2.3 dev update feedback mega thread

[Weps]

If you really need a reason, just pretend its not your CMDR, its your twin brother/sister/clone, who just happens to share all their profits with you because they bullied you as a child and now are on a guilt trip to pay you back.... or something.

I'm sorry, but this argument does not sit well with me. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief in obvious situations (respawn could probably not be handled in any other way than it is now), but I did not pay for a video game only for it to force me to come up with ridiculous stories to explain its lack of coherence.

The game is supposed to provide a coherent explanation of its world, to me, not the other way around!

I could very well live with instant multicrew for the sake of instant multicrew, but instant multicrew with cloned rewards, ignorable crime and other nonsense is wasted development effort. For what, for players "not to miss out on cash"? Seems to me like Frontier want to have their cake and eat it too: a super-immersive multicrew experience coupled with commander creator, with all the convenience of cross-galaxy teleportation, free monies and arcade mechanics. It just contradicts itself and they should simply forget about it and focus on just the pillar which the playerbase would appreciate more.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That's like saying Wings would have had to be instant for people to use it. Same thing, almost exactly (controlling the fighters is effectively winging up with always on nav-lock), so why should it be different for multicrew?

Not at all, in my opinion - Wings require ships to be in the same instance. Effectively logging out (one's ship will disappear from wherever it was when we join a crew) and appearing in the ship to be crewed is equivalent to (albeit shortened) to logging out and logging in in Multi-Crew - it's been shortened to lower the barrier.

I'm sorry, but this argument does not sit well with me. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief in obvious situations (respawn could probably not be handled in any other way than it is now), but I did not pay for a video game only for it to force me to come up with ridiculous stories to explain its lack of coherence.

The game is supposed to provide a coherent explanation of its world, to me, not the other way around!

I could very well live with instant multicrew for the sake of instant multicrew, but instant multicrew with cloned rewards, ignorable crime and other nonsense is wasted development effort. For what, for players "not to miss out on cash"? Seems to me like Frontier want to have their cake and eat it too: a super-immersive multicrew experience coupled with commander creator, with all the convenience of cross-galaxy teleportation, free monies and arcade mechanics. It just contradicts itself and they should simply forget about it and focus on just the pillar which the playerbase would appreciate more.

Players complain that travelling to play together takes too long - so Frontier introduce a new feature that facilitates multi-player by temporarily placing the player's avatar in the ship to be crewed (and returns it to their own ship when leaving the crew, i.e. no permanent relocation by which the player would effectively enjoy Fast Travel).

Players complain that playing in a Wing reduces earnings (as rewards are shared) - so Frontier duplicate the rewards rather than split them.

Players complain that rebuy is too expensive - so Frontier reduce the rebuy cost per player in Multi-Crew (presumably by splitting the rebuy cost of the crewed ship between the crew members).

It seems that, given the complaints about the Multi-Crew proposal, Frontier cannot hope to please all of the players. I expect then that they're trying to please most of the players, most of the time - as that would seem to be a more achievable goal.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

That's like saying Wings would have had to be instant for people to use it. Same thing, almost exactly (controlling the fighters is effectively winging up with always on nav-lock), so why should it be different for multicrew?

Not really, because with wings you need a ship. With multicrew you don't.

For those who are crying for immersion with MC, how do you think their immersion would hold up if their ships could teleport across space? I think their brains would explode

 

[Agony_Aunt]

I'm sorry, but this argument does not sit well with me. I'm willing to suspend my disbelief in obvious situations (respawn could probably not be handled in any other way than it is now), but I did not pay for a video game only for it to force me to come up with ridiculous stories to explain its lack of coherence.

Well, i guess the only option for you then is every time you want to MC, you actually meet up with the CMDR(s) you want to MC with. You might find some people willing to do that. I think the vast majority will just shrug their shoulders and get their game on.

 

[lokvette]

The thing that's getting me about this whole playing with "friends" bollox, so its ok that we are going to be able to teleport to other side of the galaxy is.

If ED actually had the tools in place in the first place so playing with your "friends" and here I mean clan/guild/squad/corp/ mates/friends and not some random fella who sent you an invite and you thought best not ignore it as it might make me look an asr e. Much rather FD had spent the dev time on this over what is one of the headline features for 2.3.

Then all of these arguments would be mute as you would no doubt be within a reasonable jumping distance of said friends because you know your doing something that involves you being in near space to one another hence being friends in the first place.

I dont care for the mechanic that's coming, but TBH I might even use it if the one person I like to play the game with needs help and the fastest way for me to get to him would be using space magic then so be it.

Again if it helps "friends" play at being passengers on each others ships who am I to argue their sense of fun, mine is flying my own ship, not pew pewing in someone else's. each to their own and all that.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

For those who are crying ...

Et tu Agony? [weird]

 

[Weps]

Players complain that travelling to play together takes too long

For which I am perfectly willing to accept instant multicrew.

Players complain that playing in a Wing reduces earnings

Granted, that was a complaint some time ago, but personally, and honestly, I haven't heard it in a while. If I were to try to remember the last time I've heard that, it would probably be 2015. I certainly might have missed some more recent threads on the matter, but my point is that the frequency of this complaint has long winded down since wings was introduced. Seriously, does anyone care about wing income anymore these days, when everyone is making credits though other established methods?

Players complain that rebuy is too expensive

That is a complaint addressed to all situations, not just those falling under multicrew. Did anyone ever suggest that multicrewed ships should have a higher insurance? No.

"Ship re-buy premiums are also reduced for each crewmember." This means that the rebuy is shared between commanders, then further reduced. Either they did not explained it properly, or they are purposefully making rebuys easier JUST for multicrews, to incentivize the mechanic. That does not sit well with me.

 

[Xender]

Not at all, in my opinion - Wings require ships to be in the same instance. Effectively logging out (one's ship will disappear from wherever it was when we join a crew) and appearing in the ship to be crewed is equivalent to (albeit shortened) to logging out and logging in in Multi-Crew - it's been shortened to lower the barrier.



Players complain that travelling to play together takes too long - so Frontier introduce a new feature that facilitates multi-player by temporarily placing the player's avatar in the ship to be crewed (and returns it to their own ship when leaving the crew, i.e. no permanent relocation by which the player would effectively enjoy Fast Travel).

Players complain that playing in a Wing reduces earnings (as rewards are shared) - so Frontier duplicate the rewards rather than splits them.

Players complain that rebuy is too expensive - so Frontier reduce the rebuy cost (presumably by splitting it between the crew members).

It seems that, given the complaints, Frontier cannot hope to please all of the players. I expect then that they're trying to please most of the players, most of the time - as that would seem to be a more achievable goal.

Players complained about some features so Frontier fixed them:

1. To long traveling for coop gameplay? They introduced instant, temporary telepresnce.
2. Wing gameplay reduces earnings? They introduced reward multiplier: bounty *= 2;
3. To expensive rebuy? Of course there is solution: rebuy /= 2;

This is not the problem with satisfying all players, the problem is with that how simple techniques Frontier use to handle those issues. This is ridiculous and good for students of computer science not for professional game developers. They should introduce special missions for wings/multicrew which are to difficult for solo players, not simple multipliers. The provided solutions clearly shows that Frontier develop new features at the lowest costs...


The essence of all problems with multicrew is shallowness of this. How simple this is. I am angry when I ready posts of happy peoples because they will be able to "teleport" to their friends and double the bounties. Their are blind how Frontier treat them, how they address all problems with minimal cost and efforts. It is unacceptable for me. At some point we are getting closer and closer to being psycho-fans when players receive leftovers rather than promised, fully developed features and this mean nothing for them because those leftovers makes them happy...

 

[lokvette]

2. Wing gameplay reduces earnings? They introduced reward multiplier: bounty *= 2;

If this is being added to MC why not wings?

Again the whole MC farce really doesn't interest me improving the wing mechanic would. MC feels like its being slapped on to please someone not sure who tho.

Oh wait yes I do, but to save further argument I'll Leave that one be.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

For which I am perfectly willing to accept instant multicrew.



Granted, that was a complaint some time ago, but personally, and honestly, I haven't heard it in a while. If I were to try to remember the last time I've heard that, it would probably be 2015. I certainly might have missed some more recent threads on the matter, but my point is that the frequency of this complaint has long winded down since wings was introduced. Seriously, does anyone care about wing income anymore these days, when everyone is making credits though other established methods?



That is a complaint addressed to all situations, not just those falling under multicrew. Did anyone ever suggest that multicrewed ships should have a higher insurance? No.

"Ship re-buy premiums are also reduced for each crewmember." This means that the rebuy is shared between commanders, then further reduced. Either they did not explained it properly, or they are purposefully making rebuys easier JUST for multicrews, to incentivize the mechanic. That does not sit well with me.

Yep, agreed. I personally like the seperate multicrew commander idea. You have a seperate commander especially for instant multicrew. You don't get any money, nor do you have to pay for the rebuy. You help your mate when needed.

If you want your actual commander in the ship, then you need to meet at a station, then you share the rewards, get the credits, get the bounty on your head, and pay for the rebuy.

So you have the instant no risk/gain fix, or the more in-depth none ingame lore breaking version. Something for everyone, and a good compromise.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Et tu Agony? [weird]

Afraid so, getting a little jaded with all this. Its ship transfers all over again.

 

[Muetdhiver]

Not at all, in my opinion - Wings require ships to be in the same instance. Effectively logging out (one's ship will disappear from wherever it was when we join a crew) and appearing in the ship to be crewed is equivalent to (albeit shortened) to logging out and logging in in Multi-Crew - it's been shortened to lower the barrier.

Players complain that travelling to play together takes too long - so Frontier introduce a new feature that facilitates multi-player by temporarily placing the player's avatar in the ship to be crewed (and returns it to their own ship when leaving the crew, i.e. no permanent relocation by which the player would effectively enjoy Fast Travel).

Players complain that playing in a Wing reduces earnings (as rewards are shared) - so Frontier duplicate the rewards rather than split them.

Players complain that rebuy is too expensive - so Frontier reduce the rebuy cost per player in Multi-Crew (presumably by splitting the rebuy cost of the crewed ship between the crew members).

It seems that, given the complaints, Frontier cannot hope to please all of the players. I expect then that they're trying to please most of the players, most of the time - as that would seem to be a more achievable goal.

It seems that frontier will make a group of people angry no matter what they chose to do. It's one of those lose/lose more situations. They just have to chose if they want their game to be :

1) solo with time consuming coop setup and no concessions to consistency (max immershun*)
2) bite the bullet and have the game properly support coop and solo at the cost of some consitency.

I think FD knows full well that there is a wide offer of quick play coop games, which don't need 30-45min of setup before getting in the actual coop play
and that at the moment a lot of casual players will fire one of those for a 1h-1h30 play session since the actual coop play time with the competition is 90-95%
of game time, and not ~50% like for ED. I love ED, but when there are friends arround (which is often) we play something else most of the time because ED
is so awkward for coop.

If one thinks that players enjoying coop are a small group / market, one is clearly deluded XD.

My personal take is the following : unless FD lowers the time entry cost to coop, the game will remain mostly play-if-no-friend is arround pick (for casuals), instead of a lets-do-it-together-now pick.
In the long run I think that would be a huge mistake, because if say SC comes in with convenient quick-coop play while ED sits in its 1984 retrotopia, SC (or other) will just swoop in the
whole market segment. In that line of thought, I really think that we should be able to instantly relog to a friend's location within 200 lyr with our ship paying the usual transfer cost
(I do think that not having instant transfer for d < 200 lyr is going to end up being a mistake).

What makes me laugh about immershun arguments is that those are one invoked when the feature would make coop/MP easier. I seen no one cry about
instant respawns upon death, ships not getting spagetified near BH, pilots not dying of radiation poisoning after flying near neutron stars and other extremely
radiative objects and so on and so forth. If I where FD I would just announce the developpement of high-bandwidth FTL com devices in galnet and be done with it.
I mean, if must exist in a low-bandwidth model for galnet and powerplay info to get "out there" isn't it ?

 

[Bobbydylan]

I think that FD have come to realise that Multi-crew is a feature that most players aren't interested in. Given how most polls are in favour of NPC crew, I'm hoping that the decision to make Multi-Crew this lame and shallow was a deliberate one to make up for lost time. Cos the alternative is that they couldn't think of anything better than a remote turret control... and that's sad.

 

[Ozram]

I think that FD have come to realise that Multi-crew is a feature that most players aren't interested in. Given how most polls are in favour of NPC crew, I'm hoping that the decision to make Multi-Crew this lame and shallow was a deliberate one to make up for lost time. Cos the alternative is that they couldn't think of anything better than a remote turret control... and that's sad.

NPC crew for the win! After that they can just allow players to "control" crewmembers, however, they should divide the earnings, not multiply them. And consequences need to be there. The choice to bug out and avoid all repercussions is fraught with problems.

 

[Muetdhiver]

I think that FD have come to realise that Multi-crew is a feature that most players aren't interested in. Given how most polls are in favour of NPC crew, I'm hoping that the decision to make Multi-Crew this lame and shallow was a deliberate one to make up for lost time. Cos the alternative is that they couldn't think of anything better than a remote turret control... and that's sad.

I think a lot of player interested in coop are not voting because they just do their things while keeping a distant eye on what FD's in doing in that regard.
At least, that's what three of my friends are doing.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

It seems that frontier will make a group of people angry no matter what they chose to do. It's one of those lose/lose more situations. They just have to chose if they want their game to be :

1) solo with time consuming coop setup and no concessions to consistency (max immershun*)
2) bite the bullet and have the game properly support coop and solo at the cost of some consitency.

I think FD knows full well that there is a wide offer of quick play coop games, which don't need 30-45min of setup before getting in the actual coop play
and that at the moment a lot of casual players will fire one of those for a 1h-1h30 play session since the actual coop play time with the competition is 90-95%
of game time, and not ~50% like for ED. I love ED, but when there are friends arround (which is often) we play something else most of the time because ED
is so awkward for coop.

If one thinks that players enjoying coop are a small group / market, one is clearly deluded XD.

My personal take is the following : unless FD lowers the time entry cost to coop, the game will remain mostly play-if-no-friend is arround pick (for casuals), instead of a lets-do-it-together-now pick.
In the long run I think that would be a huge mistake, because if say SC comes in with convenient quick-coop play while ED sits in its 1984 retrotopia, SC (or other) will just swoop in the
whole market segment. In that line of thought, I really think that we should be able to instantly relog to a friend's location within 200 lyr with our ship paying the usual transfer cost
(I do think that not having instant transfer for d < 200 lyr is going to end up being a mistake).

What makes me laugh about immershun arguments is that those are one invoked when the feature would make coop/MP easier. I seen no one cry about
instant respawns upon death, ships not getting spagetified near BH, pilots not dying of radiation poisoning after flying near neutron stars and other extremely
radiative objects and so on and so forth. If I where FD I would just announce the developpement of high-bandwidth FTL com devices in galnet and be done with it.
I mean, if must exist for galnet and powerplay info to get "out there" isn't it ?

I very much doubt that Star Citizen will do the quick cheap way, as it will make large sections of the development redundant, such as walking around in stations and ships.

Also most people I see have no issues with it being instant as long as it is consistant within the ingame lore. If it breaks ingame lore, then we might as well get rid of it, and then the game has no cohesion and ends up being a mess with a load of disjointed minigames that have no meaning. And as soon as we get that, then the game will fail.

 

[Xender]

If this is being added to MC why not wings?

Again the whole MC farce really doesn't interest me improving the wing mechanic would. MC feels like its being slapped on to please someone not sure who tho.

Oh wait yes I do, but to save further argument I'll Leave that one be.

It seems that frontier will make a group of people angry no matter what they chose to do. It's one of those lose/lose more situations. They just have to chose if they want their game to be :

1) solo with time consuming coop setup and no concessions to consistency (max immershun*)
2) bite the bullet and have the game properly support coop and solo at the cost of some consitency.

I think FD knows full well that there is a wide offer of quick play coop games, which don't need 30-45min of setup before getting in the actual coop play
and that at the moment a lot of casual players will fire one of those for a 1h-1h30 play session since the actual coop play time with the competition is 90-95%
of game time, and not ~50% like for ED. I love ED, but when there are friends arround (which is often) we play something else most of the time because ED
is so awkward for coop.

If one thinks that players enjoying coop are a small group / market, one is clearly deluded XD.

My personal take is the following : unless FD lowers the time entry cost to coop, the game will remain mostly play-if-no-friend is arround pick (for casuals), instead of a lets-do-it-together-now pick.
In the long run I think that would be a huge mistake, because if say SC comes in with convenient quick-coop play while ED sits in its 1984 retrotopia, SC (or other) will just swoop in the
whole market segment. In that line of thought, I really think that we should be able to instantly relog to a friend's location within 200 lyr with our ship paying the usual transfer cost
(I do think that not having instant transfer for d < 200 lyr is going to end up being a mistake).

What makes me laugh about immershun arguments is that those are one invoked when the feature would make coop/MP easier. I seen no one cry about
instant respawns upon death, ships not getting spagetified near BH, pilots not dying of radiation poisoning after flying near neutron stars and other extremely
radiative objects and so on and so forth. If I where FD I would just announce the developpement of high-bandwidth FTL com devices in galnet and be done with it.
I mean, if must exist in a low-bandwidth model for galnet and powerplay info to get "out there" isn't it ?

The problem with multicrew as it is currently proposed by Frontier - it is not worth to spend 30-60 minutes to participate in it because it is to shallow. Would you spend one hour to launch mini-game? No! This is why Frontier introduced telepresence, to handle properly their new mini-game called multicrew. If the could introduce proper multicrew with advanced and deep mechanics (concepts similar to Pulsar Lost Colony and Star Citizen) it will be worth to spend time on initiating it, even if it takes one hour. Again I will say that anyone happy with proposed multicrew is accepting Elite shallowness and road taken by Frontier - the path of simplicity and low costs. The question is how they will consider us buy season 3 or whatever they will call new expansions... Just think about it, they told us that they will introduce new SRVs types. Still there is no SRVs, why? This is only one model with only one behaviour, how many graphics designer they have? 2, 3, 4? How hard is to handle new vehicle to Cobra Engine... They focusing on fulfilling bullet points of Horizon DLC at lowest possible cost, then they will switch to next one to. I understand they must earn money, but I am extremely disappointed with quality of their job ;/ still no competition right now force to to accept it.

 

[lokvette]

I sort of hope 2.3 will be the last of the, "lets slap some stuff on and hope it sticks" updates, time to start building and expanding on whats in the game as is.

 

[Muetdhiver]

The problem with multicrew as it is currently proposed by Frontier - it is not worth to spend 30-60 minutes to participate in it because it is to shallow. Would you spend one hour to launch mini-game? No! This is why Frontier introduced telepresence, to handle properly their new mini-game called multicrew. If the could introduce proper multicrew with advanced and deep mechanics (concepts similar to Pulsar Lost Colony and Star Citizen) it will be worth to spend time on initiating it, even if it takes one hour. Again I will say that anyone happy with proposed multicrew is accepting Elite shallowness and road taken by Frontier - the path of simplicity and low costs. The question is how they will consider us buy season 3 or whatever they will call new expansions... Just think about it, they told us that they will introduce new SRVs types. Still there is no SRVs, why? This is only one model with only one behaviour, how many graphics designer they have? 2, 3, 4? How hard is to handle new vehicle to Cobra Engine... They focusing on fulfilling bullet points of Horizon DLC at lowest possible cost, then they will switch to next one to. I understand they must earn money, but I am extremely disappointed with quality of their job ;/ still no competition right now force to to accept it.

So true. Telepresence is the only way anyone will even try MC. Then again, FD is confronted to the issue of building up (MC) on shaky
fondations (weak gameplay support). I still think that it will be fun to fly the big ones with it. In an ASP ? not sure (though if FD give the ability
to drive two SRV's with MC, then sharing exploration spots and impromptu racing will be very much a thing for me).

On shaky fondations : FD should really look hard on the stuff they already have and try to improve it. I would go so far as saying that for me
it would be okay if they rebuilt the exploration mechanics from scratch. Just invoke a witch space storm or destabilisation and be done with it*.
I would not mind having FD working only on things like mining, trading, BH'ing, exploration and art assets for a whole season if what we get from it is
polished professions with rich gameplay. Instead of slapping a few more minigames.

*It would be a huge gameplay opportunity, imagine if colonia people would have to map hyperspace paths to the bubble from scratch with
dangerous witchspace conditions ?

 

[Xender]

I sort of hope 2.3 will be the last of the, "lets slap some stuff on and hope it sticks" updates, time to start building and expanding on whats in the game as is.

I agree, because Frontier looks they are wandering in the dark... I don't they will spend much time to improve existing mechanics and this is sad. They need to make money, so they need to sell new things. Whats Frontier lacks the most is the visionary who should take the helm of studio and lead these game into shinny future.

Even if they don't have money for improvement existing features, they should prepare roadmap for improvements and share it. Then it may launch crowdfounding campaign for it or collect money via ingame extras. I will but skins much more frequently if I can see for which things my money goes. For example they can add "improved Wings and Multicrew gameplay, coop mission" stretch goal and fill it according to game extras sales...