News Elite: Dangerous Powerplay 1.3 Beta Incoming (changelog)

[Rezri]

POWER PLAY!

Heck yes. I am pumped to get out of this office and go test the heck out of this!

 

[Sentdex]

It was always meant to be like this and applies in the same way as the ship selling.

Michael

That was the claim as well when you modified the ship insurance to apply to the hull and not modules. The same story is here, this wasn't something the community wanted, that was nonsense so far out from beta release. Now we're talking a few months after the game has been released... come on.

Heck, I spend a lot of time putting various modules in, then going to see the various power priorities, which requires me to leave the outfitting, but also requires me to outfit.

Sure, I can use third party systems, but I shouldn't need a third-party website just to outfit my ship and not cost myself a few extra mil.

What about the multi-purpose ships? So much for that. Now you need mutliple multi-purpose ships.

Stupid update until you either revert it, or let people store a bunch of modules, which also sucks because, to be logical, theyd be stored at various ports.

Boo this update.

 

[EUS]

10% penalty only if there is something in game that tells me that i'll incur heat damage after x amount of seconds of constant weapon fire for the current loadout.
Which means the loadout/purchase screen has to be modified.
We choose (not buy) all the items we want, and the summary screen has to include heat generation stats.
We edit our loadout.
We hit "buy all" when it's clear that the loadout will allow us to fly, shoot, and not melt within 5 seconds.
Also, FD you shouldn't "balance" gameplay by messing with power requirements anymore.

 

[Ozric]

I don't have tons of money (and haven't actually played for months, though will play 1.3), but I have many times in the past been able to experiment freely with different load outs and also change stuff for single missions. I don't even have any of the really expensive ships that will lead to huge losses. I can still see it being a problem.

I really don't see what benefits this change brings. True, if it had been in from the beginning no one would have even noticed, but you could say the same amount real time mission timers...

What's wrong with real time mission timers I'm not even going down that discussion again hehe.

I don't have lots of credits either, I've only got a Cobra (started with), a Type 6 and an Asp for exploring (plus the never flown free Eagle ) and 1.5mill Credits, just so you don't think I'm someone who has it all What you say about being able to freely experiment with different loadouts and change stuff for single missions, well that is not my idea of fun at all. That for me strips all point from the game, what is the point of playing if you don't have to work at something (not saying I love grinding) but if you want to be able to trade and then quickly go and do some bounty hunting (for example) then I don't think you should just be able to swap everything out without a cost, either compromise or get another ship.

 

[Hydrino]

People think a lot about what they're purchasing. If you're a player in just one multi-purpose ship and you refit that ship every day because you don't want to be stuck doing the same thing over and over - i.e. you want to explore today, but next week you want to trade, and after a day of trading, you want to hunt bounties, this patch is going to hurt you _really hard_, and this applies to everyone but the ultra rich, who have multiple ships fitted for different roles. Refit a combat Asp to a trader Asp? That's 2 million credits just gone. Are players in Asps now filthy rich players who need their credits sunk down?

Multi-purpose ships will become a lot less attractive for beginner players now. This starts with the Adder and ends with the Anaconda. It affects all multi-purpose ships equally.

I see a lot of players here who heavily favor more and more cash sinks. I wonder how rich you people are.

I see my lack of experience with the more expensive stuff may be coloring my reaction to the reaction unfairly. I wonder if FD testing included the effect of this on player tinkering and bank-accounts for changing play-styles like combat tonight versus trade next week in more expensive ships?

So, an Anaconda with some Type A Size 7 modules say, they can cost 15 million credits, which would put the penalty at 150,000 credits, which in my current status is indeed quite a hit.

What if the fee had a cap like 10K Cr, or dropped to 1% of the module value?

will check it out in Beta tonight or tomorrow.

 

[Ozric]

People think a lot about what they're purchasing. If you're a player in just one multi-purpose ship and you refit that ship every day because you don't want to be stuck doing the same thing over and over - i.e. you want to explore today, but next week you want to trade, and after a day of trading, you want to hunt bounties, this patch is going to hurt you _really hard_, and this applies to everyone but the ultra rich, who have multiple ships fitted for different roles. Refit a combat Asp to a trader Asp? That's 2 million credits just gone. Are players in Asps now filthy rich players who need their credits sunk down?

Multi-purpose ships will become a lot less attractive for beginner players now. This starts with the Adder and ends with the Anaconda. It affects all multi-purpose ships equally.

I see a lot of players here who heavily favor more and more cash sinks. I wonder how rich you people are.

Can someone please tell Quineloe he's wrong.

 

[Skuli]

They listen to all feedback and when it hits the full player base they will continue listening. It isn't like they only listen to those with Beta access.

No, but I have no option to offer valid testing and feedback BEFORE it impacts my game, either.

Beta's quite possibly stuck in a feedback loop at this point without any fresh blood injected into the pool since before ED went live.

 

[Monk]

So, an Anaconda with some Type A Size 7 modules say, they can cost 15 million credits, which would put the penalty at 150,000 credits, which in my current status is indeed quite a hit.

What if the fee had a cap like 10K Cr, or dropped to 1% of the module value?

will check it out in Beta tonight or tomorrow.

Off by an order of magnitude...10 percent penalty on 15 mill is 1.5 million

 

[schrombomb]

Agreed, well done FD people should think about the choices they make.

Problem is, unless you're using edshipyard (are they going to add this in game?), the only way to test out your builds is to get out there and use them. Not to mention, the outfitting information provided in game is severely lacking, and downright inaccurate at times. People should also be able to keep what they buy, I shouldn't have to sell a fuel scoop to buy shields. Until there is a way to counter the depreciation for multi role ships at least, this "feature" should be removed.

Don't get me wrong, I get and support depreciation, however I do not believe it helps gameplay in any way until there's an actual support structure behind it. Just a piece of an incomplete puzzle.

 

[Bazorlag]

What's wrong with real time mission timers I'm not even going down that discussion again hehe.

I don't have lots of credits either, I've only got a Cobra (started with), a Type 6 and an Asp for exploring (plus the never flown free Eagle ) and 1.5mill Credits, just so you don't think I'm someone who has it all What you say about being able to freely experiment with different loadouts and change stuff for single missions, well that is not my idea of fun at all. That for me strips all point from the game, what is the point of playing if you don't have to work at something (not saying I love grinding) but if you want to be able to trade and then quickly go and do some bounty hunting (for example) then I don't think you should just be able to swap everything out without a cost, either compromise or get another ship.

Well, you don´t have to do it. Existence of a free swap is no skin off your teeth. Let me use an analogy on this change so it gets through to you:

Microsoft announces a patch for their Office Suite program. Included is a change that adds two steps/clicks for changing the font on your document compared to older build. Do you consider this change a good one?

 

[Skuli]

Can someone please tell Quineloe he's wrong.

He's not.

I'm probably moving to three dedicated ships from my Python. It'll be a hell of a lot less expensive.

 

[who?]

10% penalty only if there is something in game that tells me that i'll incur heat damage after x amount of seconds of constant weapon fire for the current loadout.
Which means the loadout/purchase screen has to be modified.
We choose (not buy) all the items we want, and the summary screen has to include heat generation stats.
We edit our loadout.
We hit "buy all" when it's clear that the loadout will allow us to fly, shoot, and not melt within 5 seconds.
Also, FD you shouldn't "balance" gameplay by messing with power requirements anymore.

My first thought too. I've no problem with a penalty selling used goods; but sometimes you need to "try stuff on" before you buy, and 10% is a steep price for that - especially once you get towards the high end craft and modules!

Maybe they should let us deploy & shoot weapons inside the outfitting hanger, so we can try everything out before committing to the purchase.

 

[Lobstris]

That was the claim as well when you modified the ship insurance to apply to the hull and not modules. The same story is here, this wasn't something the community wanted, that was nonsense so far out from beta release. Now we're talking a few months after the game has been released... come on.

Hmmmm, as a member of 'the community' I welcome the change. Plus I still hope against hope that a lot of things still get changed this far out from release regarding complexity and realism.

- - - Updated - - -

Can someone please tell Quineloe he's wrong.

Certainly. Quineloe, you are wrong.
.
Now, as the person above me has posted we essentially need what a lot of flight sims, and other space games have, which is the ability to have a single-player module for testing ships and load-outs offline, in something like a dogfight module. A lot of work and 'out-of-scope' at present I know, but it would make E: D a more complete package.

 

[who?]

Sorry, but the Diamondback is useless with these pathetic stats. 26 LY jump range?

That depends.. In what configuration does it have 26LY range? Is that with everything maxed out? With D modules for weight reduction?

 

[Mr_Blastman]

People think a lot about what they're purchasing. If you're a player in just one multi-purpose ship and you refit that ship every day because you don't want to be stuck doing the same thing over and over - i.e. you want to explore today, but next week you want to trade, and after a day of trading, you want to hunt bounties, this patch is going to hurt you _really hard_, and this applies to everyone but the ultra rich, who have multiple ships fitted for different roles. Refit a combat Asp to a trader Asp? That's 2 million credits just gone. Are players in Asps now filthy rich players who need their credits sunk down?

Multi-purpose ships will become a lot less attractive for beginner players now. This starts with the Adder and ends with the Anaconda. It affects all multi-purpose ships equally.

I see a lot of players here who heavily favor more and more cash sinks. I wonder how rich you people are.

Well said.

 

[Ozric]

Well, you don´t have to do it. Existence of a free swap is no skin off your teeth.

Ah OK then, so my play style doesn't matter and I should not be considered. Fair enough.

He's not.

I'm probably moving to three dedicated ships from my Python. It'll be a hell of a lot less expensive.

I'm afraid he is in what he stated.

Also is it just me then that doesn't think that multi-purpose should mean can be the best at multiple different roles, rather than something that can be used for multiple roles rather than a dedicated fighting/trading ship?

 

[True Phoenix]

I see some positives to the 10% module resale reduction.

1. It keeps in-game currency inflation under control.
2. It reflects life, second-hand ain't worth as much.
3. It stops uber-ship builds. It would be too expensive to use the "best" ship and just swap the modules (any BGSO player will know what I mean - merit ships!). Now you will have to use a ship more suited to the specific task. This promotes variety and stops the narrowing of ship types seen in the game.

I like this idea.

 

[Bazorlag]

Ah OK then, so my play style doesn't matter and I should not be considered. Fair enough.



I'm afraid he is in what he stated.

Also is it just me then that doesn't think that multi-purpose should mean can be the best at multiple different roles, rather than something that can be used for multiple roles rather than a dedicated fighting/trading ship?

Answer the question.

 

[dominathan]

Man, That list sounded amazing... Until I read the 10% hit on modules. Switching out modules on a whim is part of the fun of flying! I'm always trying different combinations of parts to see how well they work together, or even sometimes just to look at the guns. Now I'm probably also not going to upgrade as often as I do now. Right now, I upgrade to the best that I can afford, then when I get that 10mil from a CG, I buy that next powerplant. If this goes into effect, I'm going to hold off until I can buy a certain maximum of parts. Which means I won't even want to fly my new ship until I can afford all B parts. I don't sell any of my ships for this exact reason.... I'd rather store the ship in case I ever want to go back, rather than lose the 10%...

 

[Quineloe]

I see my lack of experience with the more expensive stuff may be coloring my reaction to the reaction unfairly. I wonder if FD testing included the effect of this on player tinkering and bank-accounts for changing play-styles like combat tonight versus trade next week in more expensive ships?

So, an Anaconda with some Type A Size 7 modules say, they can cost 15 million credits, which would put the penalty at 150,000 credits, which in my current status is indeed quite a hit.

What if the fee had a cap like 10K Cr, or dropped to 1% of the module value?

will check it out in Beta tonight or tomorrow.

10% of 15 million is actually 1.5 million

and the top power plant on the Anaconda is 160 million, so that's 16 million just for selling that one.

Also what's great is when you buy a weapon and it turns out that weapon is completely broken and unusable. Ie Torpedo launchers. That's gonna be fun when you sell those back at a loss.