This problem is not only here in forums but there is also inside.
Last edited:
Features left to rot: PowerPlay, CQC... and now Multi Crew?
- Thread starter SentineI
- Start date
This problem is not only here in forums but there is also inside.
You know, I'm really not one to ever join in on these dogpiles attacking FD. They are a relatively small stuido trying to build something insanely complex and I generally give them the benefit of the doubt. The screaming in the forums over how terrible FD is, or how doomed the game is, etc. gets really REALLY g old.
But in this case, I actually do agree with the OP. CQC needs to be rebuilt or removed from the game. At least get the damned ranking off of my status screen so I don't have to stare at it all the time knowing I will never get into a match anyway. Powerplay had so SO much potential. I really thought it was going to be built upon and turned into something great, but no. It's still a complete waste of time, filled with half-finished ideas over a year later and only serves as a really annoying way to earn some cool looking missiles.
Multicrew is, once again,a good start. If they dedicate themselves to it and finish making it what was originally promised it'll be lovely, but I suspect they've already mostly moved on to the next headline feature already, while telling us on stream that implementing additions to it are "on the list." God I'm sick of hearing about the list. How about an update where instead of a new flashy feature that is half-implemented, we get a patch that goes back and starts ticking off items from the list? Like all the crap promised from the DDF 3 years ago that is supposedly still on the The List?
I see a lot of people ripping on Sandro here, but I don't think he's the problem. So many times on stream it looks like he wants to say something, to agree about something, but can't. I honestly think Michael Brookes is the problem. Always has been. He's the one that always flatly says "no" to the community, and I feel like he's the one who keeps shooting down any decent ideas that the community and/or Sandro come up with. He has always come off as trying to make the game in his own personal perfect image, no matter what anyone else says or feels. I also notice I never see him around the forums or streams all that much any more, after people started getting tired of having every bit of constructive criticism ignored. Let Sandro take all the heat. Personally, I'd like to see what would come of the game if Brookes got moved to something else and Sandro got bumped to Executive Producer in his place.
But in this case, I actually do agree with the OP. CQC needs to be rebuilt or removed from the game. At least get the damned ranking off of my status screen so I don't have to stare at it all the time knowing I will never get into a match anyway. Powerplay had so SO much potential. I really thought it was going to be built upon and turned into something great, but no. It's still a complete waste of time, filled with half-finished ideas over a year later and only serves as a really annoying way to earn some cool looking missiles.
Multicrew is, once again,a good start. If they dedicate themselves to it and finish making it what was originally promised it'll be lovely, but I suspect they've already mostly moved on to the next headline feature already, while telling us on stream that implementing additions to it are "on the list." God I'm sick of hearing about the list. How about an update where instead of a new flashy feature that is half-implemented, we get a patch that goes back and starts ticking off items from the list? Like all the crap promised from the DDF 3 years ago that is supposedly still on the The List?
I see a lot of people ripping on Sandro here, but I don't think he's the problem. So many times on stream it looks like he wants to say something, to agree about something, but can't. I honestly think Michael Brookes is the problem. Always has been. He's the one that always flatly says "no" to the community, and I feel like he's the one who keeps shooting down any decent ideas that the community and/or Sandro come up with. He has always come off as trying to make the game in his own personal perfect image, no matter what anyone else says or feels. I also notice I never see him around the forums or streams all that much any more, after people started getting tired of having every bit of constructive criticism ignored. Let Sandro take all the heat. Personally, I'd like to see what would come of the game if Brookes got moved to something else and Sandro got bumped to Executive Producer in his place.
the problem resides in the chicken and egg problem... FDev pushes an updated which has not been totally proven (bugs always exist but sometimes there are many issues even reported by beta testers) user find said issues and decide that unless they are fixed they won't use the feature or barely do it. FDev sees not many people using the feature, so they don't fix it, the next version, issues may not be corrected because a very small playerbase part uses it. The playerbase sees no changes to the problem, and don't come back. And the cycle begins again...
Also it does not help (imo as a Software Developer) that updates arrive in such a big interval, even if one update patches 100 bugs, the update is delivered once every month or two. So bugs persist a long time. I don't know the internal processes of FDev, I am sure there are good reasons for thinking this way works for them, but I would try to put small patches more regularly (small patch might mean less testing) bi-weekly updates?
I agree with OP sentiment on need to go back to enhance core game-loops / careers/ game-play. But I put a slightly different twist to FDs comments on Multi-Crew updates being based on player uptake. To me the comments indicate FD realize they pushed MC too early (should have waited for walking about expansion), but it was too late/costly to drop once they got into it. What they did release is workable, and will have to be revisited when space-legs is implemented in the far future anyway. Netcode seems more stable which could also be a result as well.
Not enhancing MC could be a good thing if FD takes the time to instead focus back on existing core game loops like exploration, that so many want to see enhanced/ built upon.
FD say they listen and I think they do. In a PS4 interview, DB hinted that FD are planning improvements/new tools for how players interact. This gives hope that FD have taken on the numerous forum comments about "modern MMO design" and player groups. 2.4-Aliens may also drive the need for player/groups tools updates as well as be an impetus to update and integrate the BGS and PP, along with associated mission system updates, to make a more cohesive whole.
Final thought on this is that FD should really test something like broad surveys of upcoming features and key designs with the player-base. Those things could be fairly vague/ non-committal, and would be a lot better use of time and money than hours of random live-streams each week. They could also help point out their own blind-spots, even if those are few. The old DDF topics show that FD nails the written design specification 95% of the time. They really just need to keep going back to those documents until they have implemented everything they can actually make work in code, instead of investing in new stuff like multi-crew.
Not enhancing MC could be a good thing if FD takes the time to instead focus back on existing core game loops like exploration, that so many want to see enhanced/ built upon.
FD say they listen and I think they do. In a PS4 interview, DB hinted that FD are planning improvements/new tools for how players interact. This gives hope that FD have taken on the numerous forum comments about "modern MMO design" and player groups. 2.4-Aliens may also drive the need for player/groups tools updates as well as be an impetus to update and integrate the BGS and PP, along with associated mission system updates, to make a more cohesive whole.
Final thought on this is that FD should really test something like broad surveys of upcoming features and key designs with the player-base. Those things could be fairly vague/ non-committal, and would be a lot better use of time and money than hours of random live-streams each week. They could also help point out their own blind-spots, even if those are few. The old DDF topics show that FD nails the written design specification 95% of the time. They really just need to keep going back to those documents until they have implemented everything they can actually make work in code, instead of investing in new stuff like multi-crew.
Last edited:
Found it. Google seemed to be hiding the latest Reddit AMA by David Braben:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange...m_anything_david_braben_obe_fdev_ceo/dg42ksu/
DavidBraben said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange..._david_braben_obe_fdev_ceo/dg44blr/?context=3
DavidBraben said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/EliteDange..._david_braben_obe_fdev_ceo/dg436en/?context=3
DavidBraben said:
Last edited:
SkUnimatrix made this intelligently argued post on Reddit, which I felt deserved a wider audience:
It seems pretty insane that they stopped developing PowerPlay (I'm not talking about fixing bugs). Not only was it a MASSIVE undertaking (which is currently wasted), but with a change to a few of it's mechanics, it could have gone from a repetitive merit grind... to a somewhat exciting weekly battle between player groups (where merits were a reward for doing interesting/varied activities). The basic idea behind PowerPlay was definitely good, but the implementation made a few wrong turns that completely ruined it.
And rather than attempt to fix it, they've left it essentially unchanged, and moved on to the Next Shiny Thing That Will Fix Elite. At one point they obviously thought that CQC/Arena would be "it", but despite the huge amount of effort that went into it, that's now been left to rot too. While I don't play CQC myself, from what people have said the game itself is great, but the lobby & rewards are badly designed - and yet those are probably also pretty easy to fix (using designs copied from existing successful games).
The Engineers NEARLY falls into this category, but they have made a few essential tweaks that at least start to deal with some of the initial terrible design flaws. Too soon yet to see if FDev leaves the Engineers to rot...
And now we have Multi-Crew, another HUGE undertaking (so much so that even after big delays they still had to cut features... which ended up helping ruin it). Going by FDev's past pattern of behaviour, we can expect them to fix the biggest bugs quickly, but when players don't bother to use it (after the novelty has worn off & the annoying flaws become obvious), FDev will decide it's not worth trying to fix any of the design flaws, and instead move on to the Next Shiny Thing That Will Fix Elite. Again.
FDev's behaviour worries me. They clearly have NO confidence in their designs, once players reject the initial (v1.0) implementation, when they should be taking feedback to come up with Design v1.5, which makes a few significant changes but re-uses most of the existing effort (coding). What is perhaps most surprising is that they haven't gone bust yetdespite all the money they've poured into features which almost no players use.
P.S. Credit where credit is due, they DO gradually improve some things (given enough time - say 12 months) :
* Networking is now good enough for Wings (most of the time), and has far less waiting when entering new instances.
* Planetary landings were initially empty of anything to do/see, but they've gradually added the ability for NPC ships to fight near planets, NPC ships guarding (and even landing) on planet bases, the defenses of planet bases against SRVs are now actually a decent threat & much scarier, planet bases have more variety, there's more variety of "stuff" on planet surfaces (and some of it's a bit interactive).
* Planetary missions are more interesting & varied (although more work still required).
* Plantetary surfaces are much more detailed than they originally were (while still performing much better), and we can even leave SRV tracks on the surface!
etc
But most of this stuff is small incremental improvements, rather than the bigger changes to design that are required to fix major stand-alone features.
Engineers should be mission based, not grinding materials based. You build trust with the Engineers by running missions for them not spending hours looking for rng material.
But you are not wrong on a great many things.
Last edited:
If Fdev announced right now that Season 3 wouldn't have a single new feature but instead would diligently work to flesh out the existing framework of the game I'd actually hurl $60.00 at them.
I don't even play PP, yet I've seen countless comprehensive posts and threads about issues and proposed changes, either targeted at specific issues (5C to name but one) or all-encompassing, both here and on Reddit. But sure, they're only whinging.
They could not even *give* away CQC for free. Guilty as charged. Life, without parole.
- - - Updated - - -
I tried playing one of the team games on CQC once and my mic clearly wasn't working properly. I got sworn at so many times and cursed back to the seventh level of Hades that I combat logged off and sat shaking in a dark corner for the rest of day! *
Haven't played any type of multiplayer since
* some dramatic licence for extra effect
That's why I stay in Solo mode.
Or, NPC crew.
- - - Updated - - -
You need to be paid in more than free ship nameplates.
- - - Updated - - -
He should never have taken the witness stand, and he should have plead the 5th instead.
Ditto. I think one of the reason why we don;t see much interest by FDEV in revisiting these older releases is because quite simply they probably don;t feel they can charge twice for them and get away with it. If 3.0 gave us PP or CQC 2.0 , or even married the two together somehow, I'd pay for that to be fixed. They don't fix them because the player counts are low, but the reason the player counts are low is likely because they need fixing. Kinda disappointed at that philosophy.
Exactly, and they either don't grasp the concept, or they deliberately want to use it to bury multicrew and forget about it.
(That might sound doomsayer, but from what we know, and considering we don't know anything else about their future plans, it's the only conclusion i can get)
Last edited:
During the 2.3 beta, I finally wanted to try CQC...not sure why, and not sure why I haven't tried it before. But, it couldnt launch or didnt find matches. Is that something that works more, if you invite friends?
I think these and other things are fixable. I just got finished doing some multi-crew SLFing, and thats just a blast. More of that, please.
It would be great if they could thread some gameplay styles together. I've always thought it would be great if they could sort of make campaigns, just through the mission board. Even if, for example, those missions were only visible to you, ie generated only on your system, or I dont know..computers. What if we could, or people could contruct their own mission-arcs?
I think these and other things are fixable. I just got finished doing some multi-crew SLFing, and thats just a blast. More of that, please.
It would be great if they could thread some gameplay styles together. I've always thought it would be great if they could sort of make campaigns, just through the mission board. Even if, for example, those missions were only visible to you, ie generated only on your system, or I dont know..computers. What if we could, or people could contruct their own mission-arcs?
I don't have the link but look int eh CQC forum for the Discord server. There are games - just not 24/7. You also may be limited to your geographic region (ping) for the P2P matchmaking. So if you play at odd hours for your time zone you are going to have a bad time. There is a very dedicated small (very small) CQC community but it dwindles weekly.
As far as i know they even pulled arena from the shop. They should have put it for free for free instead, if they wanted to try to revive cqc.
Now it's clear they just want to bury it as a failed project.
Thing is, there are many of us that both love Elite AND understand FD is a small studio. I will defend both those points myself!
But, as you said yourself Elite is slowly becoming the graveyard of half baked features and ideas and said I said some posts back I think in hindsight I'd have preferred it if after release they'd added depth and detail to combat, mining, exploring and only now said "okay now we're going to work on adding multicrew and Powerplay etc".
As the game stands with no real depth to mining, exploring or even combat how could multicrew ever be anything outside of a small arcade shooter? Think how good multicrew would be if there was actual REAL depth to mining, if heat maps of asteroids had to be studied properly and superimposed over your HUD to find the best place to drill and mining lasers have to be kept on that target point to get the most from the rock (I love the idea of having to steer a big ship around a tight belt while someone keeps the lasers on target), imagine if getting the deepest drill possible meant having to vary "frequency" of the mining lasers, keeping them in a moving "sweet spot" while they fired to gain a small bonus to what/how much you extract meaning multicrew is actually useful. THAT would be a start at least to something multicrews could get their teeth into. I just pulled most of that off my head, but that is the kind of game I want to play and without that sort of depth to mining, combat and exploring I'm not sure anything added to the game will really bring its full potential.
What we got instead was a minishooter, hologram thing that doesn't really make much sense in the greater lore. Well done, but ultimately misses really hitting the target hard (I LOVE flying a fighter launched from my friends 'conda). It was fun for a few days but payed out next to nothing and was ultimately let down by limited depth to combat (which is basically just fly to RES, wait for never ending ships to spawn, no objectives, no real reason to be in a wing or multicrew, no real reason to be in anything smaller than a 'conder other than cost).
I've never been one to say the game is dying, or is even close (I don't think it is at all). I love Elite, I just think it REALLY misses the mark on those three basic activities. For a game that simulated the universe SO amazingly well, I find it annoying that they gave no thought to depth when exploring it.
It's not like I don't have an imagination, I currently fly an FDS for fun and play as a Federal rescue pilot also running pickup of black boxes and trade data, I get the "it's a sandbox you have to use teh imagines" argument, I've played many sandbox games. It would just be nice if it felt like the game was meeting me half way rather than 5% of the way.
- - - Updated - - -
I would throw money at them, really would. Right now I'm thinking... ugh I dunno if I care for what's going to get tacked on next.
Last edited:
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
can you find even 1 post from ANYONE saying that or is this just you making stuff up because ED is not the game you hoped for?
(FYI I would probably be considered by some to be one of the people you try to insult using "forum dads" too, and ED is weak in many areas in my eyes too...... but that does not mean the core game is not decent.
( tho with an arcade, ps3, ps4, high end VR PC , xbox 360, wii, amiga, megardirve, snes and many more, you are way off base with your 10 games total). my games collection is in the region of many 1000s!.)
Number of employees: 300 (2016) Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontier_Developments
Not exactly "small". 50 heads past the "small and medium enterprise" in EU. So they're larger than medium, strictly speaking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_and_medium-sized_enterprises#European_Union
How many of that is that for E: D is anyone's guess.
and this is the main issue with CQC. its actually a very nice pick up and play arcade shooter, but its entire raison d'etra is ruined because you CANT pick up and play for a quick bash because unless you get lucky, not enough are playing.
you may have luck if you can organise somethiing on here, but even then you are at the mercy of the match making gods to dome degree. (and that is on the assumption you can organise a proper session... which for me is not what CQC is for in the 1st place. if i am in a place to organise a time and date for a session, i will play the main game.