A message to Frontier From D2EA

[Ultra Fluffy]

I'm criticizing people who are predisposed to dismissing the entire thing because he's a youtuber or content creator or whatever.

Totally agree. There are click baiters and professional whingers, then there are those that are passionate about the topic they are talking about. People should not tar them all with the same brush.

I'd love to see someone make an "Everything wrong with Elite Dangerous in 10h or less" video going over every legitimate issue tracker item but that amounts to self-harm.

Agreed, but if you you don't mention something that the whingy listener has an opinion on then they will shoot you down. Take the the posters on this thread that complained that D2EA was dissing Thargoid and only interested in exploration. They missed the point that he was making that improvements need to made so that everyone gets a benefit. He also said that you should not be forced to do an activity that you don't like to do one you do like. I wonder how many Thargoid bashers would complain if you had to collect items from Colonia, or traders who had fuel their ships with Thargoid blood. His example of explorers who like taking FCs with them, having to either mine tritium, when they may not like to, or have to return to the bubble to find someone to sell it to you. All he was arguing for was alternative to the current mechanisms, but it got taken as "stop developing the Thargoid storyline and concentrate solely on exploration". This was bound to be a no win situation. I suspect that D2EA knew that when he posted it.

Generic = too vague
Specific = not what I'm interested in
Result = no win scenario

 

[Frankymole]

I was based in Colonia. The wells are dry there...

Tritium from player Fleet Carriers in Colonia is a little more expensive, but, due there being about six or seven FCs selling it now, competition has driven the price down. They typically have 10,000 to 20,000 tons for sale.

Alternatively, if your carrier is nearby, there's a station with an almost limitless supply of Tritium at normal prices just twelve carrier jumps away. It's where most of the player sellers get it from. I often fill up there.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

I admit I dislike a lot "content creators" (not personally, most seem like nice chaps; I dislike what they do on Youtube), and that may result in a bias against them. It is partly their fault, partly their communities'.

It is their fault because most of them consciously play the clickbait game on some level and some of them (yes, I maintain that point) convey an aura like they are the voice for "the community" and think their voice or opinion is somehow "important". Come on, "Dear Frontier, we need to talk" is clickbait, cringy and very pompous all at once. Also, a lot of their content lately consists of unimportant opinion pieces instead of anything helpful. Apart from that, D2EA is mostly famous for grind guides that ruin the game for new players more than they help, and bad ship builds. That's not a strong position.

It is also their communities' fault, because they put them on a pedestal they don't belong onto. Some people, especially if they belong to their community bubble, make it as if every word they publish is somehow "the truth" and take it as gospel. How many threads do pop up here where some creator's video is either dropped without any comment, or with a snarky "See? I told you Frontier bad! D2EA said so too!" attitude. Edit says: Just look at this thread - cringy title, dropped a video, no further comment. /Edit

Also, most of the content creators who regularly get a bash from me live at least partly in a bubble of angry or disappointed ex-players who mindlessly will agree on every negative point they can come up with. Either they tend to post criticism and negative stuff because they cater to that audience, or they have that audience because they are voicing criticism and negative stuff on a regular basis (the Latvian is an expert in this). Both possibilities are not exactly brilliant.

So yeah. Youtube creators rub me the wrong way. Can't help it. Sue me. Also, I see myself as the Yang to the Ying of those who think the Youtubers are god's greatest gift since the invention of the internet.

 

[yianniv]

Tritium from player Fleet Carriers in Colonia is a little more expensive, but, due there being about six or seven FCs selling it now, competition has driven the price down. They typically have 10,000 to 20,000 tons for sale.

Alternatively, if your carrier is nearby, there's a station with an almost limitless supply of Tritium at normal prices just twelve carrier jumps away. It's where most of the player sellers get it from. I often fill up there.

I spent almost 2 weeks mining and I'm back in the bubble, thanks. I also appreciate the info about the station, could you please let me know which one it is? I used to find some at the last Colonia Bridge megaship, now it's dried up due to expansion state.

I tried the first 5-6 CB megaships (closest to Colonia), I didn't reach 12 jumps

 

[Ultra Fluffy]

I admit I dislike a lot "content creators" (not personally, most seem like nice chaps; I dislike what they do on Youtube), and that may result in a bias against them. It is partly their fault, partly their communities'.

It is their fault because most of them consciously play the clickbait game on some level and some of them (yes, I maintain that point) convey an aura like they are the voice for "the community" and think their voice or opinion is somehow "important". Come on, "Dear Frontier, we need to talk" is clickbait, cringy and very pompous all at once. Also, a lot of their content lately consists of unimportant opinion pieces instead of anything helpful. Apart from that, D2EA is mostly famous for grind guides that ruin the game for new players more than they help, and bad ship builds. That's not a strong position.

It is also their communities' fault, because they put them on a pedestal they don't belong onto. Some people, especially if they belong to their community bubble, make it as if every word they publish is somehow "the truth" and take it as gospel. How many threads do pop up here where some creator's video is either dropped without any comment, or with a snarky "See? I told you Frontier bad! D2EA said so too!" attitude. Edit says: Just look at this thread - cringy title, dropped a video, no further comment. /Edit

Also, most of the content creators who regularly get a bash from me live at least partly in a bubble of angry or disappointed ex-players who mindlessly will agree on every negative point they can come up with. Either they tend to post criticism and negative stuff because they cater to that audience, or they have that audience because they are voicing criticism and negative stuff on a regular basis (the Latvian is an expert in this). Both possibilities are not exactly brilliant.

So yeah. Youtube creators rub me the wrong way. Can't help it. Sue me. Also, I see myself as the Yang to the Ying of those who think the Youtubers are god's greatest gift since the invention of the internet.

I must be one of those rare people who watch a YouTube video because it sounds interesting, rather than who has posted it. I only subscribe to a YouTuber because they regularly post interesting videos. Even then, that does not mean that I have to watch every video they make or agree with everything they say. D2EA makes some good videos with useful contents. He also makes a load of farming videos, which are totally naff. That does not mean that I will unsubscribe. On the other hand I will refuse to watch the Latvian's videos, even if the title is interesting, because I find his contents aggressive, offensive and total cow brown stuff. I certainly would not classify all youtubers with the same tar brush. Youtubers are a source of information, not gods. When they consistently cease to provide useful information or entertain then I will stop watching them and unsubscribe. Do I have to agree with them, no, I have a brain and I know how to use it. That is not the case with everyone. There are some people who have an opinion and have to listen to others with the same opinion to gain a warm fuzzy feeling. I have never understood why people subscribe to ED forums and youtubers who hate the game when they have stopped playing the game, or have never played the game.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

I don't subscribe to any, ever. I try to stay somewhat informed what they are doing, but that's it. Most of the videos I don't even watch.

I certainly would not classify all youtubers with the same tar brush. Youtubers are a source of information, not gods.

Exactly. No gods confirmed . I don't paint them all with the same brush. There are some I like*. But those I like aren't nearly as pompous or self-important (and therefore put on a pedestal by their community) as those I critiqued harshly in this thread.

* I like Galnet News Digest. Nothing new for me, because I read the news myself, but I like the humor. I like The High Wake. I like it when Alec paints cats on moons. I like StealthBoy's no nonsense guides to on-foot activities. I don't like Youtubers who think they have a "voice" and also try to use it.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

He also said that you should not be forced to do an activity that you don't like to do one you do like.

I think the problem with that stance - motherhood and apple pie as it sounds - is that it can be indefinitely fine, and at some point breaks down on what the "activity" is, which players can have very reasonable disagreements on, and indeed feel that the combination of the two is the point.

I wonder how many Thargoid bashers would complain if you had to collect items from Colonia, or traders who had fuel their ships with Thargoid blood. His example of explorers who like taking FCs with them, having to either mine tritium, when they may not like to, or have to return to the bubble to find someone to sell it to you.

So, for example, there's big complaints from people who like the outcome of engineering (overpowered superships) but hate the process (material collection). Is the "activity" there engineering (in which case they hate the activity, and don't have to do it) or is it material collection (in which case they should just be able to get the overpowered superships without it)?

Similarly with deep space FCs. D2EA is claiming that "having the benefits of a FC in deep space" and "having the logistical challenges of moving a FC in deep space" should be considered separate "activities". Frontier would presumably consider those both parts of the "owning a deep space FC" activity, which indeed no-one is forced to do to take part in any other aspect of the game.

(Reductio ad absurdum fine-grained-ness: a player likes firing lasers but doesn't like putting pips to WEP, so weapon power distribution requirements should be removed so they don't have to do the activity they dislike to do the one they like)

So on this example of yours:
"I wonder how many Thargoid bashers would complain if you had to collect items from Colonia"
... well, it's a common explorer complaint that there's not actually anything worthwhile out in deep space. You can't find anything useful, and most of the really unique stuff is within 1000 LY of the bubble (so people don't have to travel for hours just to see it, obviously). But if they added anything with any use beyond "hey, more credits / neat screenshot" further out, people would complain under the above principle that they had to travel for it (Palin's requirement already gets that!) ... so clearly Frontier should continue their policy of adding almost all new explorable content to systems near Sol?

Or on the trader example; there are frequent complaints from people who feel that "hauling cargo from A to B" and "dealing with pirates between the two" should be considered two separate activities. In the previous three games, they were quite clearly the same inseperable activity of "trading" ... in No Mans Sky they are quite clearly completely independent (you can usually just teleport the cargo between stations) ... ED is closer to NMS than FFE in this respect but does still require at least a vague consideration of the possibility of pirate attack ... would NMS-style cargo teleportation break ED trading as an activity, or just be following the D2EA "you shouldn't have to do those bits if you don't like them" principle?

 

[Ultra Fluffy]

I think the problem with that stance - motherhood and apple pie as it sounds - is that it can be indefinitely fine, and at some point breaks down on what the "activity" is, which players can have very reasonable disagreements on, and indeed feel that the combination of the two is the point.

So, for example, there's big complaints from people who like the outcome of engineering (overpowered superships) but hate the process (material collection). Is the "activity" there engineering (in which case they hate the activity, and don't have to do it) or is it material collection (in which case they should just be able to get the overpowered superships without it)?

Similarly with deep space FCs. D2EA is claiming that "having the benefits of a FC in deep space" and "having the logistical challenges of moving a FC in deep space" should be considered separate "activities". Frontier would presumably consider those both parts of the "owning a deep space FC" activity, which indeed no-one is forced to do to take part in any other aspect of the game.

(Reductio ad absurdum fine-grained-ness: a player likes firing lasers but doesn't like putting pips to WEP, so weapon power distribution requirements should be removed so they don't have to do the activity they dislike to do the one they like)

So on this example of yours:
"I wonder how many Thargoid bashers would complain if you had to collect items from Colonia"
... well, it's a common explorer complaint that there's not actually anything worthwhile out in deep space. You can't find anything useful, and most of the really unique stuff is within 1000 LY of the bubble (so people don't have to travel for hours just to see it, obviously). But if they added anything with any use beyond "hey, more credits / neat screenshot" further out, people would complain under the above principle that they had to travel for it (Palin's requirement already gets that!) ... so clearly Frontier should continue their policy of adding almost all new explorable content to systems near Sol?

Or on the trader example; there are frequent complaints from people who feel that "hauling cargo from A to B" and "dealing with pirates between the two" should be considered two separate activities. In the previous three games, they were quite clearly the same inseperable activity of "trading" ... in No Mans Sky they are quite clearly completely independent (you can usually just teleport the cargo between stations) ... ED is closer to NMS than FFE in this respect but does still require at least a vague consideration of the possibility of pirate attack ... would NMS-style cargo teleportation break ED trading as an activity, or just be following the D2EA "you shouldn't have to do those bits if you don't like them" principle?

The argument is not so much "to do A I must do B", but more "give me more choices instead of just B". Nobody is arguing that in order to move an FC you need tritium, its more a case of you can get tritium by buying it or mining it, but in the black there is nowhere to buy it, so you have to mine it. Now I would argue that you can buy it before you go out, filling your cargo hold, but then you use up tritium more each jump because of the weight you are carrying and then you need to return to the bubble to buy more when it runs out. Explorers, by their definition, want to be in the black and not in the bubble, so they are forced to go somewhere they don't want to be or do an activity they don't want to do. We don't want to remove the mechanics in the system, but extend it provide alternatives that are more palatable to us. Not easier, more enjoyable or at least with a variety of activities rather than a single monotonous task that takes hours and hours. I won't use the G word as that is generally an activity by choice rather relying on it being a by product of other activities.

Likewise those that need to upgrade weapons, need mats. They don't like endless driving around in an SRV to collect them. Don't take away the SRV collection, provide alternatives that take just as long, but may be more interesting to some people than others.

In other words, don't make it "in order to do A, you must do B" and instead make it "In order to A you must do B, C or D".

D2EA was giving exploration as an example, but it was taken by non-explorers as "people doing boring stuff like exploring, just being boring". The same argument can be applied to all ED careers, give us more choice, so that we have variety, and don't force us to do one thing which we hate doing.

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

So, for example, there's big complaints from people who like the outcome of engineering (overpowered superships) but hate the process (material collection). Is the "activity" there engineering (in which case they hate the activity, and don't have to do it) or is it material collection (in which case they should just be able to get the overpowered superships without it)?

In almost all cases of these the issue is awful game balancing where the intended/most fun way is (or feels) incredibly inefficient due to there being easier but more boring ways to achieve the goals.

In the example cases of tritium mining vs buying and relog-based materials gathering vs passively gathering reasonable amounts of materials while doing other fun stuff. One of the methods is incredibly grindy and the other will actually get you to your goal in a sometimes reasonable-for-Elite timeframe.

An example of this being somewhat fixed would be the well-recieved bounty earning rebalance. In my opinion the game should have these constantly and should shift up the meta slightly all the time instead of aiming to be completely balanced.

 

[R-Irish]

I completely agree with the points raised and have been saying it myself. I feel a bit bad because they have done so much in one hand, and deserve kudos, but on the other hand it has taken away from all other parts of the game.

I honestly don't understand why FDEV or whoever makes the decisions, has avoided the easy wins of more ships / weapons etc If I was at frontier I would be thinking, 'right, how can we improve morale here and get player numbers up, I know! We'll throw out some ships and weapons, that should keep a lot of players happy and address a long standing issue'.

I don't understand the economics, costs and so on of what that involves, but I think its fair to say ships are the bread and butter of elite and if you can't commit to new ships then it really doesn't say much.

I haven't played elite in months, I honestly want to, but I don't have much motivation right now.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

in order to move an FC you need tritium, its more a case of you can get tritium by buying it or mining it, but in the black there is nowhere to buy it, so you have to mine it. Now I would argue that you can buy it before you go out, filling your cargo hold, but then you use up tritium more each jump because of the weight you are carrying and then you need to return to the bubble to buy more when it runs out. Explorers, by their definition, want to be in the black and not in the bubble, so they are forced to go somewhere they don't want to be or do an activity they don't want to do. We don't want to remove the mechanics in the system, but extend it provide alternatives that are more palatable to us. Not easier, more enjoyable or at least with a variety of activities rather than a single monotonous task that takes hours and hours. I won't use the G word as that is generally an activity by choice rather relying on it being a by product of other activities.

But what would that alternative be? You said it yourself: You can buy it, or you can mine it. Fact is: If an explorer wants to stay out in the black, they need to be able to sustain themselves, be it in a ship or in a carrier. And that means dabbling into other professions. You don't really support the ridiculous proposal of "I should park my carrier at a ringed planet and it mines the Tritium itself", do you? You know how many problems that would introduce and how many loopholes that would open?

So what else?

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

I honestly don't understand why FDEV or whoever makes the decisions, has avoided the easy wins of more ships / weapons etc If I was at frontier I would be thinking, 'right, how can we improve morale here and get player numbers up, I know! We'll throw out some ships and weapons, that should keep a lot of players happy and address a long standing issue'.

There have been new weapons, mostly for AX and a few double engineered human combat ones, the fixed phasing MCs were quite good and the sirius heatsinks can also help a lot in combat but nothing has been eye catching or a game changer for most people unfortunatley on the weapons side.

For ships I think it's probably more complicated than it seems because of the design constraints they're tied themselves to. The modular design of the ships and the lack of substantial new activities means that any ship would have to compete with existing ships instead of having its own niche - this makes the balancing extremely tricky too. All of the problems with that can be overcome though and it seems like just a lack of resources where it truly comes down to adding Titans/Hunters to the game or adding nothing for 2-3 patches and then adding a new ship.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

The argument is not so much "to do A I must do B", but more "give me more choices instead of just B". Nobody is arguing that in order to move an FC you need tritium, its more a case of you can get tritium by buying it or mining it, but in the black there is nowhere to buy it, so you have to mine it.

True, though this is narrowed down a bit by the vast range of activities which Explorers [1] hate. Note here that there's already three options for deep space Tritium - mine it, fly a fast cargo ship back to the bubble and buy it, advertise a high enough price that another player finds it worth their time to mine it for you / come out with a tanker carrier. So it's already "in order to do A, you need to do B, C or D" ... the call is for an "E, F and G" as well.

Here's a few fun options for those:
- They could add deep space Tritium transports - search systems to find their routes, then ambush and hatchbreak them to put the cargo to a better use.
- They could add secret caches on planets - explore and map to discover them, then head down with the Maverick suit to break in. Watch out for the automated defenses!
- They could add a moderately-common (at least a few sites in every region) NSP type and lifeform, which can be shot to harvest Tritium (to avoid this not just being "this is basically mining but with a different shaped rock", the lifeform would need to have reasonable mobility and probably the ability to do some damage back, even if just by ramming)

There, now there are six options that Explorers can say they don't want to be forced into, rather than just three.

Nobody is arguing that in order to move an FC you need tritium

No. Perhaps they should! The two concrete suggestions I've seen to solve this are:
- allow it to be refined from Hydrogen, which would replace "mining" with "sitting in a corona at minimum supercruise speed in a cool ship for a roughly equivalent time", which seems even less interesting: presumably the hope is that you'd be able to trade at an extremely good exchange rate and slurp up a tonne every few seconds with that 8A scoop, getting the Tritium in a few minutes rather than an hour or two
- allow the NPC crew to (offscreen) collect it when in a system with an icy ring

...both of which make the acquisition so much quicker than now that while they didn't ask for the abolition of Tritium, it would actually be far simpler and achieve much the same outcome to do just that and just stick the equivalent credit cost on the weekly upkeep bill.

If there's been a suggestion which:
- would be acceptable to most Explorers
- isn't quicker than the tonnes/hour rate a reasonably skilled miner could achieve (or it'd make Tritium mining obsolete)
- isn't AFKable (or it'd make more sense to just abolish the fuel requirement)
then I've missed it.

[1] As always, as distinct from "explorers".

 

[Shadowsnog]

they are the voice for "the community"

isnt d2ea kinda known and appreciated mainly for tutorials? if he assumes his community is "the community" i think its pretty safe to assume that this community is made mostly of people that dont know what is what and how to what and thats why they frequent the tutorial guy(?)

what did marcus aurelius say about opinions of 10 000 men?

 

[Mrc_NorthEast]

D2EA's video brought up some valid points. I do not agree with all the points, but some. ED is not perfect, Fdev is not perfect. I just hope ED stays around for years more. If the current Fdev ED staffing level, bug fixes, and new content and it's income are making Fdev $$$,$$$ hopefully we are good for awhile longer.

 

[Helmut Grokenberger]

what did marcus aurelius say about opinions of 10 000 men?

?

 

[Disemboweled Ego]

Note here that there's already three options for deep space Tritium - mine it, fly a fast cargo ship back to the bubble and buy it, advertise a high enough price that another player finds it worth their time to mine it for you / come out with a tanker carrier. So it's already "in order to do A, you need to do B, C or D" ... the call is for an "E, F and G" as well.

This comes down to what I mentioned in my post - due to how things are balanced people feel like there's only one viable way, which is to buy it in the bubble.

If there's been a suggestion which:

• would be acceptable to most Explorers
• isn't quicker than the tonnes/hour rate a reasonably skilled miner could achieve (or it'd make Tritium mining obsolete)
• isn't AFKable (or it'd make more sense to just abolish the fuel requirement)

then I've missed it.

Increase tritium mining effectiveness by reducing the tank size and jump cost by at least half. If neccessary increase the cost of tritium or the base maintenance cost of a jump. This would result in a slight buff to carrier jumps due to being able to store more tritium and being able to jump further with stored tritium due to better optimal mass, but that'll be fine. The tank size reduction isn't even strictly necessary here if you want to buff carriers.

There's all kinds of complicated stuff that requires dev time you could do to make bought tritium be of a lower grade and your own refined tritium being extra special or even a new material that drops passively in icy rings from rocks that don't neccessarily contain tritium that you can drop in the carrier fuel tank for some extra juice.

The first thing to consider IMO should be if the issue can be solved by simply making what's already there less of a grind so players actually feel like it's worthwhile to engage with those mechanics.

 

[Darrack]

Ive never got this difficulty over fueling Carriers.

My regular haunt is 28K LYs out in Lyra's, i often do a month or so out there, i buy 15000 units of Trit before i head out, average price 780,000,000.
I either spend time at a Plat overlap and sell it, do Robby runs, trade routes or a mixture of all 3, guarantee you i used to get those funds in a week.
Now i can usually make that sort of money on the way out by scanning plants ( Fdev) making the return leg pure profit and funding the next trip.
Anyone know how far 15K units will get you? Answer = a loooooong way, even with this quantity and every service except the outfitting it uses just 122 units per jump.

As a break i take nights off from scanning and mine Trit in my base system, 300 or so units on a steady plod in the T10.
Do i have to take the carrier? nope, i still do regular solo runs 15/20K LYs out and leave it in the Bubble or out at Lyra's.
All the carrier does is give me options and the chance to explore planets in something as stupid as my 35ly jump Imp Eagle or the even worse Mamba.

If you cant be bothered to sort out the upkeep or manage the jumps you dont need to buy one.
Its really not that much of a (insert G word) anymore.

O7

 

[marx]

So. many explorers about the place?
I honestly wouldn't mind hearing some suggestims that don't involve interiors...

You rang?
Here you go, some old stuff of mine, none of which would involve any major feature additions like "ship interiors", "more content" etc:
Award credit vouchers for exploration
Problems with Exobiology and proposed solutions

Plus a bunch of things about reworking the FSS, which was badly designed and implemented at the start, and actually got worse with Odyssey. One of the main original design goals as stated by the devs was that you should be able to look at the barcode and see if there's anything in the system you might be looking for. Well, turns out that since you can't tell whether there are any atmospheric bodies in the system, let alone landable ones: so, that design goal was broken for the entire new exploration content of the Odyssey expansion.
Oops.
It wouldn't even be much work to expand the barcode (probably vertically) to include this information, but well, that design goal is no longer important. Go grind the minigame to find out if there's something you might be looking for, or not.
Honestly, the FSS could really use the Engineering 1.0 -> 2.0 treatment.
However, ironically enough, if the old "discovery honk reveals the system map but doesn't scan anything" mechanic were still available, it would be far superior for looking for landable Odyssey bodies.

Alternatively, if you're looking for specifics, hey, there are many years of crowdfunded data you can search for whatever you're looking for. They'll just be discovered, but perhaps not yet walked upon.


Honestly though, the two chief complaints I tend to hear the most often aren't these. Instead, it's that interstellar travel is too monotonous (often summed up as: "JJJJJJJJ"), and that there is no importance of selling exploration data. (Plus as people explore more, they grow to find the FSS tedious - but I touched upon this, and it's not about new players.) That there's only minimal gameplay around exploration, really. No missions, no rewards other than credits, no effect on the game world beyond a minimal BGS contribution, and so on.

Granted, solving either of these two would be major additions likely needing plenty of dev time, not to mention careful design. They could even end up to be more work (especially because of the design part) than ship interiors would be.

Oh, and while I'm on my soapbox here, another frequent complaint from all kinds of explorers: there are double-engineered class 3, 4 and 6 FSDs, put them on sale at the tech brokers like the class 5 are. It has been almost two years now since the CG that awarded them.

 

[Untilting]

?

Also

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzOv14fA-BI