News 2.3 Dev Update

[iceburg333]

I've been playing Elite since the beta, and my friend started playing early on. We've dreamed of multi-crew and we were pretty disappointed reading what it's going to be like. I post in hopes that if enough people agree, maybe Frontier will adjust course.

Simply stated, our vision of multi-crew is co-habitation, it's partnership, it's co-owning a ship. Our vision is that you trust your crew with your most prized possession, your ship. If they wreck it, you're not mad because you have that level of trust in them.

It seems like Frontier's vision is a plug and play pairing with strangers.

Let me explain why Frontier's vision seems to me detrimental.

Your ship is everything in Elite. It's not something I'd want to hand control to someone I don't trust. If the vision is for me to play with strangers that could troll or be incompetent, safe guards must be implemented. These safeguards seem to me so limiting that instead of co-piloting a ship like a good Star Trek (or any other good sci fi) show, it's just spectator mode. (What if the troll fires at a clean ship, at a station while I'm docking?)

Adding an additional power pip per crewman is fake / boring depth. If I get three crewmen and they add a pip, they can go use the restroom and their job is done. Someone can K-warrent scan a ship and then do nothing for 5 minutes. Are crew-manned turrets better than computer aimed turrets? All of these sound like they are monotonous jobs with large amounts of downtime.

Compare that to a system based on trust:

• Two guys on a long exploration mission. One plots the route while the other executes the jumps. The co-pilot takes over while the pilot uses the bathroom. Or a group of friends take shifts in one asp to reach some distant destination. The non-pilots monitor modules, plan routes, and research scoop-able stars.
• My buddy uses his flight stick and throttle to perform dog-fighting, while I manage power and systems. "Flight path alpha!" He shouts, which means I need to throw everything into engines while he flight-assist-off barrel rolls behind the enemies. Then I jerk all power into weapons and shut down everything from life support to the cargo hatch to prevent the overheat as he gives the enemy all the lasers we have. I can't manage my modules very well in a fight, but if that's all I had to do while my buddy is doing the driving, I could get a lot done.
• A crew of three or four have to fight over and declare exact responsibilities so the ship runs efficiently without crewmen stepping on each other's toes.

These situations offer real, dynamic gameplay; something infinitely more engaging than distributing a bonus energy pip or simply doubling bounty value gain. This seems like the goal and point of multi-crew, and what I've been dreaming about. Why do so much of this work just so you can fire turrets that already aim at the enemy, and have stronger (360 degree) scans. It sounds like instead of embracing existing mechanics, they're just simplifying them so that a body feels useful.

I sure hope I've misunderstood and we'll actually be getting a really involved multi-crew experience.

 

[TenakaFurey]

If you want to look at a game that Elite should be taking notes from, you need to look up Pulsar: The Lost Colony. Absolutely amazing multicrew feature that is implemented amazingly!
Here is a good video demonstrating the features in game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP8n9O63A-U

I'm fairly certain that Elite could implement a viable and balanced multicrew system...or at least one without the apparent issues and problems indicated by the provided description.

Part of the problem here is that Elite was designed as a single player game. The UI is constructed so that a single player can do everything. That in turn limits how FD can implement multicrew.

Now...while it maybe the case that the actual implementation will have suitable constraints, IMO the system as described is not a multicrew implementation that should ve implemented. There are far too many negative effects on gameplay and balance, too many compromises.

Given the startibg point that is Elite 2.2, multicrew needed to take either of two approaches to work.

Either FD should have implemented Capital ships, designed from the ground up with multicrew in mind,giving the player actual naval scale corvettes or frigates which required multiple players to operate and which came woth brand new mechanics for each station to justify a multicrew setup...

...or it should have implemented a system which did the same for the existing vessels, adding control nodes or whatever which each required a crew to operate and which likewise added new capabilities, features and mechanics for multicrew players to operate. Allowing existing vessels to add on a number of such nodes, and to allow for customisation according to role, would also allow for nodes dedicated to salvage, mining, exploration and so on. Inshort, to ADD multicrew capability and mechanics to existing ships rather than simply shift existing mechanics and responsibilities around.

Ideally, the system should also allow for an expansion of the Wing system do that multiple ships with multicrew could join up....AND implement missions and PvE encounters where such capabilities were required to give players the incentive and need to engage in multicrew without the problems and exploits caused by duplicating rewards.

Instead...FD implemented a system which doesn't add to the existing ships capabilities but simply spreads them out between a number of players, makes it worthwhile by providing a buff and does so in a manner which negatively impacts immersion, gameplay and game balance, encourages anti social behaviour FD has suggested it wants to remove from the game and opens up several avenues for exploiting and abusing the mechanics.

In short....while I want MC to work, the description of it so far appears to have embraced the worst possible model for its implementation. Maybe the actual implementation will be better.....I certainly hope so.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

But I still have to ask...why the need for so many incentives to get people to use a feature that really should be enticing enough to stand on it's own?

You know the answer



EDIT:
Whilst Pulsar (linked above - something I have seen before) is an example of a multi-crew game done right, you have to remember that it was built from the ground up to be so. ED however will have MC "bolted" onto it which is why IMO it's not going to be done as well. It requires an entirely new game to support the MC aspect and given the resources / time / effort I don't believe FD can implement anything as good. I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

 

[Redhands]

If you want to look at a game that Elite should be taking notes from, you need to look up Pulsar: The Lost Colony. Absolutely amazing multicrew feature that is implemented amazingly!
Here is a good video demonstrating the features in game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP8n9O63A-U

I have been following Pulsar : The lost Colony since early stages and yes Preston Stoll, George Stoll, and Jenn Feran at Leafy Games have done an amazing work. Pulsar is well engineered. But as I said before in another post, starwars galaxies : Jump to Lightspeed was the one to bring something new to multiplayer space sims. And by the way, who care who made it, good ideas has no Frontier ...

ED : multicrew should have been set with Walking around interiors and combative boarding of other ships.

ED : coop features eveyone is asking for (by everyone, I mean almost all my friends I'm playing with in ED, who never made a single post in here because ... 80% of people playing games just don't). So, ED was designed for single player ? well, you will have to explain to me how it's not possible in wings, to share profits in a decent way from activies such as mining, exploration, combat, transportation to attrack people and make them group together with a common goal.

A question about Multicrew (because ED is not stuck to vouchers and bounties activities). Will it be possible to go asteroid belts in multicrew and share the profits from mining having your crew members well prepared to defend your cargo ship with turrets and ship-launched fighters ? Will it be possible to the same with passengers missions ? and finally will it be possible to do the same with Wings ...
Players enjoy grouping together (coop) as long as they have gameplay mechanics that could provide at least decent rewards, rewards at least as good as they were playing in solo and that is not the case atm in ED.

 

[greatsouls]

I think before we get MC we should be able to stand up and do a walk inside our ships. It is time for the FP element in that game. Having different consoles around, each responsible for different ship systems. We should still have the option to control all functions from the main seat for when we fly alone. Say, you take the main seat, switch to single mode and you have control to all ships functions. Later, when MC is introduced, it will naturally flow into the game. Honestly, initially, when ED was just starting , I thought it had better approached how the game should evolve, compared to Star Citizen. Now, I am not so sure. Looks like SC is being develop from the begging as truly MC game and ED had been locked as single player game with some (limited) interaction between players. The proposed MC indeed looks like "bolted" element to the game. At the current stage the game is missing the necessary interfaces for MC element. Elite will slowly start looking as an arcade console port. I really hope that willl not happen...

Frontier, please add to the game the FP element. Not for running and shooting, but let us be able to walk inside our ships and interact with different elements. Make it possible to take different seats... Then introduce the MC. Perhaps, lock us initially inside the ship. At later point "unlock" the hatch and let us go out the ship when in a station (like in SC). All this still will be done on different stages. But the game will evolve in more natural way.
Sadly, after waiting for two years something to be done in this direction, I find myself more and more looking at SC... Which is sad, as I really like the vast and beautiful Galaxy in Elite.

 

[Soliluna]

Excellent stuff - glad to see Frontier doing their own thing and supporting gameplay over realism here. Sadly, I see this as just a way of quickly playing with a friend - just without my ship, which is probably less fun than playing by myself, with my ship. To each their own of course.

I don't want to echo the sentiment that others have communicated regarding other games with complex but intuitive designs for multicrew but I do want to say that for me to really consider multiplayer multicrew the systems would need to offer a similar level of complexity. Whether this fits within the vision the designers have for the game is paramount though and I feel like making a more complicated system work on Xbox and PS could be difficult.

I am very interested in any development regarding NPC multicrew though

 

[Xanador]

In this case I would also prefer instant travel. It is a typical MMO feature which will simply work best if the hurdles are as low as possible. I wouldn't even call it telepresence at all; it is a simple "fast forward" in time. For all of the commanders who prefer immersion FD has to implement space legs anyway, then you can choose by yourself if you want to skip the whole process of leaving your own ship and entering annother one or if you want to play "correctly".

 

[avow555]

If anyone can persuade any of my old pals to come back to ED, I may give this multicrew shambles a go, lol.

On a more serious note I do not think the clunky HUD/UI we have will suit multicrew.

 

[CMDR Dash Rendar]

We need to work with what he have. I HAVE A SOLUTION! Frontier please read!

I read the replies to my very recent post and I have a very good idea on how to make this update appeal to those who trade, mine, salvage, and even explore!! It's so simple! Let us equip our SLFs with the gear used in these roles! Lets face it, we are NOT getting these navigator, engineer, or system roles anymore. Instead of complaining, we need to work, as a community, to persuade Frontier to give us things that they can implement easily in order to appeal to ALL roles with ease. Here is a scenario:

You are searching for a very specific ore to mine and you only have a little bit of time to finish the mission. You have 2 friends onboard and you FINALLY find the right asteroid field to mine. Your 2 friends then deploy in SLFs and beginning mining and scooping up ore!

Yes, let us equip mining lasers to the hard points on our SLFs!! It would work perfectly! This adds to the variety of these ship launched vehicles and opens a door to further implementations of non combat ship launched vehicles.

Mining
What you read above is exactly what can happen. Just like how we can customize our fighters in CQC, we should be able to customize the ship launched fighters that we buy in outfitting. They all have 2 hard points which can be 2 mining lasers. Add two optional internals and that can be a collection limpet and a refinery. After you have refined an ore, you can dock with the mothership/bring the ore in automatically, or you could fly to the mother ship and drop a refined capsule of the ore for the mothership to pick up. Now you have 3 ships all mining together and getting an ore 3 times faster!

Exploration
Exploration can be even better. Before 2.2, SLFs did not exist. Back then, you could see F-63s and Imperial Fighters in supercruise. Now imagine, you have just got into a system with a black hole, 3 Earth like planets orbiting 3 different stars, and a neutron star somewhere else. It would take you 2 hours to surface scan every single one of these and you don't even have that much time to play Elite. Don't worry! You have your 2 friends on board with 2 exploration SLFs! Stripped of hardpoints, they carry basic discovery scanners, detailed surface scanners, and frameshift drives limited to supercruise. You scan the system and you are on your way in under a quarter of the time it would have taken you, had you only used one ship.

Salvaging
You've come upon a Beluga wreck with pieces scattered everywhere. The local authorities are on your tail and you can't stay in this system for too long or you'll be found and killed. The Beluga was carrying meta alloys (lol, hard to believe, I know). You know you won't have time to get them all if you use but one ship, so you have your friends deploy their ship launched fighters outfitted with cargo bays and they begin scooping the very rare commodity. You have saved a lot of time and jump out of the system just as the authorities scan you.

Trading
The people that have to use large sized landing pad are always sad to see such high priced trading missions being canned because they can't land on a small sized landing pad. But you know what can? SLFs! Your 2 buddies are, once again, onboard your ship and they can help you! They take your goods in using an SLF unique 6 cargo rack in their optional internals. Need to snake in some goods, but you know that you're gonna get scanned on your way to docking? Sit far away from the station and let your SLFs supercruise into them and sell your goods for you!

This entire thing opens up a door to a variety of ship launched fighters on ONE SHIP! All of a sudden, that Anaconda set for combat can mine, trade, and explore without mining lasers, without a cargo hold, and without a discovery or detailed surface scanner! We need to face it and stop arguing over telepresence and complaining about the lack of multi crew features. It gets us nowhere! What we can do, as a community, is demand we get at least some of the things that I have listed above. It can be done, but we will need a large portion of the community spreading the message instead of complaining. Yes, there are flaws with my idea, so we as a community should expand on them together!

Lets make the most out of what we have before it's too late![haha][yesnod][up]

 

[TenakaFurey]

To be honest, I had no issue with having Multi-crew be initially combat focused.

And neither do I.

The problem is that this isn't really being set up in a manner which allows for easy expansion if the multicrew system.

I'm not sure what exactly an engineer could be doing given the systems in Elite and the way they work. A view of the engine or powerplant but not outside? Diagnosing problems and a minigame to repair? It would be difficult I think to make a system that would be engaging, fun and balanced. For combat at any rate. There's lots of stuff an engineer could do...recon drones? scans? system repair?....but it'd be questionable if it could be fun and balanced and attractive to many players. The healer of the group isn't a very popular position. Not saying ot cpuldn't be done...but it'd be tricky.


But the other two positions had plenty of potential for combat based activity. Although I really would emphasise that there is little benefit to stripping controls from the ship owner. Any system controlled by the crew should be in addition to those controlled by the ship owner.

For the Tactical/Defence pod, I could see the crew being in charge of point defence (AMSs, CMMs and anti-SLF weaponry), with their own arsenal of ECM, chaff, flares and stealth systems. I wouldn't suggest the ability to reassign existing shields, but their own Pinpoint Barrier System which they can use to reinforce whatever vector they desired.

But there seems to be no indication that MC will ever be expanded beyond the combat role. Especially given the already long list of features that need overhauling and improving.

 

[TenakaFurey]

ED is not Casual, but neither is it really hardcore

While it isn't a hardcore game, it also isn't as casual as the proposed mechanic would indicate. The dropin/out aspect is a system targetted mainly at casuals.

I also do not agree that the only people who will use the feature will be those who are in combat. I can speak from experience that because wings require people to meet-up, then most of my friends, and myself included, simply do not bother. Partly, when we are online, we are not close and partly because we have very different interests. I find exploration to be interesting while another finds combat interesting and a third finds trading interesting. In order for us to wing up and getting anything done proper, we don't just have to team up, we have to get to our ships, outfit them correctly and then meet up. This is a process that can easily take up to an hour, if not more, which takes out the enthusiasm, rather quickly.

Multi-crew, specifically the instant nature of it, makes it so, we can all play together and participate in whatever activity that we so choose.

Which will involve one player as gunner, one player as CMDR and one in the fighter. That is combat focussed with no option for exploration, mining, trading or salvage. I presume it will also require you to plan ahead and configure the host ship to also be designed around turrets and fighter installation simply on the off chance that you and your friends are in the mood to blast things or fly around. Assuming that the system will allow multiple Fighter Controllers, otherwise someone is going to be left out of your SLF races. The update only mentioned being able to control two SLFs....fightercon and helm.

In otherwords....unless you like running around with SLFs and turreted weapons, you still need to go and configure your ship for multicrew.

In which case....CQC seems a viable alternative.

And you don't need multicrew to sit down and chat. If the built in comms won't do, Teamspeak or the like is available.

So....your races can't be done. Your teamspeak doesn't require Multicrew. The system is combat focussed so your friends who like mining or exploring aren't "welcome".

And if you just want a quick blast....FD would better served to integrate CQC into the main game via station terminals and add NPC opponents and an appropriate reward. More difficult opponents provide bigger rewards.

For us, the concept and the way that multi-crew is described, is a godsend, because it means that we can do things together, without having to spend a long time prepping.

By doing things you mean combat. And by without prepping, you mean flying around in a craft with SLFs and turrets whether you want them or not. How is that different from flying around now with your ship already configured? Because the way you speak of your friends, only the combat focussed guy will be playing host. Does he fly around in a ship with an SLF and turrets and missiles and scanners? Does he want to give up control of some of his weapon systems?

The other nice thing that thing that the update adds, in the described form, is scalability of play time. As it stands now, if you aren't intending to play for at least a few hours, then you can get, almost nothing done. With the inclusion of MC, in it's current, proposed state, you can get a meaningful play experience if you only have one or two hours, which is a nice option to have.

I can't agree with you. I often play for no more than an hour or two. A few trade runs, a bit of mining, a quick visit to a combat zone, CQC, the odd mission....

You can do more in a longer time frame...you can justify longer travel times...but you can still engage in meaningful play even with just a short timeframe.

In regards to the concerns about griefing and balance, I completely agree, there are legitemate concerns to be had there, thankfully, that is why the beta period exists, so people can thoroughly test and prod the implemented mechanics to hopefully find those exploits and abuseable things that are present.

The problem here is that many of these exploits and abuses and the impact on gameplay and game balance are obvious.

It doesn't take a genius to realise that two additional pups opens up a pay to Win scenario.

FD was talking about the need to cut down on anti social behaviour just a few weeks ago....and now adds a mechanic almost custom designed for trolling.

The concerns about Immersion and game balance have been discussed on these forums for months.

And more. And knowing all this, FD still proposed them.

I understand that MC is not for everyone and I do see, where you are coming from, however I do believe that the proposed systems have more pros than cons to them and that we should at least give Fdev the benefit of the doubt with the beta.

I've already acknowledged that some of the issues could be addressed in game, depending on the exact nature of the implementation. But your own scenarios above and what you seem to expect from MC seem to contradict what we've been told. There is no need for Multicrewing a trader simply to speak with friends. Your SLF races will still mean physically meeting up because each ship is limited to two SLFs. The only avenue for activity in MC is combat. I'm not sure what you do that means an hour or two of play isn't meaningful but I can assure you it can be. And so on.

I can very much understand the attractive nature of insta crew. It gets rid of the inconvenience of travel. It means you can get near instant access to pew-pew.

I can very much see why the idea is so seductive.

What I am not, however, is convinced that such a feature is good for the game.

Especially given that alternatives such as CQC are available and especially given the negative impact to various aspects of the game, including on gameplay and balance, such a feature brings with it merely by virtue of existing. Some of the abuses such as free money for doing nothing have already been discussed.

There are a great many cons to this system....and not a lot of pros. While I want multicrew to work and succeed, this description offers little to the game and comes at a great cost.

 

[bitstorm]

If you want to look at a game that Elite should be taking notes from, you need to look up Pulsar: The Lost Colony. Absolutely amazing multicrew feature that is implemented amazingly!
Here is a good video demonstrating the features in game: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mP8n9O63A-U

Hehe that does look cool.

I suppose for ED the difficulties there are the insurance, huge cost borne by one player, players cannot have fun failing. In fact in Pulsar it looks like you WILL die, and that's a key component to the fun of it. It is difficult to see how that can be in ED as it is currently.

Event based structure, jump, then event, then jump etc... Difficult to see how you'd do this unless ED brought in features that were multicrew only or reworked pretty fundamentally how ED "flows".

Inventory management, need items to do things that you get from events. Could be done through materials but would need work, the issue here is a player would have to use their single player material pool to progress.

Can't help thinking the main issue would be, that if ED offered a Pulsar-like experience it would be so far from the single player experience that it would compromise "realism".

 

[stormyuk]

Now, as a new player who just bought HORIZONS the description above sure sounds like you get to make a Full Fledged Avatar and be able to go on to another players ship or have other player Avatars on yours and Explore the Universe together.
But its nothing like that at all. .

I think the old gaming adage applies here, don't buy a game on "What it could be" but "What it is". Lots of us got burnt the same way with NMS which promised so much pre-release and then failed horrendously to deliver. Difficult for the veterans of the kick starter I appreciate.

As an 1984 (1985 on Speccy) player and someone who has missed out on all the development of ED on the PC (My PC probably could run it to be honest) I am really looking forward to it on PS4 and while I have researched and seen a lot on both these forums the wider internet and Youtube videos (From PC and Xbox). I am still really looking forward to it. I can see there are lots of things I would prefer different or changed and a lot of that is about the single player experience and the depth. I do however think on balance I am going to enjoy the game as it exists today.

I can however see how long time players would have a much better view than me.

And herein lies the fundamental issue - the generation gap between the over 40's that remember how long the original game took to even load from magnetic tape (about 30 mins) or load their save (about 10 mins), vs the millenials who, through no real fault of their own, find themselves in an insta-gratification society.

I played the original Elite on my Spectrum rubber lovely yet I am still looking forward to ED on the PS4. Whats wrong with me?

 

[frostypaw]

Here is what is bothering me about the 2.3 Update.

Description taken from the Official Frontier Website

2.3 – The Commanders
Still to come
Team up and stand together. Forge your own identity with the new Commander Creator, then share your bridge with Multi-Crew and fly with friends.

Now, as a new player who just bought HORIZONS the description above sure sounds like you get to make a Full Fledged Avatar and be able to go on to another players ship or have other player Avatars on yours and Explore the Universe together.
But its nothing like that at all.

Guess I read way too much into it.

Yeah you read far too much into it. Just like people did with NMS.

This is like reading "2.0 Horizons - land on planets and use your SRV to explore!" and assuming that therefore you'll be walking to and from the SRV and there'll be a garage function where you get to modify and work on your SRV with fidelitous hammers and spanners or whatever.... It just doesn't say the things you are reading into it. If it doesn't specifically state it then it's safer to assume "no"

Your ship is everything in Elite. It's not something I'd want to hand control to someone I don't trust.

It should be - but is it?

Considering how little effort FDev make to shut down exploits and easy-money routes it's as if they want to encourage the sub-section of the playergroup who grind out so much money that ship loss becomes irrelevant and they can treat it like a shoot'em'up. I genuinely fear someone is actively pushing that as "ok" in the development team apparently utterly oblivious to how that drives a galaxy sized wedge into the player group as how can there be balance when those happy to use these exploits don't have to care, while for those who don't use them the loss of a ship might mean the loss of many month's effort and work?

Is it any wonder we see such upset and drama? It's pretty much designed and run in such a way to encourage it. Instead we have to put up with "git gud" and countless YouTube guides on how to turn Elite into a shoot'em'up where money means nothing as if 'play your way' means 'play our way only'

 

[Winterwalker]

Your ship is everything in Elite. It's not something I'd want to hand control to someone I don't trust.

TRUE.

I sure hope I've misunderstood and we'll actually be getting a really involved multi-crew experience.

I don't know if maybe you have. The OP states that ship owner always has the helm. I think we can pretty much take it from that, that only the ship owner can take the helm .. and that multi-crew (the staff) only get to aim some of the guns (turret guns only). So you're not really giving up control of your ship, and the crewing player doesn't quite get to jump across the galaxy, to take full control of a different ship.

A good post, though fair I think so say I'm relatively traditional (Elite/FE2 player, kickstarter, pretty much wept when instant ship transfers were proposed) but I don't have massive issues with the 2.3 briefing, especially when seen in terms of game code, development in general. This might go on to include trust based things but it looks like Frontier recognise possible pitfalls, are starting off with a pretty safe implementation (gunner could still shoot at the station though, maybe? who controls the hardpoints?) .. learning to walk before multicrew tries to run?

 

[Jools]

Lol... just amazing

At this point i expect the worse from FD with each update, they have always (since launch, stuff done up to beta 2 was developed and QA`d way more than anything post beta 2) picked the cheapest and most lazy way of implementing features so i expect stuff to be as basic as it gets yet somehow they always manage to surprise me and put out even less than i have considered as a "totaf F-up" option

Bravo. lol

It`s so funny to see them us since KS that some features will come later because they need time to be implemented well and than we get this sort of below basic stuff... How is the "rich" black market game-play coming along David, how about stations being continuously built and all the promised accompanying gameplay, where is the orrery map, how about your "absolutely no loading screens" policy? Pathetic.

The whole multicrew is just a gunner option... and we all know how fun and widely used the srv turrets are...what were they thinking?!?

 

[bitstorm]

I dunno. In the last week or so I've added more people to the ignore list than I have in the last few years.

I think I've just come to the conclusion some people have nothing good or useful to say at all and the forum would be a nicer place without them.

I mean if he tone of the post isn't enough, look at the sig and then the post history if you don't think this person has some axe to grind.

Criticism one thing, trolls are another.

 

[zackmck]

Will it be possible for the gunner to synthesize on a multi-crew ship? The same logic that saves our materials on death could transport them to a multi-crew ship. Would be nice to have unlimited ammo and AFMU-refills, as long if you know someone to zap in with enough materials. No more need for time consuming landing and grinding on planets.

 

[Quester91]

Will it be possible for the gunner to synthesize on a multi-crew ship? The same logic that saves our materials on death could transport them to a multi-crew ship. Would be nice to have unlimited ammo and AFMU-refills, as long if you know someone to zap in with enough materials. No more need for time consuming landing and grinding on planets.

From what we know so far only the helm can synthesize stuff, so no.

 

[zzehirbazz]

And by the way, who care who made it, good ideas has no Frontier ...

[rolleyes] Is that a sign?