be well received... Then oh suddenly they see there's people asking for that exact feature, and decide it might be worth completing it and putting it in the beta after all.

For example...

3 weeks before the major update goes into beta and you think they're sitting on the john with their trousers down and haven't put anything together yet?

Nope, sorry.... They've already been testing it internally for weeks if not months, I promise you.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I'm still failing to see what the fuss is about. I'm all for believable methods, functionality and immersion, but this implementation of multi-commander doesn't have to touch any of those.

People keep talking telepresence - it hasn't been mentioned by FD - stop attributing multi-commander to telepresence.

We can log out of the game and into solo, group or open. We can log into CQC. There's no lore needed to explain those because they are just game mechanics.

There's no law needed to explain multi-commander other than as a game mechanic. It's not your pilot in another ship whether in person or virtual. It's just your avatar playing the game now as crew on another ship exactly the same as if you logged out and back into CQC

Stop over-thinking it...

It is telepresence:

Look:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/326211-2-3-Dev-Update?p=5090466#post5090466

 

[JesusRocks1988]

3 weeks before the major update goes into beta and you think they're sitting on the john with their trousers down and haven't put anything together yet?

Nope, sorry.... They've already been testing it internally for weeks if not months, I promise you.

That's... Not even remotely what I said at all... I'm surprised you managed to do that.

I'm saying there could be features that got left on the cutting room floor that, based on community feedback and the beta, could be put back in.

I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm saying that based on the actual details we have, which are nothing more than a headliner teaser, anything is possible. We don't know how community feedback could affect what happens next, not do we know whether or what feedback FD are looking for.

 

[Winterwalker]

So, I think ...

Prosthetic limbs, even this one from last year, allow you some level of decoding; 'presence'

Spoiler

[video=youtube;sk1NkWl_W2Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk1NkWl_W2Y[/video]

Human body has only ten fingers and I don't know what you're like at multi-tasking. I'm not great but 10 inputs could handle a joystick allowing the kind of control expected for multi-crew gunner. 10 is not a very broad spectrum either so it looks relatively handleable in terms of any quantum entanglement (for long distance, super-light communication see below) but equally I don't believe it would be difficult for a bank/trading computer to firewall, as you would certainly need a close view on where the data you want to steal is being held, especially as you're coming in from the micro (subatomic, data level) rather than the macro (code-level) direction. Trade Data hackability also assumes quantum entanglement is even possible from within an electrical system, which could easily overload your weaker signal with so much noise your signal wouldn't get through. ie. QE is likely to be very low on signal energy but we don't yet know how the telepresence link might act in the multi-crew cockpit environment. Just because you couldn't hack a computer and extract data directly from RAM though, doesn't mean you couldn't amplify the signal enough to produce a rudimentary control input.

Tech Times (2015) describes an experiment that shows Bell's Inequality Theory, over a distance of 0.8 miles, showing quantum entanglement in operation ("tele" .. in telepresence). While it's not clear from that article whether the EPR Paradox was demonstrated there, it did at least show that Einstein was wrong about quantum entanglement, that it is possible to produce and the EPR Paradox goes on to desciribe how the speed of light (for low-lag communication over vast distances) can be made irrelevant, when it comes to send by quantum tunnel.

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

That's... Not even remotely what I said at all... I'm surprised you managed to do that.

I'm saying there could be features that got left on the cutting room floor that, based on community feedback and the beta, could be put back in.

I'm not saying that's what happened, I'm saying that based on the actually details we have, which are nothing more than a headliner teaser, for all we know that could be the case.

Those features are going to remain on the floor. The decision to cut them wasn't about what the players want, it was about how much time and money it would take to implement them.

Perhaps I should've made that clearer. What you see is what you're going to get. There aren't going to be any magical last minute revisions that add all of the missing features we were anticipating in.

 

[JesusRocks1988]

Those features are going to remain on the floor. The decision to cut them wasn't about what the players want, it was about how much time and money it would take to implement them.

Perhaps I should've made that clearer. What you see is what you're going to get. There aren't going to be any magical last minute revisions that add all of the missing features we were anticipating in.

But that's the thing, we don't even *see* anything. We have headline feature teasers. We have no info on QoL improvements, non-headline features or even on the nitty gritty details of the headline features.

What we see will be what we get when the beta starts, albeit subject to tweaks, but until then, we need to make sure we're not making it harder for FD to get our feedback if they are looking for it. Goodness knows they haven't said anything on that front.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Which is going to change what before the beta begins?

They're already committed, bud. They're not going to pop in here Monday and announce they're delaying the beta to make changes as a result of community feedback. Their only choice is to soldier on through the incoming fire and deal with it when that process starts.

They changed stuff for Ship Transport. I am wondering if they released this information first so they can get some feedback and if they need to do some changes.

The Telepresence thing is bad. If you can just jump into any ship from anywhere, then it's a big no no for me. At least have it that you need to be at a station to do it even if its not the same station. I can live with that until FPP play comes along, if it does.

 

[Magic Man]

It is telepresence:

Look:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/326211-2-3-Dev-Update?p=5090466#post5090466

They didn't not that in the original dev notes. The original notes worked fine without it.
If that is the case and they're going with telepresence to build it into game lore when there is absolutely no reason to do so then they've just dropped the ball badly, in which case, I totally agree with all the ranting then...

It doesn't have to be lore, it doesn't have to be telepresence. FD, you're just making things worse and harder for yourself if you try and shoehorn it into game lore when there is absolutely no need to do so.

 

[Watcher]

My thoughts.

If you are going to have a special turreted weapon view for use with multi-crew please open that up to single pilots to use to. This gives solo players the chance to use this in situations it might be useful but still provides an advantage to multi-crew players.
I'm not comfortable with extra pips for extra players, some sort of other power management mechanic to help balance between weapons perhaps?

Instant join/leave for multi-crew. I think allowing joining while docked is sensible, restricting things a bit. Leaving at any time makes sense, gameplay wise if not thematically. For people who want to explore together from one ship perhaps some sort of binding mechanic so that you can bind to someone you joined earlier and return to them when they are next on-line. This means the explorer wouldn't have to return to get someone every time but also you can't just show up on the other side of the galaxy without having travelled there (or at least waiting for your bound pilot to arrive). You would only be able to have one remote binding at a time.

Duplicated bounty sharing etc seems to extreme. Sharing seems more reasonable, even if that bumps the total amount a bit. Better still, ability to negotiate a percentage

I'd really really like to see the ability to use hired crew to fill the multi-crew role.
If we can hire pilots with ships for wings that would be lovely too please.

More roles for crew to fulfil would be nice at somepoint..

 

[Windscreen Smudge]

It is telepresence:

Look:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/326211-2-3-Dev-Update?p=5090466#post5090466

Since when do the devs decide what it is?

If we can telepresence magically to each others' ship, pretty much the entire foundation of the game crumbles. The logic behind what we do and why we do it completely fails at it's core on every aspect of the game.

In other words, telepresence has become their catch-all for "We didn't want to come up with a logical method or in-game mechanics to make this work, so we're introducing copious amounts of handwavium and you're not supposed to ask questions because that breaks the illusion that everything is working as intended."

- - - Updated - - -

It is telepresence:

Look:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/326211-2-3-Dev-Update?p=5090466#post5090466

Since when do the devs decide what it is?

If we can telepresence magically to each others' ship, pretty much the entire foundation of the game crumbles. The logic behind what we do and why we do it completely fails at it's core on every aspect of the game.

In other words, telepresence has become their catch-all for "We didn't want to come up with a logical method or in-game mechanics to make this work, so we're introducing copious amounts of handwavium and you're not supposed to ask questions because that breaks the illusion that everything is working as intended."

 

[Sterling MH]

It is telepresence:

Look:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/326211-2-3-Dev-Update?p=5090466#post5090466

It's only claimed it is.

Just conclude that the devs don't know why, gave a potted answer to end it, and get on with life.

 

[Obsidian Ant]

Ah you see.... you can't respond to anything sensibly can you?

You either go with sarcasm, or with "you are using a strawman" if someone disagrees.

Simple question. Did you or did you not try to find Yttrium before 2.1?

Given the "road to 2.1" updates we got for a good chunk this time last year mentioned in some detail that we'd need these materials I'd think someone such as yourself who spends so much time doing things in game or related to it (editing vids of it, posting on forums etc) would perhaps have twigged that maybe the foundation wasn't quite right.

Maybe I just overestimated your capacity for reasoned thought.

Addition: No there is no difference between something being too hard and bad design if the bad design is what makes something too hard! Sticking the materials on the sys map for each planet was a simple addition that didn't change the mechanic but made finding stuff much easier!

I did indeed spend time finding materials in 2.0. The fact you even had to ask really undermines the point you made in the first place (because you actually didn't even know if I was hunting for materials, pratting around on planets, or delivering fruit to the old folks home)

Also, I don't actually feel the need to respond with anything sensible for two reasons. Firstly, because you are the one who brought me into this based upon your false perceptions on something you feel I may or may not have done over a year ago. Secondly, because your posts are quite unfriendly and impersonal - but you can continue on with that if you want, it's a reflection on you after all, not me.

Bottom line is, I only responded to your post to point out that you were wrong in that I never called The Engineers "too hard". The rest of it is an argument I have no interest in partaking because it has no relevance to this thread. I gotta admit though, the picture you paint of how you view my antics is very funny and entertaining reading.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Since when do the devs decide what it is?

If we can telepresence magically to each others' ship, pretty much the entire foundation of the game crumbles. The logic behind what we do and why we do it completely fails at it's core on every aspect of the game.

In other words, telepresence has become their catch-all for "We didn't want to come up with a logical method or in-game mechanics to make this work, so we're introducing copious amounts of handwavium and you're not supposed to ask questions because that breaks the illusion that everything is working as intended."

- - - Updated - - -





Since when do the devs decide what it is?

If we can telepresence magically to each others' ship, pretty much the entire foundation of the game crumbles. The logic behind what we do and why we do it completely fails at it's core on every aspect of the game.

In other words, telepresence has become their catch-all for "We didn't want to come up with a logical method or in-game mechanics to make this work, so we're introducing copious amounts of handwavium and you're not supposed to ask questions because that breaks the illusion that everything is working as intended."

I agree. I hate it. I would prefer having a seperate multicrew character for the instant travel part which isn't tied to your ingame commander. But if you want to be yourself in a crew, you have to actually be at the same station to join their ship, if you want to leave at anytime, you eject. Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. The instant people get their fix, and people like me that want the game to be as believable and consistant as possible get mine.

Whether they can implement it in time is another thing, if they would even bother.

 

[Sterling MH]

then they've just dropped the ball badly, in which case, I totally agree with all the ranting then...

Except this is ranting over a comment made by someone who didn't think ANYONE would care or rant over it. They don't ask a novel writer space-fiction nerd to go into a complete breakdown of the ability of the 34thC science before writing a bit of code set in that world.

They were asked "Is it telepresence" long after they made the announcement, as you originally said, and answered with "Yeah" "Why not?" was sotto voce.

If they turn round and say "No, we're not privvy to how the scientists got this done in the 34th century, and they're not saying", would you be OK again? Or just "I misspoke"? If others demanded an explanation, would you be on board that, or against it, and if another explanation came up, would they have to ask you if you accepted the idea first, before saying it?

It's a game. Make up an explanation if you like. Don't if you're not bothered. Just play the game.