Well at least it will be possible to earn some vouchers, zap to a station to sell em and zap right back into action, right? Time for FDEV to reveal some new information.
News 2.3 Dev Update
- Thread starter Edward Lewis
- Start date
Well at least it will be possible to earn some vouchers, zap to a station to sell em and zap right back into action, right? Time for FDEV to reveal some new information.
Ive come to the conclusion that Elite Dangerous isnt the game for me, or the game I thought it was going to be.
Im a Solo casual player. I want to take my time, fly my spaceship around the galaxy, explore, do some trading, etc.
Sure thats in the game to do now, but it looks to me that for the foreseeable future FD isnt really interesting in developing that part of the game. The part Im interested in.
No, they seem more interested in catering to the Insta-gratification, "I only have 30min to play" shoot-em up, Multiplayer console crowd. Im not that target audience.
2.3 really hammers that home and with 2.4 a big ? it doesnt give me much faith or hope that things will change.
Ill keep an eye on Development of the game, but I see too much Action Arcade-y Pew-Pew for me.
Good luck to all of you. It was a fairly enjoyable 30 day run
Last edited:
LOL, actually it can be up to 12 psychos in 4 corvettes and 6 fighters with 2.3 update. Gonna be lots of fun! LMAO
I don't want anyone playing about with my materials willy-nilly; if they run out of ammo they can switch to thermals or wait for their Cmdr to synthesize or dock/resupply.
Maybe...but that would require the MC system to be separated from the Wing system.
I'm not sure that is the case. Going by previous information, I suspect it isn't and your 4 man wing can only have a maximum of 3 players on one ship.
Willing as ever to be corrected
You can only have 4 players in a wing.
Love your ideas. Can we have that with AI crew please!
That does look really fun. Don't think that level of micro management would work with our current ships. Maybe of we ever get capital ships that's how it should be done
People and players are often surprisingly tolerant of failure....so long as they know it is their fault. It is when they think it is the fault of others or that the game "cheated" that things can go wrong.
As for insurance...we still have to see how this works out. Be interesting to see what happens if...for example...one player can't cover their share. Further...the real problem with insurance is not really the amount, but the fact you can lose months of work with one bad encounter or accident.
I'm wondering if it might be an idea to bump up the freebie you get as you rank up. Even if you add a couple of weeks delay while you ride about in your loaner Sidewinder while your replacement vessel....of a lower class than that destroyed...is deployed. So....if your Anaconda gets destroyed and you can't afford the full rebuy, you get to fly around in a Sidewinder for 2 or 3 weeks (or days?) before your new Python (or whatever) turns up.
Why? The entire point behind multicrew should be to add new systems and mechanics with the eventual aim of implementing multicrew specialised capital vessels for use by players.
Such vessels SHOULD have a different system in place.
Last edited:
I don't think there needs to be a divide between reality and game paly here. Simply allow players to purchase ship droids which can be telepresenced by other players. When the droids aren't being used by other players they can still offer access to some of the new features. In the same way you now control a SLF while npc crew pilots your ship you could control the gunner droid yourself while your npc crew pilots, or you could order the npc into the turret control position. This would solve two problems. Players who don't want to break that "reality" barrier would have a convenient explanation and players who prefer solo or adventuring alone in open can still enjoy some of the combat enhancements of multi-crew.
This wouldn't really make sense. Essentially you'd be globally buffing every single Cmdr's ship.
Also, the droids you speak of would all have the avatar of the Cmdr using telepresence. That's part of the update. That may just break the immersion a tad.
I have not been able to read EVERY reply on this Thread, so forgive if the thought has already been covered ...
If you can decide to drop credits and experience in return for not carrying a "Criminal" profile ...
What happens to the other ships, stations, pilots you and your team of Pirates blasted during your "Reign of Terror".
Are they all going to be re-set as if you had not had your Evil Way?
If you can decide to drop credits and experience in return for not carrying a "Criminal" profile ...
What happens to the other ships, stations, pilots you and your team of Pirates blasted during your "Reign of Terror".
Are they all going to be re-set as if you had not had your Evil Way?
Last edited:
As far as the immersion aspect goes....and it is immersion/suspension of disbelief and not reality....it is the Telepresence aspect which is the problem.
But....it isn't the only problem. It isn't even the biggest problem with the implementation as described. Far from it. The implementation adds pay to win, it affects game balance, it affects gameplay, it undermines one of the main career paths in the game and it does so to attract the type of player...the super casual...who aren't likely to be impressed by the simulator style nature of ED anyway and who simply want to spend 10 or 15 minutes blasting things.
Insta crew is attractive but its hard to think of any pro strong enough to outweigh the cons. Maybe that will be the way to go....but adding features like this into the game should be done conservatively to minimise the potential for abuse and exploits.
That isn't what FD seem to be doing. The implementation as described is rife with potential for abuse and exploits that affect gameplay and balance badly.
Last edited:
How about a for-instance?
Presumably the driver cannot evade responsibility.
Of course! There can be pre-outfitted SLFs that you would use for the AI crew that always sits in the back. You could deploy them in an asteroid field, look down at your orders menu and tell them to begin mining. Same with exploration, salvaging and trading. Each of these pre-outfitted SLFs come with a variety of different commands akin to the type of SLF that you bought. If you meant AI crew as in sitting next to you, then I'm sorry, but Frontier isn't gonna add that any time soon. Nothing we can do right now is gonna change that.
Because Pulsar is nothing like ED.
The "galaxy" would literally behave differently. In the ways I bullet pointed.
For instance there'd need to be no penalty on death, the concept of Pulsar seems to almost be survival with death being inevitable.
The 30km limit scuppers SLF for exploration.
It's a real shame to be honest.
Such potential there but completely scuppered due to the tether range.
I would love for Frontier to find a way round the issue.
Last edited:
I'm not sure it's laziness or simply taking the cheapest route. I *think* they're simply trying to do what they said they would.....'furnish the house'. But when we see lawn furniture put into what we thought was the main dining room, it's easy to become cynical about it.......particularly when, as players, we don't know the development roadmap and don't know if or when that furniture will get an upgrade to the 9 piece dining setting we were expecting. So, as players, it's hard not to start asking 'is that all there is?' at each update. And when it seems, in absence of knowing the roadmap, that Frontier is not keeping with the vision created in the Kickstarter let alone the vision many of us have following the first three games......well, is it any wonder Frontier stopped doing Dev Updates given reactions they generate like this? Problem is, without the Dev Updates, the cynicism and uncertainty grows even further. I often don't agree with Frontier's development priorities, or at least find them somewhat bewildering, but I sure would hate to be in their shoes - I think they're really experiencing the ' can keep some of of the people happy some of the time but you can't keep all of the people happy all of the time (or even some of the time)' and that can't be fun. Despite my own misgivings, I do appreciate their efforts as I'd rather have the game we have than not at all......
Last edited: