Notice GalNet changes

Its great we have some clarification, but really now there is no turning back- Galnet really has to step up and really support whats going on in game, and that there is enough going on in game to support Galnet. What I don't want to see is bursts of Galnet around IIs and then silence and big black spaces on the launcher news feed.

What concerns me is that ED is a game stuffed with places that can have stories, lore or messages sent to you or displayed. Refocussing is great, but its not filling these spaces and making the game feel alive cheaply.
 
Last edited:
Greetings, Commanders.
After reviewing the discussion around the upcoming GalNet changes, Ian Dingwall, Narrative Lead for Elite Dangerous, wanted to address some of your questions.
Hopefully this information will provide you with some clarity on why we feel these changes are important for the further development of Elite Dangerous.

What led to this decision?
Producing content for GalNet takes a significant amount of time, especially when you factor in conception, editing and translation. For me, content such as Interstellar Initiatives and the scenarios we added to the game last year have a greater impact on the game than off-camera GalNet storylines. So when we, as a team, look at the features and updates we intend to deliver in the coming months and years, we feel it’s in the best interest of the game to ensure the writing team can support those features, and make them the best they possibly can from a narrative point of view. Consequently, the decision to remove off-camera narratives is very much about refocusing the team, rather than reducing the amount of time and effort we devote to the narrative side of the game.

With these cutbacks will Interstellar Initiatives get more stores, details and lore?
Yes, by refocusing the writing team we will be able to produce more supporting content for Interstellar Initiatives. During the Bridging the Gap initiative it was pointed out – quite rightly – that reactions from Ram Tah and Aegis would have been appropriate. Refocusing our efforts means we can devote time to producing these kinds of ‘reaction’ pieces.

Can we expect to see more coverage on affairs with major player groups?
This is something we have discussed, and, while we don't have any concrete details for you right now, we fully intend to investigate this further.

Are the GalNet 'off-camera' stories getting totally removed, or just reduced?
For now, the plan is to remove them, but we may reassess this decision in the future. We’re always reviewing the changes we make to the game and their impact on the overall player experience, and adapting and adjusting where necessary.

Will the amount of GalNet content change? Will it increase or decrease?
It will decrease slightly overall, reflecting the fact that we are refocusing our efforts.

Is the team understaffed?
No, not at all – in fact we’re about to gain an additional full-time writer. But we have an ambitious production schedule ahead of us, and it was therefore necessary to reposition the writing team so it could properly support that schedule.

What will happen to GalNet Audio?
It will remain an aspect of the game – there are no plans to remove GalNet audio.

Was the Gan Romero story reflected in-game?
The Gan Romero storyline was always envisaged as an off-camera narrative. The fact that some people assumed it had an in-game component, and went searching for Romero, was for me further evidence that off-camera GalNet stories could be detrimental to the player experience, and cemented our desire to ensure that all GalNet content related to things that were actually in the game.

Will we ever hear of the conclusion of the Alliance Festival of Culture storyline?
Yes, all the remaining articles in the Alliance Festival of Culture storyline will be published.

Thanks for your understanding and let us know if you have any more questions!
Hi @Stephen Benedetti

Thanks for all the clarification.

Could I ask for a further bit of clarification on the Gan Romero stuff?

Was it something that was non-interactable at present but ultimately going to lead somewhere for players? Or was it something that was both non-interactable and not going to lead to anything?

Thanks in advance!
 
You guys are missing the bigger picture - Fdev haven't said the Winking Cat is not in game .... it's out there ....

B1uMX1V.gif
 
Hi @Stephen Benedetti

Thanks for all the clarification.

Could I ask for a further bit of clarification on the Gan Romero stuff?

Was it something that was non-interactable at present but ultimately going to lead somewhere for players? Or was it something that was both non-interactable and not going to lead to anything?

Thanks in advance!
It was something that was both non-interactable and not going to lead to anything.*

* not Stephen Benedetti
 
Was the Gan Romero story reflected in-game?
The Gan Romero storyline was always envisaged as an off-camera narrative. The fact that some people assumed it had an in-game component, and went searching for Romero, was for me further evidence that off-camera GalNet stories could be detrimental to the player experience, and cemented our desire to ensure that all GalNet content related to things that were actually in the game.
Sorry for asking that, but do you really can't add a crashed DBX model with some text on it that describes Gan Romero's madness?

WHY??? You have a good 'tip off' mechanics, you have already crashed DBX models, just add some lines in gamecode and all. Players would be glad that there efforts aren't gone under cat's tail.
 

rootsrat

Volunteer Moderator
Sorry for asking that, but do you really can't add a crashed DBX model with some text on it that describes Gan Romero's madness?

WHY??? You have a good 'tip off' mechanics, you have already crashed DBX models, just add some lines in gamecode and all. Players would be glad that there efforts aren't gone under cat's tail.

That's a neat idea and would be a nice nod towards the player efforts in this respect :)
 
This is probably a good idea.

The main reason being, there will no longer be confusion on if a galnet article is actually linked to in game elements or just background information.

The bad thing is, they could have just added a small icon to say so.
 
Sorry for asking that, but do you really can't add a crashed DBX model with some text on it that describes Gan Romero's madness?

WHY??? You have a good 'tip off' mechanics, you have already crashed DBX models, just add some lines in gamecode and all. Players would be glad that there efforts aren't gone under cat's tail.

Well said.

I for one feel it's the idea that only major storylines (interstellar initiatives) get a place in Galnet, that is pretty chilling. No idea if that's the plan or not but a quick crashed ship to go with a fluff story really is ideal ...

I get there's a benefit to having some kind of representation in the game to a galnet story and there are a million opportunities for doing that in ED. Stories don't have to be galaxy changing to be interesting though.
 
This is an admission that the game, even after nearly 5 years, has none of the alluded to / promised depth as described by Michael and David.

It's simply crapping all over the legacy of the original games and those that have spent their time writing books and other player generated materials.

Enjoy it as a simplistic, under developed space shooter and if you want more depth, get an emulated version of FFE2.
 
This is an admission that the game, even after nearly 5 years, has none of the alluded to / promised depth as described by Michael and David.

It's simply crapping all over the legacy of the original games and those that have spent their time writing books and other player generated materials.

Enjoy it as a simplistic, under developed space shooter and if you want more depth, get an emulated version of FFE2.

I'll echo this sentiment. I feel like we need clarification as to what storylines are active, what was pure fluff, and what is legitimate searchable mystery.

We know what parts of the Rift stuff was in-game and what wasn't, but the rest definitely needs clarifying. So many long running storylines and mysteries.
 
Ian Dingwall said:
The Gan Romero storyline was always envisaged as an off-camera narrative. The fact that some people assumed it had an in-game component, and went searching for Romero, was for me further evidence that off-camera GalNet stories could be detrimental to the player experience, and cemented our desire to ensure that all GalNet content related to things that were actually in the game.

I've been debating on saying this, but I've wrestled with it enough that I just want to have it "on the record," as it were. You say that the community's rush to embrace the Gan Romero story and go out and search for him was "evidence that off-camera GalNet stories could be detrimental to the player experience." Let me put it another way..."The seeming unwillingness on the part of FDev to make GalNet stories interact with the player experience continues to be detrimental."

As has already been stated....I feel that this EASILY could have been made an interactive story line. You have listening posts. Drop one in some system somewhere. It spits out a riddle of co-ordinates that lead us to a system where we find a crashed DBX (which is already an assest in game) and look, ole' Ganny Boy's gone and pancaked his ship on 6G planet. Poor old sod, space madness'll get ya!

And voila, you have an engaging narrative, a bit of mystery, and a "hey, guys! I found it!" moment that drives both in-game and forum traffic. But instead we get "The community's excitement over these types of things clearly means it's time we take them out." And I just don't understand that....unless the edited out, end of that sentence is "because we certainly aren't going to put forth the effort to realizing a connection in-game."

It seems silly, but this is the single largest blow that I feel like has been dealt to me as a player...and I was on the Gnosis.

Truly a sad day.
 
I've been debating on saying this, but I've wrestled with it enough that I just want to have it "on the record," as it were. You say that the community's rush to embrace the Gan Romero story and go out and search for him was "evidence that off-camera GalNet stories could be detrimental to the player experience." Let me put it another way..."The seeming unwillingness on the part of FDev to make GalNet stories interact with the player experience continues to be detrimental."

As has already been stated....I feel that this EASILY could have been made an interactive story line. You have listening posts. Drop one in some system somewhere. It spits out a riddle of co-ordinates that lead us to a system where we find a crashed DBX (which is already an assest in game) and look, ole' Ganny Boy's gone and pancaked his ship on 6G planet. Poor old sod, space madness'll get ya!

And voila, you have an engaging narrative, a bit of mystery, and a "hey, guys! I found it!" moment that drives both in-game and forum traffic. But instead we get "The community's excitement over these types of things clearly means it's time we take them out." And I just don't understand that....unless the edited out, end of that sentence is "because we certainly aren't going to put forth the effort to realizing a connection in-game."

It seems silly, but this is the single largest blow that I feel like has been dealt to me as a player...and I was on the Gnosis.

Truly a sad day.

Agreed. The better approach to improve the player experience and not string us along unnecessarily, would've been to turn the off camera narratives into in-game content.

Not remove them altogether.
 
Top Bottom