2.3 dev update feedback mega thread

[Commandeur_Brin]

Because it's practically the definition of lame storytelling. The explanation for dumb inconsistencies in the fictional world of a video game is that everything that occurs in that fictional world is itself happening within a video game within the video game. This is 5th grade C+ level storytelling. Can we also have a big reveal that it was all a dream, *and* that we were dead all along?

Well said. I'm ok with whatever gameplay reason they invoke as long as they don't try to justify it with bad quality lore.

 

[dumbo]

Everything about multicrew is bas! It is because the multicrew concept doesn't mean truly coop gameplay. It is rather support gameplay when you can join and support someone for some profits. True multicrew should allow to physically board friend's ship and became member of it. As long as you are assigned to this ship you move with it even if you are offline. Just imagine those multicrew expeditions, how cool may it be!

FDev are producing 5 major patches for season 2, one of those patches is "commanders". And one of the features of commanders is multi-crew.

So, whilst it would be "cool" to add all the features required for your idea, the short answer is that FDev do not have the time or money to do it. And being honest, I think the majority of players would much prefer other major features be developed first...

[there would also be a ton of logical problems - if you log in and that captain isn't online? or if the captain decides to quit playing Elite? etc]

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Just gonna' say it again. I have no objection to how we get in other player's ships. I just wish there were more for crew to do.

 

[Sterling MH]

Perhaps FD should just tell everyone all of what's coming in one go?

In my opinion, this whole practice of drip-feeding information is just daft. Makes no sense.

The problem with this conversation is that it's very easy to see both sides here, isn't it. We know that we'll feel cheated if we're told of a feature and it doesn't arise "when promised", or not as we thought it would be (see this entire thread). And we also know that knowing NOTHING is a recipe for rumour mongering and a scattergun complaint where we have nothing to limit what we expect, so we expect EVERYTHING.

And a forum probably isn't the best place to work this out. Cross posting and ninjas mix everything up and you lose the information in the noise.

I feel that it SHOULD work that FD could say what's currently beyond the whiteboard discussion and has programmers looking at the scope of the work, so we know what the devs are working on. I feel worry that it will end up being expected as being 100% due for 2.4, and people will be "cheated" when it turns out that it's not here, or hearing that after prototyping, the idea has been dropped. That's what happens when you prototype: Sometimes that just won't work with the rest of the code as it is.

What if after alpha testing they found that there was nothing for space legs, and therefore it was decided to work on something more productive?

Bedlam. Shouts for "Well why not just allow pirates to invade a ship to rummage the hold!" or "How about station invasions for PP, that's EASY!" and so on. But to write for that takes longer than the next point release, so it STILL means that the legs have to be removed from the next release. And those wanting legs will remain VERY angry and cheated of what they wanted. Not all, but only the ones upset will be posting. And posting a lot.

Ah, it's a lot easier when you can pretend that someone has absolutely no rational case and is just plain wrong, innit.

 

[PyrateLV]

 

[Ozram]

Just gonna' say it again. I have no objection to how we get in other player's ships. I just wish there were more for crew to do.

I just wish it required NPC crew to justify it. I also find the notion of multiplying rewards problematic. Rewards and punishments should be afforded same as with wings. Why should they not be splitting up the bounty? It's like fd are creating an intentional exploit just to go ahead and say it was a popular idea later as everyone will try to use it (p2p allowing).

 

[Deleted member 110222]

The problem with this conversation is that it's very easy to see both sides here, isn't it. We know that we'll feel cheated if we're told of a feature and it doesn't arise "when promised", or not as we thought it would be (see this entire thread). And we also know that knowing NOTHING is a recipe for rumour mongering and a scattergun complaint where we have nothing to limit what we expect, so we expect EVERYTHING.

And a forum probably isn't the best place to work this out. Cross posting and ninjas mix everything up and you lose the information in the noise.

I feel that it SHOULD work that FD could say what's currently beyond the whiteboard discussion and has programmers looking at the scope of the work, so we know what the devs are working on. I feel worry that it will end up being expected as being 100% due for 2.4, and people will be "cheated" when it turns out that it's not here, or hearing that after prototyping, the idea has been dropped. That's what happens when you prototype: Sometimes that just won't work with the rest of the code as it is.

What if after alpha testing they found that there was nothing for space legs, and therefore it was decided to work on something more productive?

Bedlam. Shouts for "Well why not just allow pirates to invade a ship to rummage the hold!" or "How about station invasions for PP, that's EASY!" and so on. But to write for that takes longer than the next point release, so it STILL means that the legs have to be removed from the next release. And those wanting legs will remain VERY angry and cheated of what they wanted. Not all, but only the ones upset will be posting. And posting a lot.

Ah, it's a lot easier when you can pretend that someone has absolutely no rational case and is just plain wrong, innit.

Maybe... However I think it is hard to argue with what I'm about to say:

Why can't FD explain why the features of MC have seemingly been scaled back from the ideas they themselves discussed earlier?

 

[Sterling MH]

Because it's practically the definition of lame storytelling.

What story are they telling? All I've seen is "Telepresence", but that's not a story. Nothing about how it "works", or the science behind telepresence and its mechanisms. So anyone claiming that it "should do X" are insisting on a story of how it works THEY INVENTED.

If there's "bad storytelling" it's in the story of the one complaining. FD aren't writing out a story. The complainers are.

 

[bitstorm]

I just wish it required NPC crew to justify it. I also find the notion of multiplying rewards problematic. Rewards and punishments should be afforded same as with wings. Why should they not be splitting up the bounty? It's like fd are creating an intentional exploit just to go ahead and say it was a popular idea later as everyone will try to use it (p2p allowing).

Must say, I too am not sure about this multiplying rewards.

I guess it stems from not wanting to punish drivers for opening up to multicrew, hmmm.

 

[Sterling MH]

Maybe... However I think it is hard to argue with what I'm about to say:

Why can't FD explain why the features of MC have seemingly been scaled back from the ideas they themselves discussed earlier?

Maybe they will. What would it change, though? The scaling back may have been in whiteboarding, coding or alpha testing, where the game is played by the devs who found out that they preferred to fly their own ship and do SOMETHING.

But it doesn't matter where or why, does it. It's just not in. "Why" doesn't put it in.

Surely what you want to ask is something like "Will the roles be expanded to more jobs in future?"?

And I rather think that I did manage to argue against what you said: "Why can't FD explain why the features of MC have seemingly been scaled back from the ideas they themselves discussed earlier?". It is a waste of their time since it changes nothing and takes them away from producing something.

- - - Updated - - -

Must say, I too am not sure about this multiplying rewards.

When FD trawl, I'm pretty sure they'll see everyone who expressed an opinion on the rewards have said the very same thing. No matter whether they want instaport, NPC replacements, or in-game meeting to start multi-crew. Nobody, as far as I recall, has said that the multiplying of rewards was a positive feature for MC.

It's easy to lose the agreements in the morass of disagreement!

 

[bitstorm]

When FD trawl, I'm pretty sure they'll see everyone who expressed an opinion on the rewards have said the very same thing. No matter whether they want instaport, NPC replacements, or in-game meeting to start multi-crew. Nobody, as far as I recall, has said that the multiplying of rewards was a positive feature for MC.

It's easy to lose the agreements in the morass of disagreement!

It likely stems from not wanting to punish drivers for doing multicrew.

I mean if I'm just soloing doing some CZ combat and I'm like :

"Hey I know, why not get a couple of random crew in for fun!"

*enables multicrew*

Then...

"oh hang on they'll take like two thirds of my credits won't they. Sod that.."

*disables multicrew*

Which I do understand.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

Maybe they will. What would it change, though? The scaling back may have been in whiteboarding, coding or alpha testing, where the game is played by the devs who found out that they preferred to fly their own ship and do SOMETHING.

But it doesn't matter where or why, does it. It's just not in. "Why" doesn't put it in.

Surely what you want to ask is something like "Will the roles be expanded to more jobs in future?"?

And I rather think that I did manage to argue against what you said: "Why can't FD explain why the features of MC have seemingly been scaled back from the ideas they themselves discussed earlier?". It is a waste of their time since it changes nothing and takes them away from producing something.

- - - Updated - - -



When FD trawl, I'm pretty sure they'll see everyone who expressed an opinion on the rewards have said the very same thing. No matter whether they want instaport, NPC replacements, or in-game meeting to start multi-crew. Nobody, as far as I recall, has said that the multiplying of rewards was a positive feature for MC.

It's easy to lose the agreements in the morass of disagreement!

Yes, it takes away from dev' time for Brett C to post something. Just remember... He's not a dev'. He's an FD employee, but he's not a dev'. His job is literally to manage the community.

 

[Dbrn47]

It likely stems from not wanting to punish drivers for doing multicrew.

I mean if I'm just soloing doing some CZ combat and I'm like "hey I know, why not get a couple of random crew in for fun!"

Then... "oh hang on they'll take like two thirds of my credits won't they. Sod that.."

Which I do understand.

Yea, that's a bit of a bummer, especially as far as Traders are concerned. AFAIK trade dividends are abysmal, so you'd really have to like that trader friend to escort them around.

 

[PyrateLV]

What story are they telling? All I've seen is "Telepresence", but that's not a story. Nothing about how it "works", or the science behind telepresence and its mechanisms. So anyone claiming that it "should do X" are insisting on a story of how it works THEY INVENTED.

If there's "bad storytelling" it's in the story of the one complaining. FD aren't writing out a story. The complainers are.

 

[Sterling MH]

Yes, it takes away from dev' time for Brett C to post something. Just remember... He's not a dev'. He's an FD employee, but he's not a dev'. His job is literally to manage the community.

And therefore he won't necessarily know why, so he'll have to ask and get the answer and repeat it to see he's got it right and not garbled the message a la chinese whispers...

And Bret telling you will still not change a thing. So why not let him trawl this thread looking for feedback on the 2.3 release, hmm?

 

[horizone]

You have a commander in game. It's who you are in game. Let's say you're name is Cmdr Bob. You will design how he looks in the next update.
But with multicrew, cmdr Bob can teleport anywhere in the galaxy if he joins a crew. When you join a crew on the other side of the galaxy you are still Cmdr Bob.

I think it would be nice if we could be Crewmate John when we "teleport" to another place using multicrew. And at the same time if we meet the crewship in a station Cmdr Bob could play himself on a crew. Do I make sense?
This would keep the notion that you have to go through some lengths for your commander to go out in the galaxy and explore for himself. But at the same time would not put any barriers between a quick multicrew session and your time.

I wish more people would get behind this. Now it's either -don't ruin my immersion OR -don't you dare suggest any wait times.

 

[Panticus]

It was difficult trying to read through 20 different large threads of the 2.3 update as well.

Make a good game, Brett, and you will calm all these nerves. Fact is, you are a slave to FD run by DB - who has NO concept of gameplay beyond his personal obsession to be an astrophysicist.

 

[Ozram]

You have a commander in game. It's who you are in game. Let's say you're name is Cmdr Bob. You will design how he looks in the next update.
But with multicrew, cmdr Bob can teleport anywhere in the galaxy if he joins a crew. When you join a crew on the other side of the galaxy you are still Cmdr Bob.

I think it would be nice if we could be Crewmate John when we "teleport" to another place using multicrew. And at the same time if we meet the crewship in a station Cmdr Bob could play himself on a crew. Do I make sense?
This would keep the notion that you have to go through some lengths for your commander to go out in the galaxy and explore for himself. But at the same time would not put any barriers between a quick multicrew session and your time.

I wish more people would get behind this. Now it's either -don't ruin my immersion OR -don't you dare suggest any wait times.

Yes. Perfect sense!

 

[Deleted member 110222]

And therefore he won't necessarily know why, so he'll have to ask and get the answer and repeat it to see he's got it right and not garbled the message a la chinese whispers...

And Bret telling you will still not change a thing. So why not let him trawl this thread looking for feedback on the 2.3 release, hmm?

Sorry, but I'd say from this thread there's quite the demand for answers on why the decisions that have been made, have happened.

Disagree with me as you will. I know better than to get upset with a stranger on the internet.

But I do think FD should be providing answers on why they've scaled things back.

Have a good day, and I mean this sincerely. I mean you no ill-will.

 

[horizone]

Yes. Perfect sense!

Another opportunity is more fun with the brand new commander creator tool.