[O.A. VIDEO] Does Elite Dangerous Have a Content Problem?

[NeilF]

On the whole, it does not matter what you or I consider a "waste of development effort".

You have just made more verbose regurgitation of the previous complaint. Nothing new, and besides the points I made back in post #473.

I think the complaints about depth of gameplay (or lack there of) are highly exaggerated and typical of those with unrealistic expectations from game developers in general.

The purpose of multi-crew and squadrons seems to be similar to that of wings - to help better facilitate co-operative gameplay - Nothing more. There is nothing wrong with that approach.

As for CQC - it was clearly designed for those with a hankering for e-Sports type PvP gameplay. There is nothing wrong with that either, though personally I have little interest in it - or any other form of PvP.

We (still) need to disagree...

"complaints about depth of gameplay (or lack there of) are highly exaggerated" - Why is it in a 2018 space game I cannot even undertake basic tactical combat scenarios? For example like a simple convoy escort mission through an asteroid field, ideally with a bunch of friends in a Wing, or some NPCs I can give basic commands to (as per FD's own design document at Kickstart!)

"The purpose of multi-crew and squadrons seems to be similar to that of wings - to help better facilitate co-operative gameplay - Nothing more. There is nothing wrong with that approach." - Nothing wrong? Mutlicrew has been a huge wasted effort for most of the community because of the lack of investment in core gameplay depth. I can only imagine what development time could have achieved elsewhere, and how that could have benefitted most of the community. Ort what Multicrew could have offered had FD had deeper mechanics elsewhere to leverage for it. See here - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...-now-coming-back-to-bite-ED-in-the-boosters!?

"As for CQC - it was clearly designed for those with a hankering for e-Sports type PvP gameplay. There is nothing wrong with that either" - There's nothing wrong with a design choice to develop a stand alone title which is of little/no interest to most of the community, while that development effort could have instead moved the core gameplay forwards? eg: Imagine if CQC had put fighter bases gameplay into the core game we could be holo-me'ing to Capital ships to fight off Thargoid scouts now...


Ultimately, we clearly disagree on the quality/nature of what FD are developing. eg: You see "nothing wrong" with Multicrew, where as I see it as a poor allocation of development time and it underlining what happens when there's a lack of investment into core gameplay. And this lack of investment is causing issues across the game now. From standard mission depth, to the Thargoid invasion and soon no doubt Squadrons/Fleet Carriers...


As I said before, by all means comment on a more specific example of how layers of investment in core gameplay can feed off each other, instead of FDs approach of all too often just bolting on dead gameplay which soon collects dust (eg: Generation Ships) - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...l-generation?p=6649287&viewfull=1#post6649287

And by all means see what sort of gameplay I'd envisage Squadrons and Carriers offering. But of course with no core improvement be really attempted by FD, is it suprising all they're discussing being offered by Squadrons risks being organising groups to go to a RES or CG. This AFTER FOUR YEARS! - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ron-quot-Role-quot-and-more-involved-gameplay

 

[Ralph Vargr]

You can dream, but unless you're a game designer at Frontier working on ED, it's just a wishlist..... so if you're expecting your own personal dream to become reality, I would suggest you are likely to be disapointed. But that's nothing to do with FD per se, and more about your own personal expectation management.

(Note that I agree with you, and those are sound ideas. Just that they are currently just that.)

You would actually need to purchase a controlling share in the company, and I have better uses for my money.

 

[lenna]

"complaints about depth of gameplay (or lack there of) are highly exaggerated" - Why is it in a 2018 space game I cannot even undertake basic tactical combat scenarios? For example like a simple convoy escort mission through an asteroid field, ideally with a bunch of friends in a Wing, or some NPCs I can give basic commands to

WRT the basic tactical scenarios - they are there to at least some degree with emergent co-operative gameplay. Where convoy escort missions are concerned, they do not really add much in the way of depth IMO but you can engage in such things with the Wing missions and normal trading/mining with the option of wing escorts. We also have POIs that present basic tactical scenarios like defending a trade ship or convoy that is under attack. The only downside to such scenarios is that currently they lack rewards or recognition beyond bounties for any kills. I have no doubts that such things will improve with time BUT I disagree with the significance of them.

As for ordering NPCs around, we have SLFs which can effectively fly escort for us. However, if you were expecting to be able to own and control a wing or fleet of ships then you were not after an Elite game IMO.

Four years is nothing in the grand scheme of things where software development is concerned especially in the case of a product like ED and we can be pretty sure what they have delivered to date are not the only things FD have been working on for the ED product. FD have delivered a lot in that time, and while you or I may not like some of the features our PERSONAL viewpoints are far from universally applicable.

At least some of the features implemented in the past four years seem to have been logical steps towards (or allow proof/testing of) other features. CQC led to the SLFs, Multi-Crew led to CMDR Avatars which is arguably a necessary step on the road to space legs.

Where the Thargoids and combat are concerned, the multi-crew aspect could be reasonably combined with turreted experimental AX/Guardian weapons (manned by multi-crew) and AX SLFs (also manned by multi-crew) if people chose to do so. That is a tactical combat scenario that is not outside of reasonable realms.

Overall, I am not trying to change your perspective per se nor am I seeking alignment with my viewpoint BUT I believe you should recognise that your particular perspective is not the only one and FD are not writing the game specifically for your or I but for a much wider audience with a wide variety of differing (and in some cases diametrically opposed) perspectives. FD will develop ED as they want to in the end, and while some small concessions may be made to some subsets of the intended audience, FD (or any other developer for that matter) would be foolish to give in too much to any given sub-group.

 

[NeilF]

CQC led to the SLFs

CQC led to a dust collecting stand alone development. If it had been implemented in the core game we could have had actual missions in the core game with wings of us flying fighters. Right now we could have been undertaking mission for example with a Wing of friend:-

• from a capital ship where a Wing of you could have been attempting to protect a location from Thargoid Scouts.
• undertaking general missions in fighters to protect/destroy an asset.
• undertaking Tasks in Powerplay
• ...and indeed even being leverage for actual PvP orchestration, such as in Powerplay.

But no, we have CQC, which is a nigh on pointless dust collector for most of the community.

Multi-Crew led to CMDR Avatars which is arguably a necessary step on the road to space legs.

And since its creation it's basically been a dust collector for most of the community and more importantly is now a constant rod in FDs back where any/all developments moving forwards need to have additional effort spent on them to drag this dust collector forwards with them to maintain compatability.




Basically, can you tell me why in a space combat game in 2018, FOUR YEARS since release, I cannot Wing up with some friends, and undertake a combat scenario with any modicum of depth and purpose? Can you tell me why FD have chosen to develop so many dust collectors instead of moving gameplay depth forwards when clearly it could be leveraged for missions, Powerplay tasks, Thargoid invasions and Squardons/Fleet Carriers? Can you tell me why I can't even have a Wing of NPC ships to offer some more tactic depth to a combat scenario who I can give basic commands (such as attack this, defend that) just as was described in FD's own development documentation?

FD are failing to add depth and more involved gameplay mechanics, development after development, year after year, and it's having more and more of a negative impact on the game. Not sure if I've mentioned this, but by all means comment on a more specific example of how layers of investment in core gameplay can feed off each other, instead of FDs approach of all too often just bolting on dead gameplay which soon collects dust (eg: Generation Ships) - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...l-generation?p=6649287&viewfull=1#post6649287

And here's a more specific post I made last year highlighting this lack of investment and its cost to the game - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...o-bite-ED-in-the-boosters!?highlight=boosters


Ultimately nothing you can say can change my mind on this. This issue has been brewing for years... eg: Prior to the Thargoid invasion I was asking why isn't FD investing in more involved gameplay to make the most of this one time event? And now it's arrived and its basically flat and dull. ie: If CQC had been implemented as fighters in the core game, not only would we have had fighter based missions, fighter based tasks in Powerplay, but right now we could have been holo-me'ing into fighters at a capital ship to fight Thargoid Scouts....

Anyway, we're not going to agree... Clearly you believe the last 3yrs of development choices have been wise and fruitful, where as I disagree... Clearly you think the game is in a heathly place, where as I disagree.



PS: As if to further set the scene of the lack of progression/depth. When asteroid bases were announced, I sent the following email to some of my friend, most of who at the time had already got bored of the game due to its lack of progress:-

These are the hub of all the new piracy mechanics where you can build up a piracy reputation and in turn gain access to these hidden nefarious location. You can then obtain new challenging piracy based missions and access to more rewarding black markets etc.

Oh! I misread the release notes... They're just like normal stations...

 

[Soon(TM)]

CQC led to a dust collecting stand alone development. If it had been implemented in the core game we could have had actual missions in the core game with wings of us flying fighters. Right now we could have been undertaking mission for example with a Wing of friend:-

• from a capital ship where a Wing of you could have been attempting to protect a location from Thargoid Scouts.
• undertaking general missions in fighters to protect/destroy an asset.
• undertaking Tasks in Powerplay
• ...and indeed even being leverage for actual PvP orchestration, such as in Powerplay.

But no, we have CQC, which is a nigh on pointless dust collector for most of the community.

And since its creation it's basically been a dust collector for most of the community and more importantly is now a constant rod in FDs back where any/all developments moving forwards need to have additional effort spent on them to drag this dust collector forwards with them to maintain compatability.




Basically, can you tell me why in a space combat game in 2018, FOUR YEARS since release, I cannot Wing up with some friends, and undertake a combat scenario with any modicum of depth and purpose? Can you tell me why FD have chosen to develop so many dust collectors instead of moving gameplay depth forwards when clearly it could be leveraged for missions, Powerplay tasks, Thargoid invasions and Squardons/Fleet Carriers?

FD are failing to add depth and more involved gameplay mechanics, development after development, year after year, and it's having more and more of a negative impact on the game. Not sure if I've mentioned this, but by all means comment on a more specific example of how layers of investment in core gameplay can feed off each other, instead of FDs approach of all too often just bolting on dead gameplay which soon collects dust (eg: Generation Ships) - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...l-generation?p=6649287&viewfull=1#post6649287

And here's a more specific post I made last year highlighting this lack of investment and its cost to the game - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...o-bite-ED-in-the-boosters!?highlight=boosters


Ultimately nothing you can say can change my mind on this. This issue has been brewing for years... eg: Prior to the Thargoid invasion I was asking why isn't FD investing in more involved gameplay to make the most of this one time event? And now it's arrived and its basically a flat and dull. ie: If CQC had been implemented as fighers in the core game, not only would we have had fighter based missions, fighter based tasks in Powerplay, but right now we could have been holo-me'ing into fighters at a capital ship to fight Thargoid Scouts....

Anyway, we're not going to agree... Clearly you believe the last 3yrs of development choices have been wise and fruitful, where as I disagree... Clearly you think the game is in a heathly place, where as I disagree.

I have to agree with NeilF, anyone that has their eyes open can clearly see that almost all additions to the game since 1.0 have been just bolt on fluff that adds nothing to core gameplay or immersion.

I've said it for ages, I don't think it's possible to re work the base mechanics of the game without either re writing most of the code or breaking everything else.

It's almost like it's hard coded and can't be changed without huge expense, so all they can do is stick stuff on top as best as possible.

 

[NeilF]

I have to agree with NeilF, anyone that has their eyes open can clearly see that almost all additions to the game since 1.0 have been just bolt on fluff that adds nothing to core gameplay or immersion.

I've said it for ages, I don't think it's possible to re work the base mechanics of the game without either re writing most of the code or breaking everything else.

It's almost like it's hard coded and can't be changed without huge expense, so all they can do is stick stuff on top as best as possible.

Thank you...

Personally I think there's either not the will or just not the appropriate size development team to do it.

If you consider just the most simple example of a missions to escort a convoy of ships from A to B for example through a asteroid field, I cannot see how this it particularly difficult to implement. Now add on the ability for a mission to provide you with a Wing of NPCs (eg: a pair of Vipers) which you can give basic commands to (and this is document in FDs own design notes), again I can't see this being difficult!?

Infact, this was all possible 20+ years ago in games...

I just think there's some bizarre design choices being made by someone/some people, and/or the development team is a lot small than the 100+ we're led to believe so they quite literally have to do art heavy/code light bolt on features.

I'd love to have been in some of the design meetings to find out the reason for three years of very odd design choices and why there seems to have been litte/no ethos to deepen the game.

 

[lenna]

...

Again, you seemingly failed to read my entire post and repeat the same tired complaints of your previous two points... for your benefit and the sake of my sanity I will quote the final part of my previous post.

Overall, I am not trying to change your perspective per se nor am I seeking alignment with my viewpoint BUT I believe you should recognise that your particular perspective is not the only one and FD are not writing the game specifically for your or I but for a much wider audience with a wide variety of differing (and in some cases diametrically opposed) perspectives. FD will develop ED as they want to in the end, and while some small concessions may be made to some subsets of the intended audience, FD (or any other developer for that matter) would be foolish to give in too much to any given sub-group.

 

[avow555]

Of my original 30 friends on Elite there are zero playing now.

What's the common theme amongst them?

Shallow unwanted content with a terribly slow development pace.

On a personal note, my first Earth like world is about 15 jumps from Shinrarta. I discovered it 3+ years ago and I still haven't been able to land on it.
That for me is unacceptable considering all the weak content we have had to endure.

 

[DefiledDragon]

Four years is nothing in the grand scheme of things where software development is concerned especially in the case of a product like ED and we can be pretty sure what they have delivered to date are not the only things FD have been working on for the ED product. FD have delivered a lot in that time, and while you or I may not like some of the features our PERSONAL viewpoints are far from universally applicable.

Where do you get this "four years" from? The game was in development back in 2012, which is six years ago, not four and development likely started before that date. A pre release version was available to backers in 2013. Five years ago. You are so full of . I understand you want to get your point across, but you're just outright lying at this point. Stop trolling threads you don't like dude. Just stop.

 

[zimms]

Of my original 30 friends on Elite there are zero playing now.

No carrier for you then.

 

[lenna]

....

The FOUR years metric came direct from the poster who was complaining about lack of progress, I would recommend you read the post I was responding to.

Even six years, is not a lot of time for a product of ED's apparent size and complexity.

 

[NeilF]

Again, you seemingly failed to read my entire post

No you suggested repeatedly many features were worthwhile developments with the game. I (once again) pointed out why I feel quite the contrary to this, even specifically stating example of alternative developments so as not to be vague on the matter.

FD will develop ED as they want to in the end, and while some small concessions may be made to some subsets of the intended audience

Possibly, but this doesn't explain why so much content is vapid dead end shallow bolt ons? And why, unlike the impression they gave at Kickstarter (of some fairly deep and involved gameplay), instead of taking repeated chances of investing in more involved and interesting gameplay, we get fairly pointless bolt ons...

And as I pointed out, this is even more odd when the clear ramification of not having more involved gameplay and assets to utilise means things like Multi-Crew is nigh on pointless, and the Thargoid Invasion they had years to prepare for has nigh no gameplay mechanics to utilise to make it of any interest.

Again, if you think FD have chosen their developments wisely over the past 3-4yrs fine... I'm very much of the other opinion, and I quite frankly think they basically missed a huge opportunity, and I can only imagine where the game could have been now had alternative development choices been made.


Note: I'll once again link to a list of suggestion I made. I'm happy for anyone to look at those example, pick fault with them, and suggest how the game is instead in a healthier place with CQC, Multicrew, coloured lasers, Generation Ships, Thargoid Bases, Megaship "gameplay" offering the levels of ingame depth and connectivity they do - https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...l-generation?p=6649287&viewfull=1#post6649287


ps: As I also said, let's agree to disagree!

 

[lenna]

No you suggested repeatedly many features were worthwhile developments with the game.

If that is your take away then you have repeatedly missed my point...

But rather than continue in this endless loop, let me make my position even clearer.

Whether you or I personally feel any given feature/update that has been delivered since release has value is moot, FD have a lot of ideas they have said they would like to deliver as part of the ED product but it is obvious to me that those ideas will take time to deliver on. For a product of the proposed size and complexity of ED (in terms of current product and the entire alleged proposed wish list), even a 10-15 year total development time scale is pretty ambitious and perhaps unrealistically short - especially considering it is a live product that needs to be supported as the product evolves which naturally will make the job more awkward and take longer. FD are right to take things slowly and carefully, however much some may repeatedly complain about the pace of delivery.

Now how far are they along the elements of the wish-list that are practical to do given various considerations is a bit of an unknown. Atmospheric planets and Spacelegs are the two main features (in that order) that I am personally waiting for but I realise that such things are probably going to take a while for FD to declare them ready to deliver to us.

I do not think FD are fault free by any stretch of the imagination, but it is clear to me that there are a number of extremely vocal complainers that are either impatient or simply have little or no idea about how real-world software development works when the job is done properly.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

If that is your take away then you have repeatedly missed my point...

But rather than continue in this endless loop, let me make my position even clearer.

Whether you or I personally feel any given feature/update that has been delivered since release has value is moot, FD have a lot of ideas they have said they would like to deliver as part of the ED product but it is obvious to me that those ideas will take time to deliver on. For a product of the proposed size and complexity of ED (in terms of current product and the entire alleged proposed wish list), even a 10-15 year total development time scale is pretty ambitious and perhaps unrealistically short - especially considering it is a live product that needs to be supported as the product evolves which naturally will make the job more awkward and take longer. FD are right to take things slowly and carefully, however much some may repeatedly complain about the pace of delivery.

Now how far are they along the elements of the wish-list that are practical to do given various considerations is a bit of an unknown. Atmospheric planets and Spacelegs are the two main features (in that order) that I am personally waiting for but I realise that such things are probably going to take a while for FD to declare them ready to deliver to us.

I do not think FD are fault free by any stretch of the imagination, but it is clear to me that there are a number of extremely vocal complainers that are either impatient or simply have little or no idea about how real-world software development works when the job is done properly.

I agree. Bethesda's Starfield game has been in development for over 10 years, but I see no complaints about the speed of development of that game and it still isn't even released yet.

 

[DocPossible]

The thing is, by the time all this amazing stuff is developed and in the game, there will be no-one left to play it... I've introduced half a dozen people to the game and discovered a similar number of friends from other games also playing it. There's only 1 left that still plays and even he's on an extended break right now.

It's not clear to me that the development that's occurred since Horizons bodes well for what's coming over the next 4 years. It does seem like there are limits on what can be done with the game engine and current codeset and we've already seen that unintended bugs do seem to pop up in funny areas when changes are made - missions really being the most common bugbear.

 

[lenna]

The thing is, by the time all this amazing stuff is developed and in the game, there will be no-one left to play it... I've introduced half a dozen people to the game and discovered a similar number of friends from other games also playing it. There's only 1 left that still plays and even he's on an extended break right now.

It's not clear to me that the development that's occurred since Horizons bodes well for what's coming over the next 4 years. It does seem like there are limits on what can be done with the game engine and current codeset and we've already seen that unintended bugs do seem to pop up in funny areas when changes are made - missions really being the most common bugbear.

I think the key problem is individual expectations, and how individuals promote ED.

If they push it as a space based PvP game, then people will be disappointed.

If they push it as a space based RPG, then people will be disappointed.

If they push it as a space trading game, then again people will be disappointed.

...

ED is both all of the above (and more) and none of the above (in a focused sense). More accurately ED is a hybrid title with a balance of features and there in lies the rub. As soon as someone applies a specific gaming tag to any given game there are some implicit expectations that a lot of people these days will assign to the given game, and this is where the problems start due to a failure in a user managing their expectations appropriately.

Where the game engine itself is concerned, I have little doubt that it is capable of what FD seemingly want to do with it.

 

[NeilF]

If that is your take away then you have repeatedly missed my point...

But rather than continue in this endless loop, let me make my position even clearer.

Whether you or I personally feel any given feature/update that has been delivered since release has value is moot, FD have a lot of ideas they have said they would like to deliver as part of the ED product but it is obvious to me that those ideas will take time to deliver on. For a product of the proposed size and complexity of ED (in terms of current product and the entire alleged proposed wish list), even a 10-15 year total development time scale is pretty ambitious and perhaps unrealistically short - especially considering it is a live product that needs to be supported as the product evolves which naturally will make the job more awkward and take longer. FD are right to take things slowly and carefully, however much some may repeatedly complain about the pace of delivery.

Now how far are they along the elements of the wish-list that are practical to do given various considerations is a bit of an unknown. Atmospheric planets and Spacelegs are the two main features (in that order) that I am personally waiting for but I realise that such things are probably going to take a while for FD to declare them ready to deliver to us.

I do not think FD are fault free by any stretch of the imagination, but it is clear to me that there are a number of extremely vocal complainers that are either impatient or simply have little or no idea about how real-world software development works when the job is done properly.

You declare ED as complex... Yet the complexity really hasn't progressed much in 4 years of 100+ people working on it, because so much of what's being developed is fairly simple bolt ons.

BTW - We disagree about if ED is in a good place now, and as to the quality of the development choices taking place. We'll need to just leave it as that!

...but it is clear to me that there are a number of extremely vocal complainers that are either impatient or simply have little or no idea about how real-world software development works when the job is done properly.

I do hope that's not trying to point a finger at me? If it is?:-

"Impatient?" - I'm still here four years on, even when I'm not playing, still desperately trying to get FD to push this game forwards. And yes, you can carry on the mantra that it's their game, and that you somehow think Multicrew, Generation Ships and Thargoid are examples good developments... But I don't...

"little or no idea about real-world software development?" - I've been in software development for 35 years. All the way from hand assembled machine code games and synthesisers, to orbital/planetary models, to enterprise scale business solutions. I don't pretend to know all of what FD is facing. Or indeed anything accurate about what they're facing. But I know I can apply a fairly reasoned, logical and founded throught process to it.

BTW - We disagree about if ED is in a good place now, and as to the quality of the development choices taking place. We'll need to just leave it as that!

 

[NeilF]

I think the key problem is individual expectations, and how individuals promote ED.

If they push it as a space based PvP game, then people will be disappointed.

If they push it as a space based RPG, then people will be disappointed.

If they push it as a space trading game, then again people will be disappointed..

All I can say is, if they instead push Generation Ships with 1hr of interest, Multicrew with limp gameplay content, Thargoid invasions which most people aren't interested in due to lack of core gameplay imrpovements (even though they had 3 years get their dominos lines up), that outcome really really doesn't sound better! And I can vouch people are disappointed!


The problem is, over the past three years, they hardly pushed anything. Instead they've just bolted on fairly vapid additions and re-used the same placeholder gameplay over and over. As an example... When Powerplay was announced I expected to see some new gameplay allowing far more complex military actions to take place, and far more interesting combat scenarios, possibly even offering orchestrated PvP. Instead Powerplay was a bolt on board game which basically re-used existing placeholder assets.

But I put it down at the time as just one of those things. But unfortunately that's been basically the entire ethos for years! eg: How do we repair stations damaged by Thargoids? Do we utilise the lovely new salvage physics based mechanics introduced to pull/push/cut debri around stations, clearing unwanted assets, and pulling vital ones back into position? Or do we instead re-use (again) carry X to Y, repeat?

And now, approaching four years on? We're getting Squadrons! And the use FD have thus far given of what lovely deep and involved gameplay we'll be able to now take part in four years after release? Organising Squadrons to go to RES or CGs...

This may not appear to be a problem to you. You may not look at the game and think why has it progressed so little in four years. We disagree !

 

[Mole HD]

All I can say is, if they instead push Generation Ships with 1hr of interest, Multicrew with limp gameplay content, Thargoid invasions which most people aren't interested in due to lack of core gameplay imrpovements (even though they had 3 years get their dominos lines up), that outcome really really doesn't sound better!


The problem is, over the past three years, they hardly pushed anything. Instead they've just bolted on fairly vapid additions and re-used the same placeholder gameplay over and over. As an example... When Powerplay was announced I expected to see some new gameplay allowing far more complex military actions to take place, and far more interesting combat scenarios, possibly even offering orchestrated PvP. Instead Powerplay was a bold on board game which basically re-used existing placehold assets.

And now, approaching four years on? We're getting Squadrons! And the use FD have thus far given of what lovely deep and involved gameplay we'll be able to now take part in four years after release? Organising Squadrons to go to RES or CGs...

It seems, to my mind, that FDev are determined to turn the base game into a galactic version of CQC...

 

[NeilF]

It seems, to my mind, that FDev are determined to turn the base game into a galactic version of CQC...

It's going to be fascinating to see what Fleet Carriers bring.


Worse Case - Carrying on the past X years
You can upgrade your FC, and make it perform actions such as jumping, by performing mini-CGs, all utilising the same gameplay assets as currently.

Better Case - A sign FD are finally moving the game forwards
FCs actually tie into game mechanics to broaden and affect them.

Now I won't get into scenarios of where I truly think the game should be at by now, like opposing Powerplay Squadrons being able to assign their FCs to the same task and thus kick of orchestrated PvP with the game orchestrating a Wing of fighters from each FC being launched and the CMDRs fighting to the death - I think we're long passed ever hoping to have gameplay like that, even though I'd argue it's entirely achievable and should be expected from a game like ED in 2018!

So I'll stick to simple suggestions that at least FCs bind into the new enhanced mining improvements. eg: You can use them to make a claim on a mining location (in a ring, or even on a surface if surface mining is added?) can play a part in storing what you've mined, or even, if you wish to, selling it with your FC in effect becoming a temporary trade post at least to NPCs?




So in a few weeks, lets see what FD have planned for FCs. Simple bolt on gameplay... OR finally some deeper joined up gameplay mechanics...