I agree that complaining about that extra pip is a bit ridiculous, but saying "it's not necessary, people should just git gud" is exactly what people would say about pay to win.
I agree that complaining about that extra pip is a bit ridiculous, but saying "it's not necessary, people should just git gud" is exactly what people would say about pay to win.
I agree that complaining about that extra pip is a bit ridiculous, but saying "it's not necessary, people should just git gud" is exactly what people would say about pay to win.
Well I'm not a native speaker, so I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you meant, but an extra pip can be a pretty massive advantage under certain circumstances in competitive PvP.
As for pay to win, I can think of only 2 things in ED resembling something like that - the first one is Horizons itself (well it's quite stupid IMO that the DLC wasn't a mandatory thing, but FD surely had their reasons why they could not make it so, luckily it's dirt cheap now afaik).
The second one is the "engine color white" for the Chieftain, but that's not a very significant thing.
Yes, this is what Frontier said. Remarkable a?
Of course that was back in the days of low expectations, culture of mediocrity, minimally viable product Frontier. There does seem to have been some progress on this front given the changes to engineers, exploration, and mining.
So I am cautiously optimistic that multicrew, powerplay, and other problematic mechanics may be fixed over time.
With the introduction of space legs, multi crew needs to be seemless. Players who are already in your game world or session should just be able to walk aboard your ship with no hassles. Trying to get multi crew working in its current form is a hit and miss and sometimes it doesnt even work.
Using a second account to get an extra pip is an exploit in my book.
That extra pip is bonkers.I agree that complaining about that extra pip is a bit ridiculous, but saying "it's not necessary, people should just git gud" is exactly what people would say about pay to win.
Gitting gud is pay to win as well, only the costs are subjective... for whatever that is worth.
God no, not this again. Whats the point of having 2 Star Treks? Besides, every PVP fight would end up in one big cluster frak without one shot being fired. You can't say the Brits lack a sense of humor, but implementing this in ED would take things beyond monty python's flying circus
Last edited:
I agree Multi Crew needs attention I hope it's on the to do list.
There is an invite to multicrew option for commanders listed in the comms tab - used it last night - IT DIDN'T WORK.
- Ended up just doing a general search for crew and my friend searched for a seat and found me.
Lots of good suggestions given above for how MC can be extended, Wings, use of SRV's , mining SLF's, FSS, Route plotting, Shield Management.
How about remote limpet piloting ?
I'd like to see various selection criteria imposed on crew search such as 'Microphone Required', min/max notoriety acceptable, min/max rank etc.
Rewards - need rebalancing, why are rewards artificially limited by difference between ranks ? this doesn't apply for wings !
There is an invite to multicrew option for commanders listed in the comms tab - used it last night - IT DIDN'T WORK.
- Ended up just doing a general search for crew and my friend searched for a seat and found me.
Lots of good suggestions given above for how MC can be extended, Wings, use of SRV's , mining SLF's, FSS, Route plotting, Shield Management.
How about remote limpet piloting ?
I'd like to see various selection criteria imposed on crew search such as 'Microphone Required', min/max notoriety acceptable, min/max rank etc.
Rewards - need rebalancing, why are rewards artificially limited by difference between ranks ? this doesn't apply for wings !
While I agree with most of this (especially multicrew SRV support, it's ridiculous that you can't have your friends driving your SRVs), multicrew in Solo makes no sense. Solo players have no connection to other players, so shared instancing is impossible. They can go into Open and PG to multicrew, with no danger of ship loss, as their ships disappear when uncrewed (IIRC, I've only ever multicrewed from a station, so I haven't tested what would happen if I multicrewed from a ship in space: I'm assuming you log out of that ship).
Just to Highlight that the Multicrew SRV is not technically possible at the moment, talking to a Dev at Lavecon, it turns out that there is an issue with the engine which stops it from happening. Hopefully when the engine is updated, which we suspect is happening with the 2020 update, then it might be possible.
I suspect what they mean by Multi-crew in solo is to swap the Gunnary station with an Active NPC Crew-Member. I.e. Crew-Member flies the ship while the Player mans the guns. I hope this doesn't happen because it turns the game into Freelancer / 3rd person shooter.
I suspect what they mean by Multi-crew in solo is to swap the Gunnary station with an Active NPC Crew-Member. I.e. Crew-Member flies the ship while the Player mans the guns. I hope this doesn't happen because it turns the game into Freelancer / 3rd person shooter.
I got it in the recent sale and it didn't blow me away - in SP. It's got a couple activities going to have teamwork experience though. I'd say Barotrauma makes for a better team play experience. It's definitely possible to create some meaningful gameplay tasks that go well with cooperation.
I think the major part of why SRV's aren't currently a MC function is because of the fear that players will use it as a loophole or exploit for quickly obtaining mats for engineers without having to put in the time for the "Time-sink" that pretty much everything in this game is meant to be. However my counter argument/solution to this is to handle it one of two ways and add an addition disadvantage to be implemented to scale with the multi crew size.
1: Make all items mats and commodities gathered go only to the commander of the vessel that is hosting the MC (most realistic), this can be done easily if access to the inventory panel is restricted only to the host, or linked to the MC's SRV's temporarily.
or
2: give each independent SRV their own inventory access and let them keep what they find and any commodities they pick up are automatically transferred to cargo of the hose upon boarding the vessel (most viable and easiest to achieve).
The collective disadvantage to either solution so that it still preserves the balance, the time sink, and the difficulty is to reduce the amount of materials picked up by SRV's during multi crew situations. This would scale with the crew size. (1player=3mat (current)) (2players=2mat) (3players=1mat) This would essentially balance the intake of all mats with the first solution but would make the second solution at an extreme disadvantage, so to balance that side out it would work best if all mats were 2 across the board during MC situations.
Personally I think that this would increase the social interactions of players throughout the game as well as increase the ability to keep players interested in doing community oriented interactions within squadrons. Especially when mentoring players that are new to the game and need a hand in figuring out the various types of gameplay and on scene in game interactive tutorials with other real people that can answer questions and give feedback moment by moment.
Just a thought, but I could be wrong.
1: Make all items mats and commodities gathered go only to the commander of the vessel that is hosting the MC (most realistic), this can be done easily if access to the inventory panel is restricted only to the host, or linked to the MC's SRV's temporarily.
or
2: give each independent SRV their own inventory access and let them keep what they find and any commodities they pick up are automatically transferred to cargo of the hose upon boarding the vessel (most viable and easiest to achieve).
The collective disadvantage to either solution so that it still preserves the balance, the time sink, and the difficulty is to reduce the amount of materials picked up by SRV's during multi crew situations. This would scale with the crew size. (1player=3mat (current)) (2players=2mat) (3players=1mat) This would essentially balance the intake of all mats with the first solution but would make the second solution at an extreme disadvantage, so to balance that side out it would work best if all mats were 2 across the board during MC situations.
Personally I think that this would increase the social interactions of players throughout the game as well as increase the ability to keep players interested in doing community oriented interactions within squadrons. Especially when mentoring players that are new to the game and need a hand in figuring out the various types of gameplay and on scene in game interactive tutorials with other real people that can answer questions and give feedback moment by moment.
Just a thought, but I could be wrong.
Hmm...
If you are thinking of a scenario involving Host at Crystalline Shards locations invites MC to come and fill up on rare mats thus short cutting the necessary trip out.... maybe, I can see why this might be considered an exploit, used by Gankers to enable use of premium ammunition more easily. All your really doing is cutting out an hours travel for the MC so why bother restricting it.
The magic MC Energy pip is presumably there to encourage people to use the MC feature why would restricting rewards gained need to be imposed, wouldn't this then be a disincentive ?.
In general I'd be against preventing access to any game play available to the solo commander to MC, any rewards obtained should be the same for both host and crew too.
I was doing MC for the first time last night. Came on board just to watch an attack on a 'goid basilisk but as I was sitting there I thought "wouldn't it be neat if I could work on repairing systems with the AFMU while he concentrated on other tasks". Just a little thing but would be beneficial I think.
I'm afraid to say that it's a purely technical reason with the Cobra Engine. Although you can have a wing with some in SRVs and some in ships, there are restrictions in the engine which won't allow the same thing to be replicated with Multi-Crew. It's similar to having multi-crewed ships in wings. I suspect that the code which handles this would have to be completely refactored in order to get this to work properly (Fingers crossed for 2020).
Rationalised. The word is rationalised.
Refactoring - A disciplined technique for restructuring an existing body of code, altering it's internal structure without changing its external behaviour. Although in this case it would allow the Multi-crew and Wing functionality to work through the same interface.
A good number of threads in suggestions exist for multi-crew. I myself have made one, too.
I still stand by the belief that multicrew needs to be addressed via NPC crew so as to flesh out the feature before establishing what activities warrant player interaction, and which activities do not. Many multi-crew capable ships simply lack any reason to be multicrew and likely will never a reason.
Vulture being a prime example.
I still stand by the belief that multicrew needs to be addressed via NPC crew so as to flesh out the feature before establishing what activities warrant player interaction, and which activities do not. Many multi-crew capable ships simply lack any reason to be multicrew and likely will never a reason.
Vulture being a prime example.