News Elite: Dangerous Powerplay 1.3 Beta Incoming (changelog)

[Ozric]

Hm, just read all your posts from today and I can't seem to find it. Oh well.

It was only 4 posts ago

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.

 

[Chaz]

Its like buying and selling a new car assoon as you buy it it drops in value

Except I'm not buying a car, I'm playing a game. A game that already places a heavy enough emphasis on grinding as it is. Now if that particular update goes through, I will have to spend even more time grinding the creds just because I fancy doing a bit of combat one night instead of trade or exploration. In fact in the Anaconda I 'd have to devote a week of evenings to trading just to foot the bill to change to a bit of combat game play the week after.

Trying different weapon and module load outs on your ships is all part of the fun. The 10% price penalty just throws up a needless barrier between that fun.

 

[Roninpaul]

when I saw the list ithink I spawned twice amazing guys ! thanks for your hard work this game has the makings of being epic

 

[Antezscar]

• ''Apply 10% price penalty when selling modules''

one thing you MUST add then is a ''preview'' button, because often, atleast i, buys a module just to see how it looks on the ship, so a preview button whould be nice.

 

[themast]

It was only 4 posts ago

Oh, fair enough. When you said detailed post I was looking at the longer ones


I can see your point, although I'm a little unsure how you can't get the same experience with the 100% buyback in place. If you really want your outfitting decisions to matter, you can impose the restriction of fewer outfitting sessions on your own, no? It just seems that one way allows for both playstyles and the other cuts it down to one, and one that a lot of people are finding frustrating. I know none of us have actually tried it out yet (at least I haven't) but it's not that difficult to see how this will impact your gameplay if you've been playing the game for a while. If there are other changes that are going to offset this change like a significant increase in credits and such, a little explanation of that by FD would go a long way.

 

[Ozric]

Except I'm not buying a car, I'm playing a game. A game that already places a heavy enough emphasis on grinding as it is. Now if that particular update goes through, I will have to spend even more time grinding the creds just because I fancy doing a bit of combat one night instead of trade or exploration. In fact in the Anaconda I 'd have to devote a week of evenings to trading just to foot the bill to change to a bit of combat game play the week after.

Trying different weapon and module load outs on your ships is all part of the fun. The 10% price penalty just throws up a needless barrier between that fun.

Just out of interest, have you taken into account all of the other changes that have been made? Until it's tested we won't know how it will affect things.

 

[Whiskey Galore]

No ability to name a ship when you purchase it. Are you intending to add that to your P&L like ship paint later? It's what everyone wants I think.

As to the 10%, I think this is a good move myself. The load out costs far more than the ship, so people will have to save up for another speciality ship. For something like the Vulture, which is insanely cheap as far as I am concerned, I will probably have four, set up with different armour types to get the base and most expensive things out of the way. Then they can be tweaked a little here and there. I think it will add more variance and not less. Weapons are cheap and thats what you change the most. Except turrets, but that's on the bigger ships really. It will probably mean players owning more ships which I think Frontier wants. I'll probably have an explorer asp (already do) and a deep-space mining asp.
I like the one million cap on bounty too. Lot's of griefers out there will shout about that, as I'm sure they were in competition to get the highest bounty and that was driving them on.
All in all, something to look forward too. I need to read up to see if the prices change the further out you go. If not...ninety percent of stations are nothing more than scenery. Should get more for scanning system objects if further out too. Else they won't be bothered with.

 

[Ozric]

Oh, fair enough. When you said detailed post I was looking at the longer ones


I can see your point, although I'm a little unsure how you can't get the same experience with the 100% buyback in place. If you really want your outfitting decisions to matter, you can impose the restriction of fewer outfitting sessions on your own, no? It just seems that one way allows for both playstyles and the other cuts it down to one, and one that a lot of people are finding frustrating. I know none of us have actually tried it out yet (at least I haven't) but it's not that difficult to see how this will impact your gameplay if you've been playing the game for a while. If there are other changes that are going to offset this change like a significant increase in credits and such, a little explanation of that by FD would go a long way.

It's all in the patch notes Not in the detailed word for word spelt out formula that people seem to want all information in, but there's a lot of other things being changed and this is just the first pass too.

 

[Birdovous]

I do NOT mind the 10% loss on selling a module. But I DO mind the fact that I'm forced to lose it as I'm forced to sell it because even after half a year of the game being live we still have no storage/inventory in the station, although we can have 1000 Anacondas stored in the same station... That is kind of... Funny, odd and sad at the same time...

 

[Warchant]

"'Apply 10% price penalty when selling modules''

I've never complained in all the months I've been playing, but instead I've had nothing but praise and appreciation about how Frontier updates this game and listens to its user base.

In the case of this BETA update, I must first give thanks for all the work, changes and fixes that went into it. I'm sure we will enjoy a huge majority of them.

As for the 10% penalty on modules, I ask that you hold off on this until maybe we can brainstorm and come up with an alternative to losing all these credits. I currently have no problem with the 10% penalty on trading in a ship as we have the option of storing them. Perhaps something similar could be discussed and developed for our modules. I for one was looking forward to continuing to change roles on my Anaconda but losing several million credits every time I do so would put a huge damper on my enjoyment of the game.

Michael and your fellow developers, I look forward to participating in meaningful discussions and/or brainstorming about alternatives to just having this penalty with no storage options.

Thank you

 

[themast]

It's all in the patch notes Not in the detailed word for word spelt out formula that people seem to want all information in, but there's a lot of other things being changed and this is just the first pass too.

That's the thing though, -10% on modules is easy to see, seeing how the profession buffs are going to offset that, especially when people are seeing a change that makes it more difficult to swap professions - that is much harder to see. Something explaining the design thinking here would be helpful, otherwise people are going to focus on this for the entire beta, which isn't very productive. FD needs to get out in front of this imo.

 

[Eera]

so great

 

[Quineloe]

Oke you sell it to a pawn shop for x amount and after a day you change your mind and buy it back for a higher amount

That changes nothing about how the comparison cars / ships is invalid to outfittings.

 

[Lobstris]

So, moving on to other things, I don't see much in the changelog about the AI improvements Sarah Jane has been going on about. What combat AI changes made it in to 1.3?

 

[Chaz]

Just out of interest, have you taken into account all of the other changes that have been made? Until it's tested we won't know how it will affect things.

Unless they drastically change the price of high tier modules or greatly increase earnings, it's hard to see how it won't have a negative effect on the way folks are able to play the game. Money is the main barrier to doing things in this game, and a 10% cash penalty would be just another barrier/time sink, and not a fun one either.

As other have said, the introduction of a player hanger to store modules alongside their stored ships, would do a great deal to mitigate this issue.

 

[Ozric]

That's the thing though, -10% on modules is easy to see, seeing how the profession buffs are going to offset that, especially when people are seeing a change that makes it more difficult to swap professions - that is much harder to see. Something explaining the design thinking here would be helpful, otherwise people are going to focus on this for the entire beta, which isn't very productive. FD needs to get out in front of this imo.

It's not just the profession buffs, it's also about the revamped mission system, the scaling of missions, the differing effects powers will bring. You may not want to hear it, but as has been said before, it was meant to be like this from the beginning so the reason behind the thinking have long been discussed already. Now the timing is something people don't understand because they automatically think that it should have come in with storage, which has (as far as I'm aware) never been confirmed anyway, but what if the other changes offset it and provide alternate options.

I'll answer my own question. It won't matter at all, because people just won't like it whatever else happens in this update, because the game should be made the way they want it to be.

 

[Lobstris]

That changes nothing about how the comparison cars / ships is invalid to outfittings.

Sigh. And going back again. It's a completely valid comparison whether you have a garage or not. How many times in life do you buy a 'white good' or piece of equipment at retail price and then sell it on for more than you originally paid, irrespective of whether you have space to store it or not? Caveat Emptor. (And the 'gameplay > realism' argument is currently resulting in a game I've got less enthusiasm to play because too many concessions have been made for willing suspension of disbelief to work. Hence my grump on if people get something I see as positive reversed without giving it a chance. )

 

[Ozric]

Unless they drastically change the price of high tier modules or greatly increase earnings, it's hard to see how it won't have a negative effect on the way folks are able to play the game. Money is the main barrier to doing things in this game, and a 10% cash penalty would be just another barrier/time sink, and not a fun one either.

As other have said, the introduction of a player hanger to store modules alongside their stored ships, would do a great deal to mitigate this issue.

Read the patch notes and the post that I made just after you made this one hehe

So, moving on to other things, I don't see much in the changelog about the AI improvements Sarah Jane has been going on about. What combat AI changes made it in to 1.3?

It does say this, I know one of the things she was working on was making them avoid your fire rather than just flying straight towards you whilst attacking. I think it may be part of it.

AI will try to avoid crossing a player's firing line

 

[Lobstris]

It does say this, I know one of the things she was working on was making them avoid your fire rather than just flying straight towards you whilst attacking. I think it may be part of it.

Yeah - little things get lost in the 'wall of text'. An 'AI changes' section under a separate heading would be nice. (Hint! Hint!)

 

[Ajro]

+ one vote more:

Apply 10% price penalty when selling modules

very, very, VERY BAD IDEA!!!
...why changing good and _funny_ option?
its not real-simulation, but game
game must be funny - why not?
Devs, think about more...