Is it planned to add Exploration to the insides of our Spaceships?

I do think there’s good gameplay opportunities for derelicts. Although I think any interiors will require a DLC rather than a side project added to Odyssey.

I have no absolutely no problem paying for a DLC which will introduced ship interiors - any interiors be it derelict spaceships or player ships.

And, some unsolicited advice for FD, if player ship interiors do get done then please prioritize the Sidewinder. Any basic design flaws or bugs will quickly show up on that ship and you'll have the entire playerbase (old & new) testing it to bits.
 
I have no absolutely no problem paying for a DLC which will introduced ship interiors - any interiors be it derelict spaceships or player ships.

I like the idea of pirates' boarding like scenarios... but looks like an immense work given there are so many ships in the game and each one would require the build and debug of internals across all the various options and gameplay features. Even assuming that FDEV does have the resources (= money + programming teams, etc) to do that, I'd rather prefer the option of space ship relics, abandoned stations, etc. where the players might eventually have journeys/missions/material gathering etc.
 
Yeah, making compelling pirate gameplay is complicated, and there’d definitely be complaints by those who don’t want any risk to their cargo.

Wouldn't worry me, I have +40b, it's self destruct button the moment they board, and if they lose their ship also in the explosion so much the better! Of course people without plenty of money won't be worried either, because they will be in Solo or PG, thus reducing the numbers in Open even more!
 
Of course people without plenty of money won't be worried either, because they will be in Solo or PG, thus reducing the numbers in Open even more!
It's actually the contrary: the bulk of players we pirate are low ranked, some times we can track in real time how their money grind goes as yesterday they came with a T6, today with a T7 and tomorrow it's a T9... or an unengineered Cutter!

I guess veterans/rich players either don't waste any time in trading and/or they don't play in open 🤷‍♂️
 
It's actually the contrary: the bulk of players we pirate are low ranked, some times we can track in real time how their money grind goes as yesterday they came with a T6, today with a T7 and tomorrow it's a T9... or an unengineered Cutter!

I guess veterans/rich players either don't waste any time in trading and/or they don't play in open 🤷‍♂️

Never playing in anything but Open, not seen me around much then? I guess there must be other factors at work there.
 
But if that advantage already exists... you magically appear in the seat of your ship once you enter. Entering the interior of Starfield is optional. I don't see that as a problem for you.
If you're playing solo, then sure. But not so much in open/private group. It's marginal really but that doesn't mean it's nothing either.
 
I’m not anti interiors. I think I’ve made clear in this thread already but I definitely have in past threads. But I am a realist.

I just believe the options are limited, and even in SC 99% of the time the interior offers little to the gameplay. - There’s only so many times you can look at the panel screws in Quantum.

What you’re suggesting as a solution is effectively pay to win. There was no advantage in space to an Odyssey player. If I’m fighting thargoid interceptors, having space legs offers no advantages. What you’re suggesting as a solution makes having interiors an advantage. Unless you’re suggesting splitting the player base even further - which I’m sure the PvP and racing community would love!
No, not pay to win, more like pay to keep up. It's an expansion just like Horizons was, which I guess is fine if you would also consider that pay to win? If I want the new features of the latest version of Ableton, I have to pay. It's as simple as that.
 
There’s a big difference between a casual game - which it is for many - and a DAW.

Keep on intentionally misconstruing what I'm saying.

And I know I’m not alone in thinking that we shouldn’t be put at a disadvantage for not buying an update if it has no gameplay that appeals to us.

Yet, here you are arguing for such additional gameplay to not be added to Odyssey, and thus we come full circle, illustrating my point exactly.
 
And I know I’m not alone in thinking that we shouldn’t be put at a disadvantage for not buying an update if it has no gameplay that appeals to us.
Indeed you are not alone, didn't FD say that, when Horizons was given to everyone who hadn't bought it, that only 25% of players were on Horizons?

Players of ED can like it or lump it that EDO is, factually, the "base game" - Live is just EDO code with atmo landings and most on-foot content removed (allegedly Live players have been given EDO missions) and further development of the game may be dedicated to the base game, and not filter down to the Live version.

Of course, EDO owners needn't buy anything they don't want, be it content or new ships, it is their choice.

If Live only players want to lay their hands on the new ships, when they are in the main game as a credits buy, they have to either purchase EDO or buy the ships with ARX - again, their choice.

Tough luck to those who 'hold out', for whatever reason, the game will evolve regardless.

So if not buying an update is someone's choice, it is pointless complaining that others have a benefit, isn't it?
 
I mean, the discussion was about an imaginary expansion to EDO rather than being the new feature that’s yet to be announced.

The goal posts may have been shifted a couple of posts ago to try and discredit what I’m saying, but I do agree that EDO is the current base game.
Nothing wrong with discussing imaginary expansions to the game, it is a firm favourite here.
But...
(I love throwing that into the mix)

We do have a game that is effectively split, while EDO content is gated from those unwilling to buy it, for whatever reason, so, working on the fact that EDO is the main game these days (for reasons that are a bit obvious), it would make perfect sense that further expansion, real or imaginary, would build on that foundation, so those without, exactly as with Horizons, would be in the situation that new stuff is in the game, but they have to play for it, or do without.

Any addition to the game, that involves parting with actual money, would attract the P2W label, by the few... My 2p worth, is essentially pointing them toward a heavy duty shoe that is no longer manufactured, with a slight shrug :ROFLMAO:
 
And I know I’m not alone in thinking that we shouldn’t be put at a disadvantage for not buying an update if it has no gameplay that appeals to us.

Certainly not, but it's the definition of disadvantage that's the problem. For instance in other games, let's take LOTRO as an example, if I don't buy the latest expansion I don't get access to the highest level armour for my character, because that armour is part of the expansion. The expansion may have no game play that appeals to me but can I then complain because I didn't get the armour because that is a disadvantage to me?

I would say, if the update has no effect on your game play there is no disadvantage to you. Complaining about stuff other players get because they purchased the update is bizarre indeed because it you just keep doing what you are doing you haven't been disadvantaged, your game is exactly the same.
 
In this example you’re getting an advantage in Open simply by buying the imaginary expansion:

The question wasn't, am I getting an advantage, but are you getting a disadvantage. If the expansion has zero effect on your game then no you aren't getting a disadvantage. If the expansion removed stuff from your version then you would be disadvantaged, but it isn't as far as we can tell.
 
You win. I CBA any more
Fair play, I consider Horizons 4.0 to be the base game as that's what you get when you just buy Elite Dangerous, then you have to purchase the Odyssey expansion. But, if Frontier release their next expansion with the expected rolling in of the Odyssey expansion to make that the base game you get when anyone new purchases Elite Dangerous, then it still doesn't really affect what I was saying. I'm not moving the goalposts, and we're just talking, there's nothing to be bothered about from my perspective.

The equation for this is that Frontier add major things to the game via expansions, which will offer new opportunites and/or advantages to those who purchase it - btw; I think all the new things we're seeing are still part of the original Odyssey expansion plans, nothing changes there from Horizions to Odyssey, that's been the case all along. Some will complain that these features are "pay to win" because you have to purchase the expansion, but selling expansions has been the method Frontier have employed to keep money coming in to support further development of the game.

To go back to my analogy, and expand it further; there is Ableton and then there is FL Studio. One features paid updates, the other gives you free updates for life. Ableton's model of paying for new features via an upgrade (or in Elite terms, an expansion) is the more traditional route for continuously developed software, which Elite is, even though it is a game and not a DAW, whereas FL Studio have made it work a different way by 1) the sales/marketing hook of free updates for life making it a preferred choice in comparison to competitors. 2) They develop premium plug-ins for FL Studio which are sold separately, generating revenue. 3) Tying into that, offering different tiers for the initial purchase of the DAW to include some or all of those premium plug-ins.

One might say that No Man's Sky has gone the FL Studio route by making all upgrades free, and as far as I can see, that's worked out well for them, even after one of the worst product launches in games history (and good for them!). I believe they are operating on just initial purchases for income, which I guess works because they keep their overheads in check and has been enough over the years. Though they are making their new game, Light No Fire, which is a way to generate new sales as it's likely that new NMS sales have tapered off to a degree and they can't at this point introduce PDLC. It will remain to be seen if they go down the PDLC route for Light No Fire or keep it the same, but if they made it work once, then maybe they can do the same.

The question for Elite Dangerous is whether Frontier could adopt the buy once and get free updates for life model? I think it would be a popular move but ultimately its success relies on either Frontier generating enough money through cosmetics and new sales. That equation is purely down to the financials of it and Frontier's openness to it, if they haven't already looked at it. o7
 
Back
Top Bottom