Update Dev Update - 16.04.2015

[Fosdyke]

Thanks a lot for the overall news! good to ear about. Excited by this powerplay update.

 

[Adie123]

Michael i have a little question...
I have an open ticket. I understand that it's not critical, and nothing really serios there, but i think i deserved the right for an answer from support since december?
TICKET #00000013661

Elizium, im not sure a ticket needs a response. These tickets are to let the devs know of an issue. If you have given them enough info, it is likely they wont reply. If the info is vague then they may reply for you to be more specific.

If the ticket is still open, then theyll come across it many times until they can close it, cause they know it aint an issue anymore.

Now saying that... If the ticket is about a serious issue of you not being able to play or other matter (which it isnt, cause you said it wasnt serious) then they wouldve contacted you more promptly..

BUT bottom line is, dont expect a reply for your tickets. This doesnt mean they havnt read the ticket(s), its just a waste of time to reply to all tickets... Trust me, theyll have read it and kept an eye on it until its fixed so they can close the ticket. Dont feel like they are ignoring you m8y

 

[Hydrino]

Frontier, and Michael, can I please implore you to think hard about whether you really want to continue with this USS mission system. It's so bad from a gameplay perspective. It's infurating and annoying, doesn't make sense in any kind of RP perspective.

I was hoping that the missions overhaul would strip the USS system out entirely (other than, maybe, very rare and special circumstances).

I agree with another post it just needs tweaking. Your sensors pick up all sorts of ships not in Supercruise, for one reason so you don't run into them. The main objection I have is that there seem to sometimes be too many USS far away from planetary bodies and so with seemingly no purpose. Only rare or secret meetings or interdictions should happen far from large bodies in space. So any USS a player encounters should perhaps be of more limited template types - no funeral processions in deep space...

Also, having a, for lack of a better term, persistent USS or USS tied to locations/ system grid. This would allow an assassination or other target (like black boxes) to be described as last seen "near Saturn" and the USS would be able to be found in supercruise around Saturn, etc.

Once Persistent NPC are in (please be part of 1.3, please), random encounters in USS could turn into a persistent contact as described in the DDF. This would lend more meaning to them as well.

Basically agree with Jakobi as well. USS are a bit random and too frequent to have folks just sitting around in space "waiting to be consumed as content". I don't have any issue with USS, but the implementation has room for more love.

 

[CmdrPSB]

Lakon and ZPG also have ships with snake names (Asp, Fer-de-Lance, Adder).

Given the name I'm assuming Faulcon DeLacy, Lakon or ZPG.

 

[Hawkmoon]

I remember they had that in frontier, the mission would tell you what station they would be leaving and when and you have to get there before they took off or try and chase them down.

 

[Ben Ryder]

Will all the bugs from alpha finally be fixed?

 

[Michael Brookes]

So what happen if I drop in the middle of a ring and not in a RES ? How will this be calculated ?

The same as it is now.

Michael

 

[Hydrino]

Elizium, im not sure a ticket needs a response. These tickets are to let the devs know of an issue. If you have given them enough info, it is likely they wont reply. If the info is vague then they may reply for you to be more specific.

If the ticket is still open, then theyll come across it many times until they can close it, cause they know it aint an issue anymore.

Now saying that... If the ticket is about a serious issue of you not being able to play or other matter (which it isnt, cause you said it wasnt serious) then they wouldve contacted you more promptly..

BUT bottom line is, dont expect a reply for your tickets. This doesnt mean they havnt read the ticket(s), its just a waste of time to reply to all tickets... Trust me, theyll have read it and kept an eye on it until its fixed so they can close the ticket.

Also, if in old ticketing system it won't get a reply. Bugs should go into the new Forum area as well and devs have been responding periodically in those threads. Open the ticket and post an update if in the current system and in the right place (not a bug report--forums for that).

 

[EAGLE 5]

Sounds like I may have to park the Explorer and hop back into my Combat ship pretty soon!

Great stuff can't wait for next week!

 

[Hydrino]

Will all the bugs from alpha finally be fixed?

I reported a bug in pre-Alpha that still isn't fixed.

Are you playing Forum Bingo? That post was brilliant!

Spoiler

 

[Hawkmoon]

Does this mean we have to have an interdiction module fitted to pursue assassination targets after 1.3 then?

Possibly or you can wait for them to drop out of FS and follow their wake, you only need a wake scanner to follow them into FS not out.

 

[Hydrino]

Even with persistence, there's a place for USSes as indicators that something unidentified is occurring. It might be a battle, it might be a rendezvous, it might be a trap. I'd like to see players dropping out of supercruise into normal space actually *creating* an USS that others can find, and for them to be either proximity based (i.e. they pop up if you get close enough) or discovery based (i.e. using a scanner). For things like assassination targets, they should be present even when the hunter isn't there, which would add something of an edge to the mission. Someone might get there before you, and if you're not quick enough your mission may fail. Rather than being lumped into categories (WSS, SSS, etc.) a scanner could show you more information about that signal, such as number and class of ships present, etc. Or just an actual signal that you have to learn to interpret.

There's clearly a lot that could be done with signal sources, but the more interesting stuff requires true persistence. I hope we see at least the beginnings of this in 1.3, as it's sorely lacking at the moment.

Amen Commander and +10.

 

[Marc Alexander]

I reported a bug in pre-Alpha that still isn't fixed.

Are you playing Forum Bingo? That post was brilliant!

Spoiler

View attachment 29800

Waaita minute - where's the box for that?

 

[Hydrino]

Thanks for the update Michael. I was hoping that you could clarify whether the background sim will be loved as lavishly as the missions will be in 1.3 (ithout divulging any juicy details of course) We do seem be afflicted with some recurring (or re-occurring) bugs in pending system states, will that be getting some of the precious dev time in the meantime?

Yes we're still looking into bugs.

Michasel

Don't you mean to say that a big part of 1.3 Powerplay will be a rewrite of the background sim and player ability to interact with it made more clear and robust. So like missions, yeah, old bugs will vanish and be replaced with new Powerplay bugs?!

 

[Lilith Enris]

Hi everyone,
Beyond that we will have low and high intensity resource extraction sites. At low intensity sites there is lower output for mining, but also a heavier system authority presence and lower pirate presence. For the high intensity sites this is reversed, so is more dangerous with more pirates and less security, but also greater rewards for mining there.

Don't we already have this, at least in terms of pirate presence in RES? I've found that some RES spawn nothing bigger than a Cobra or Viper for pirates, ever, and others are just Anaconda after Clipper after Anaconda after Dropship after Python after Python after Anaconda... and reliably so.

 

[NeilF]

Wait so if I understand these drone things right so if I have an asp I load up 60 collector drones 20 prospect drone and then I need to also sacrifice 2 module slots to be able to use them and then after a set amount of time they die and then I have to rebuy every single drone?

Wonder if some people are going to have to waste really big module slots (eg: 4t) for little drone control modules that (should) fit in a 1t module slot.

 

[charognard]

The same as it is now.

Michael

If i correctly understand it, dropping in a ring will be less interresting compared to news extraction sites ???

 

[Riedquat]

Don't we already have this, at least in terms of pirate presence in RES? I've found that some RES spawn nothing bigger than a Cobra or Viper for pirates, ever, and others are just Anaconda after Clipper after Anaconda after Dropship after Python after Python after Anaconda... and reliably so.

Well, now the ones spawning the big pirate ships wont have the police to help out, which will make them a lot tougher, rightly so, considering how easy it is to make credits in them.

the lower end RES's will be perfect for newer players, or those in lesser ships.

 

[Red Kite]

I'm confused (nothing new!) Why do I need a cargo hatch breaker module to control drones which have nothing to do with cargo hatch breaking? If I'm mining won't the drone controller module handle both prospector and collection drones? Having to give up 2 internal slots as well as the cargo space for the drones seems excessive. Or have I missed something?

 

[Riedquat]

I'm confused (nothing new!) Why do I need a cargo hatch breaker module to control drones which have nothing to do with cargo hatch breaking? If I'm mining won't the drone controller module handle both prospector and collection drones? Having to give up 2 internal slots as well as the cargo space for the drones seems excessive. Or have I missed something?

I think he meant a hatch breaker for limpets and drone controller for drones.