Answers from the devs #2

[Mazhurg]

Allow me to adjust your phrasing.

It's just not (their) multiplayer.

I easily represent a major portion of the player population that seeks functional multiplayer mechanic.

And if we are to play the "he just wants the game to be played his way."

Then I can easily claim that you are merely defending the current "multiplayer" because it is how you prefer it to be.

See what I did there? Don't play semantics with me, I excel in them.

- - - Updated - - -



It's great that your play style is currently favored by FD, but if you really want to express that you have sympathy for people, perhaps you should address disenfranchised players just a little differently.

Sigh...

When they developed the game, it was with the understanding that the basic networking (Peer-Peer) architecture would not, at the time and probably not for the foreseeable future permit large encounters. Wishing it otherwise is not going to change that.

The only way that this would change is to change the entire underling networking architecture and again it's not going to happen as it would fundamentally change the game and also be costly. FD will, and does, try to provide as much leeway within the current structure and this is within that context that you might have the best chances to get FD to listen.

 

[Tuub t Tute]

Allow me to adjust your phrasing.

It's just not (their) multiplayer.

I easily represent a major portion of the player population that seeks functional multiplayer mechanic.

And if we are to play the "he just wants the game to be played his way."

Then I can easily claim that you are merely defending the current "multiplayer" because it is how you prefer it to be.

See what I did there? Don't play semantics with me, I excel in them.

- - - Updated - - -



It's great that your play style is currently favored by FD, but if you really want to express that you have sympathy for people, perhaps you should address disenfranchised players just a little differently.

Much as I do frequently disagree with you, I do agree that whatever multi player mechanics there are in-game should be as polished and functional as possible, to allow those who wish to use them to have the best experience possible within the game framework.

Pirating of NPCs should have a potential of 1.5 to 2kcr per t resale value at least. I think Zac stated somewhere else that ultra-high value cargo is off limits for npcs, presumably due to the perceived exploitation potential.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Sigh...

When they developed the game, it was with the understanding that the basic networking (Peer-Peer) architecture would not, at the time and probably not for the foreseeable future permit large encounters. Wishing it otherwise is not going to change that.

The only way that this would change is to change the entire underling networking architecture and again it's not going to happen as it would fundamentally change the game and also be costly. FD will, and does, try to provide as much leeway within the current structure and this is within that context that you might have the best chances to get FD to listen.

Instancing is indeed a large portion of the issue. However, we do not see any sort of minor improvement on other PvP/Multiplayer related issue that come close to resembling any catering to PvP players.

Power Play is a Solo Offensive Fest where hostile actions are encouraged by telling a player that shooting a Conda can potentially be worth 14 merits less than a Sidewinder depending on if the player action is expansion support or undermining expansion.

Adding to that, there is no realistic or viable tactics to counter Solo players from undermining other than using brute numbers in Solo. (Because you know, most players joined Archon Delaine, a piracy faction to ignore player interaction and grind in Solo all day...)

Player piracy gets even more discouraged ever since 1.3, where cargo was limited to 20 and then limited to 100. Then any hope of pirating NPC being more profitable than players so piracy focused players don't have to sit around all day praying that a player shows up in Open is crushed by "excluding certain high value cargo from NPC due to realistic effect catering." How about doing something about player vanishing into thin-air and re-emerging in Solo being unrealistic first?

Cytoscrambler... just... no, I'm not even going to go in details since it just saddens me. Hammer/Plus/Prismatic are the meta yet developers claim that they are not trying to make weapons overly powerful to ignore non-powerplay players, nor encourage power hopping (*Chuckles in the background*).

Hacker openly admit to hacking on twitch and get captured on video by multiple player groups and only receive two "stern warnings" from FDev...

Combat Logging is legitimate as long as one waits 15 seconds...

I don't even want to go on...

I am partially a Computer Science student myself, I understand the difficulty in terms of fixing network infrastructure and effort necessary to change P2P into anything else. And I don't ask for that.

All we are asking is that something be done to these blatantly fatal issues be properly balanced for Multiplayer, then hopefully something can be done to instancing/P2P if we are lucky.

I am, if anything giving maximum leeway within the current structure.

 

[aspiringexpatriate]

===

According to some members of the community, Solo players should have a limited or no effect on Powerplay - or, alternatively, playing in Open should offer Powerplay bonuses. Is this something you are considering?

No. For us Solo, Groups and Open are all valid and equal ways to play the game.

===

My question is, essentially, a follow up to this. I agree that all three options are valid and equal ways to play the game.

Q: When it comes to Power Play Balance, is there any intended method to defend a Control System from Undermining? Cmdr enforced patrols cannot hinder Solo or Private Group interaction, so is there another method intended for 'enhancing' a systems defensive capabilities? If we can somehow affect the system's security status, could it improve authority response time and thus hopefully negate some of the undermining efforts that appear to be running rampant?

I am not advocating for making Fortification a purely numbers based game, I think Power Play balance would be hurt if Fortification contributions were calculated the same way as Expansions. I simply hope there is an intended mechanic to address this issue, which, I think, leads to a mechanical failure to realise the intended goal of encouraging more "strategic fortification tactics".

 

[geoffrey.hdt]

Pirating of NPCs should have a potential of 1.5 to 2kcr per t resale value at least. I think Zac stated somewhere else that ultra-high value cargo is off limits for npcs, presumably due to the perceived exploitation potential.

I find regularly T9s full of imperial slaves. If you manage to shoot their drives, put them to a stop by placing your ship in their trajectory, then use hatch breaker, you end up with some pretty nice money...
...system security to be handled while you colelct is another story...

EDIT: Still, not comparable to PvP piracy...may we go back to the topic about how the game, CGs and PP should push players to do PvP instead of grinding in solo?

 

[knowles2]

Yes, but what if they released a huge asset update with numerous new space structures like what I mentioned and more, and ships like... large tankers and destroyers and large military troop transports, battelcruisers, but also tugs, repair and maintenance vessels etc. etc.
+ also missions that go with these new structure types and vessels.

I think such a massive enrichment of the Elite universe would be more than worthy of a Gamescon announcement.
I believe it would be spectacular.

Indeed that would be pretty cool. Multiple mother ships being involve with fleet battles would be another feature, we seen videos, but they aren't in game yet.

 

[Anopheles]

Yup; its just not the answer those people want...

It was that the answer was so short, so dismissive and so wrong headed that we are asking for a better, more detailed and more respectful answer.

Piracy Is meant to be a legit career and yet the only people worth pirating are permitted an escape route to Solo, plus the fact they can undermine and fortify in pp with much less risk. You think that's Ok?

 

[GluttonyFang]

It was that the answer was so short, so dismissive and so wrong headed that we are asking for a better, more detailed and more respectful answer.

Piracy I meant to be a legit career and yet the only people worth pirating are permitted an escape route to Solo, plus the fact they can undermine and fortify in pp with much less risk. You think that's Ok?

Yep, the tone of it is another thing...

 

[bigheadzach]

Q: When it comes to Power Play Balance, is there any intended method to defend a Control System from Undermining?

Yes, it's called Fortification.

The triggers for fortification and undermining are adjusted based on a number of factors, most of which include the background sim (dominant government types being the most obvious and explained).

Recklessly allowing PvP to affect everyone's chances of succeeding at their task takes those factors out of the picture and turns it back to a game of "which Leader has more players because they want the sweet gun before they defect". The leader with more players will by and large be victorious because there is simply more of them that can harass and inhibit.

Allowing players to accomplish tasks in Solo removes that unbalancing component. If you were part of the faction with fewer pledges, wouldn't you be complaining the other faction have too many people to make an actual struggle unrealistic? At least with some of them being in Solo, you can refocus your effort on doing the stated task which protects your systems.

- - - Updated - - -

Piracy Is meant to be a legit career and yet the only people worth pirating are permitted an escape route to Solo, plus the fact they can undermine and fortify in pp with much less risk. You think that's Ok?

Show me on the stated roadmap where Frontier intends to leave AI stupid and outmaneuverable and incapable of flying and fighting smart.

 

[Anopheles]

Yes, it's called Fortification.

The triggers for fortification and undermining are adjusted based on a number of factors, most of which include the background sim (dominant government types being the most obvious and explained).

Recklessly allowing PvP to affect everyone's chances of succeeding at their task takes those factors out of the picture and turns it back to a game of "which Leader has more players because they want the sweet gun before they defect". The leader with more players will by and large be victorious because there is simply more of them that can harass and inhibit.

Allowing players to accomplish tasks in Solo removes that unbalancing component. If you were part of the faction with fewer pledges, wouldn't you be complaining the other faction have too many people to make an actual struggle unrealistic? At least with some of them being in Solo, you can refocus your effort on doing the stated task which protects your systems.

- - - Updated - - -



Show me on the stated roadmap where Frontier intends to leave AI stupid and outmaneuverable and incapable of flying and fighting smart.

I play the game now, not in the future and even then it wont be as good as human players of any quality or else nasa will be in touch.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Yes, it's called Fortification.

The triggers for fortification and undermining are adjusted based on a number of factors, most of which include the background sim (dominant government types being the most obvious and explained).

Recklessly allowing PvP to affect everyone's chances of succeeding at their task takes those factors out of the picture and turns it back to a game of "which Leader has more players because they want the sweet gun before they defect". The leader with more players will by and large be victorious because there is simply more of them that can harass and inhibit.

Allowing players to accomplish tasks in Solo removes that unbalancing component. If you were part of the faction with fewer pledges, wouldn't you be complaining the other faction have too many people to make an actual struggle unrealistic? At least with some of them being in Solo, you can refocus your effort on doing the stated task which protects your systems.

Um... is it just me or that the imbalance you see in "reckless PvP" is equivalent to the imbalance we currently experience with everyone in Solo? No one can stop anyone other than the sheer number of people a faction has in Solo.

See the problem here?

Show me on the stated roadmap where Frontier intends to leave AI stupid and outmaneuverable and incapable of flying and fighting smart.

So... uh... are you encouraging NPC combat logging... WHAT?!

 

[Ziljan]

Um... is it just me or that the imbalance you see in "reckless PvP" is equivalent to the imbalance we currently experience with everyone in Solo? No one can stop anyone other than the sheer number of people a faction has in Solo.

See the problem here?

For once I agree with Gluttony. People who undermine in Solo gain a distinct advantage. So despite Frontier's claim that they are think both ways of playing are valid, they clearly think that Solo is a bit more valid way to undermine. Either that, or they want to disincentive PvP by only rewarding underminding and NOT defending. In either case, FD is has created a broken system of territorial control that guts any feeling of pride and "ownership" people might have in their own territory.

So... uh... are you encouraging NPC combat logging... WHAT?!

I have actually had NPCs "combat log" on me. Been interdicted, and the ship just vanished not 300m in front of my cockpit window. Clearly a bug. One time it worked in my favor though when I was interdicted by an Anaconda while in a barebones Hauler shuttle.

 

[Davevti]

Will the newsletter be more PC relevant in the next few releases? By that I mean non cqc, PC relevant.

I have no more questions as you have commented already in regards to what 1.4 will contain (primarily cqc) and no walking around foreseen in the upcoming future./sadface

 

[Lazerus Artificial]

Q: Do you have plans to change Fixed weapons a bit, so that you can use them on wider ships without being forced into melee range, just because they cant adjust to the targets distance?
A very very limited Gimballed Mode would be nice to have for them, not like a "circle tracking" like gimballed, just on a horizontal axis so that you can hit with for example a clipper, where the distance between the weapons is insanely wide.

Q: What about missiles? one of the very old newsletters showed Large and even a Huge rack, but they never appeared ingame. Then you nerfed missiles against large targets. So will there ever be a large missile to be used in large-ship battles?
And what about the ultimate defense of the Point Defense? Currently only the Pack Hound Rack can break through them.
Overall...do you plan to balance missile combat a bit more?

Q: What about those "underpowered" Powerplay Weapons (e.g. Mining Lance and Cytoscrambler)? Do you change them to make them atleast viable?
And will they ever get multiple sizes and firemodes? Fixed only and only one size is somehow...bad...and boring

 

[JeffRyan]

Dearest Zac,

Thanks for the news that 'walking around ships' is a very long way off. I'd been hoping that was the first major expansion. Ironically this news lets me relax a little on this knowing that it's going to be a while means I won't keep pining for news on it.

Still, looking forward to it when it happens, keep it on the 'todo list' please!

Jeff

 

[Libluini]

Question: Do you guys plan to add a high-end explorer after the Asp?

Because right now, there is practically just the Asp, then a lot of nothing, then the Anaconda. That's quite the jump, from ~7 to ~140 million credits.And the Anaconda isn't even an explorer, it just can be misused as one thanks to mass-related game mechanics and its strong FSD. So technically, there's the Asp and that's it.

 

[GluttonyFang]

People agreeing with me ;-;...

I can die happy...

- - - Updated - - -

I have actually had NPCs "combat log" on me. Been interdicted, and the ship just vanished not 300m in front of my cockpit window. Clearly a bug. One time it worked in my favor though when I was interdicted by an Anaconda while in a barebones Hauler shuttle.

Oh dear...

 

[Vasious]

We’d love to see the process of a ship design from start to finish. Will we ever see such a thing?

We’d love to do this. We’ve offered glimpses of it with certain ships in the newsletter’s Peek Of The Week, but we’ll definitely look into showing a ship being designed from the first lines in an artist’s sketchbook to the finished model. Watch this space.

That will be briliant

 

[Captain Hooch]

How has powerplay not started an interstellar war?

Hudson has Imperial systems in his control.

The Empire has Federal systems in their control.

These are clear acts of agression between two superpowers. If the United States marched into Montreal and said this is ours now you know damn well Canada would gear up for war.

When the Germans attacked England last time Churchill didn't just say okay cool bro don't care. Nope he started fighting them off.

So why isn't the Empire Declaring war? Or why isn't the Federation declaring war?

Why are systems that belong to one of the 3 major powers not changing their ownership? When Hudson takes an Imperial system shouldn't it change its alligence to Federation? When Delaine takes a system shouldn't it stop being a federal, imperial, or independent faction controlled system and display Kumo Crew?

These aspects of powerplay feel broken and immersion breaking. Why hasn't powerplay turned the galaxy into massive warzone with all these military incursions and system take overs?

 

[StarTux]

Dearest Zac,

Thanks for the news that 'walking around ships' is a very long way off. I'd been hoping that was the first major expansion. Ironically this news lets me relax a little on this knowing that it's going to be a while means I won't keep pining for news on it.

Still, looking forward to it when it happens, keep it on the 'todo list' please!

Jeff

Yeah I am looking forward to it too, hoped the same thing and I want it done well with a good character generation system, so if that means its going to take awhile then so be it.

But!

Being able to fly and land even on lifeless worlds will be a great first implementation, and then gas giants with clouds and lightning!

Looking forward to seeing what we get in 3 weeks .