Repeat the same Guardian unlock 18 times? Really?

Can someone please clean this thread up and remove the petty squabbling? It does nothing but derails the thread and hinders any effort to progress the core issue of design decisions being fundamentally broken.

Unfortunately, it's every thread ever. Also, come Christmas....I hope in addition to a change of approach to the Game Design, there's also a change in ideology over how FD manage the "message" on these boards.

It feels the same as when we have "debates" over the availability of parking spaces on my street.

ED design feels very public sector at the moment, almost as if the Product Owner is totally absent from the morning stand ups.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately, it's every thread ever. Also, come Christmas....I hope in addition to a change of approach to the Game Design, there's also a change in ideology over how FD manage the "message" on these boards.

It feels the same as when we have "debates" over the availability of parking spaces on my street.

ED design feels very public sector at the moment, almost as if the Product Owner is totally absent from the morning stand ups.

Very much on auto-pilot, occasionally you'll get a one liner from a member of the (admittedly barebones) community team, but more often than not, FDs eyes are averted because quite frankly, who would want to make eye contact and actually admit that there's an issue here..
 
Instead you'd force them to successfully execute a kill on a Thargoid Cyclops that not everyone is up to the task to complete? For my part, I'm no slouch against NPC content but I'm nowhere near the stage of taking on a Cyclops and winning, let alone with >70% hull left. Your suggestion would introduce exclusivity where there should be none - ie only those able to or inclined to take on a Cyclops could even hope to get the Guardian Gauss Cannon. At least the current mechanism is one everyone can hope to achieve, if they're prepared to travel to the sites concerned and prepared to put up with the grind. Granted, the grind is a little too much, and either there should be more blueprints given each time or fewer needed to get the weapons/modules. But no thanks to locking it behind having to destroy something like a Cyclops thanks.

Right, it was just an example of what I consider to be engaging content/mechanics. Probably not the best example but I just wanted to show the contrast between what we have now and something that I consider not mind numbing. Certainly I wasn't expecting FD to get up tomorrow and put that into the game.
Also I had the impression that Gauss Cannons are only effective (and made sense) against Thargoids? If that's the case, why would anyone want this weapon if not to fight against them?
And you don't have to get one right away, since there are AX MCs that you can start with. Those MCs will ease you in.
As a matter of fact that was my natural progression in game.
Also Gauss start to be a necessity for anything bigger than a Cyclops. That's when you usually start feeling the need for a better weapon.
And I think Gauss is fixed only, I might be wrong on this, but if that's the case, that's another reason why you would only go after it once you have already enjoyed a bit of Thargoid content and are ready to take it to the next level, you know? Aegis weaponry come in turret/gimballed variety, which makes it a bit easier and the preferred choice for Thargoid beginners.
 
Last edited:
Very much on auto-pilot, occasionally you'll get a one liner from a member of the (admittedly barebones) community team, but more often than not, FDs eyes are averted because quite frankly, who would want to make eye contact and actually admit that there's an issue here..


Chuckle. Just like every Grade 5, Civil Servant I know.
 
Here is the thing though, and it's what Sandro gets wrong every time: PP and CQC aren't popular BECAUSE they have been implemented so terribly. It's not that people don't want to do them both, they just don't want to play them as the broken messes they are now.

If Frontier bothered to fix and improve them both then they would get used. Same with Multicrew. And now wing missions to a degree. And now Tech Brokers.

A lot of us did raise the issues during the beta, loudly, over and over and over again. We begged and pleaded with Sandro to not put the new grade grind into place because it only served to undo the positives which the rest of the (very good) engineering changes did. He didn’t agree, and now we have a new engineering system which is both better yet more time consuming at the same time.

With the Guardian stuff though we didn’t get to test it as thoroughly during the beta, we had no idea just how grindy it was going to be. The final product does fit in with Sandro’s design philosophy though, which is time consuming grind walls.

Believe me though, we tried very hard. We even did time studies and created spreadsheets and flow charts, we were just met with resistance or silence at every turn.

I’d love to see this design philosophy of grindwalls change at Frontier, but I fear that after all this time it just isn’t going to happen. Frontier has their preferred way of implementing content, and contrary to what they say in public it is very often NOT to respect how valuable the player’s time is. Just look at the new wing missions, they could have easily been balanced to be attractive for both solo and wing players, but Frontier didn’t want that, they only created them for one subset of players, not everyone. Much of Frontier’s content is created with a narrow vision like this instead of taking the whole game into consideration, and it’s why Elite feels like so many separate features bolted beside each other. There isn’t a grand vision, just a lot of individual unconnected things fastened to the same core.

The only unified vision in Elite is that it needs to feel grindy and waste a lot of the players time. Scanning objects could be faster, transferring ships could take less time, Power Play could be less of a second job, Engineering could be less of a grind, Tech Broker unlocks could be SOOOOO much more reasonable, synthesis could not have been changed to make you sit and watch a progress bar for half a minute first. There are just so many time wasting aspects to the game that literally half or more of everyone’s total playtime is spent waiting for something to happen, NOT actually playing the game.

I just wish it wasn’t so. I’d rather the game be engaging and fun than passive and frustrating. I’d love to be so included while playing the game that I didn’t need NetFlix to make it bearable. That’s my greatest wish for the Q4 Exploration changes: that it makes exploration so engaging and fun and engrossing that I’ll no longer need NetFlix to tolerate it. Note that this does NOT mean grindy and time consuming!!!!!!

Apparently we all know what the problem is with the game. I just do not understand why FD does not take "actions" and "changes" to fix this.
 
Apparently we all know what the problem is with the game. I just do not understand why FD does not take "actions" and "changes" to fix this.

RNG is cheap and scalable. Quality content is time consuming and expensive. The grindwall philosophy is there for economic reasons IMHO.

And its too bad. Just compare the player response to the UA mystery (a quality dev effort with zero material reward, yet very well received) to the gaurdian tech grindwall (a low dev effort with significant material rewards, yet poorly received).
 
Unless I am completely mistaken, it's actually random as to whether you will get a weapon blueprint or a module blueprint on completion.

I believe it depends on the site layout. I did SYNUEFE EU-Q C21-10 and got a weapon blueprit every single time (except when I forgot to relog, because let's leave that mechanic in place said Frontier). haven't seen any module BPs at all at that site.
 
Imo, FD doesn't care about ED, now they have dinosaurs and roller-coasters to play with.

Clearly, ED is now - as others have correctly said - in maintenance mode. They have given themselves a year to 'flesh out' existing 'game play', so do not have to code anything new.

Well, it was good while it lasted.

RIP ED.
 
Imo, FD doesn't care about ED, now they have dinosaurs and roller-coasters to play with.

Clearly, ED is now - as others have correctly said - in maintenance mode. They have given themselves a year to 'flesh out' existing 'game play', so do not have to code anything new.

Well, it was good while it lasted.

RIP ED.
That doesn't seem to compute. Ie: Why develop a DLC (for Q4) then?
 
It seems that FD are now making ED as cheaply as possible. It's maintenance mode, don't know why people can't see this.

The 'highpoint' has come and gone I think and it will just remain rng, strung-out content.
Yeah OK maybe. But if ED is in maintenance mode NOW, how is it any different from the whole Horizons period, where they were doing everything the same way? Has there *ever* been a period of time where they implemented well thought out non-placeholder features, or built *any* compelling authored content rather than relying on low-rent RNG distractions?

If Elite is in Maintenance Mode, then it's been that way for a long time. Otherwise maybe it's business as usual and that's frustrating for different reasons.
 
I get that Elite has a degree of grind in it, after all that's how you get to Elite. But 18 more times, of the same thing.

Are you trying to say "go forth and play DCS my young padawan".

It's boring and discouraging to force people to redo the same activities dozens of times. It needs variety.
 
Last edited:
Yeah OK maybe. But if ED is in maintenance mode NOW, how is it any different from the whole Horizons period, where they were doing everything the same way? Has there *ever* been a period of time where they implemented well thought out non-placeholder features, or built *any* compelling authored content rather than relying on low-rent RNG distractions?

If Elite is in Maintenance Mode, then it's been that way for a long time. Otherwise maybe it's business as usual and that's frustrating for different reasons.

The last development I actually think raised the bar in any significant way was Planetary Landings... Almost everything added since them has felt like either a simplistic design/development, or worse still, poorly designed/considered.
 
The last development I actually think raised the bar in any significant way was Planetary Landings... Almost everything added since them has felt like either a simplistic design/development, or worse still, poorly designed/considered.
While at the same time Adam (?) worked for over 6 months on the Thargons swarm. On one hand FDev archives to create incredible details (also like HoloMe), while at the same time they fail at game mechanics...well since release basically. This only worked because the community hopes for the next update that will make "everything" better. I kind of lost hope, though, because the initial design decisions on the refresh of Engineers (only one pinnables blueprint, grandfathering unachievable god rolls) and now the deliberate, dull grind of Guarding technology just shows, it is very unlikely to get any better (i.e. less about grind).
 
While at the same time Adam (?) worked for over 6 months on the Thargons swarm. On one hand FDev archives to create incredible details (also like HoloMe), while at the same time they fail at game mechanics...well since release basically. This only worked because the community hopes for the next update that will make "everything" better. I kind of lost hope, though, because the initial design decisions on the refresh of Engineers (only one pinnables blueprint, grandfathering unachievable god rolls) and now the deliberate, dull grind of Guardian technology just shows, it is very unlikely to get any better (i.e. less about grind).

And consider if all the work on the Thargoids, their bases, and the Guardians etc etc had instead gone into making standard combat scenarios and gameplay more involved, varied and challenging?

Or another example. Envisage if CQC had instead been fighter tours of duty implemented within the core game. I'd see that as allowing us to holo-me (via missions or CGs) into interesting combat scenarios, for example against Thargoid scouts attacked convoys, or platforms/stations etc etc.

It seems there just a lack of desire/ability to create involved mechanics and gameplay, ideally layered ontop and feeding off each other. eg: Add convoy defense combat scenarios. Add fighter tours of duty. Allow fighters to escort a convoy of ships through an asteroid field. etc...


What we see with the Thargoids and Multicrew is a significant lack of investment in core gameplay depth/mechanics coming back to bite the game in the boosters. ie: There's precious little been lined up over the past 2-3yrs for the Thargoids invasion or Multicrew to leverage to any interesting effect.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom