Thank you for compiling the list, saves me from listening to him. Rep.
Sandro 2.3 Q&A Summary
- Thread starter VR Golgot
- Start date
Yep. Some profit is coming in from Planet Coaster and PS4 Elite (soon) but is going to secret franchise #3 for 2018. So what this really means is FDev are simply not investing in developing Elite beyond these limited efforts that we see with the 2.x releases. Frankly, 2.3 being 8+ months late still looks totally rushed and incomplete, and delivers only bare minimums once again. Yet this release once again revolves around mainly modifying existing stuff (aside from the character creator which adds nothing to gameplay).
Cut'n'paste seems to be the style for Elite:
- CQC copied over to SLF + Wings = Multicrew (SLF)
- Dev cam copied over to new cinema-camera-thing + polish = Multicrew sole role (gunner)
Back OT: Sandro's Q&A replies should be alarming to the faithful as he's basically saying "no" to pretty much everything people are asking for! Yeah, there's that 10 year plan in action with so many "maybe's", "not sure's", "don't know's", "let's see's", "no's", etc.
Yep....his answers pretty much confirm to me that he's basically got no idea where the game is headed. One of the worst Q and A's I've seen for any game in terms of instilling any excitement in the paying customers for what is to come.
More power indeed. One pip.
Both clearly not low effort 'copy and paste'. IE:
- Altered flight mechanics, added fighter model, launch & docking mechanic from moving ship, voiced AI and related UI interface. Taken together this is not a low tier effort.
- The Gunner role is clearly more dev work than 'debug cam + polish'. It's got an intelligent viewing mode which keeps target and host ship in sight while still maintaining clear sight lines, plus the various UI to make it legible and interactible etc. Discounting additions and increased functionality as 'polish' is also just daft.
There's plenty to gripe about re ED's arc. Making up imaginary gripes is a ridiculous pastime.
Last edited:
@OP
Thanks a lot!
Thanks a lot!
You make it sound like 2.3 was the only patch that was delayed.
I'm actually much more excited about commander creator than I am about multiplayer. It will be nice to have everybody be "real people" instead of just text names.
I'm truly disappointed to hear of no multicrew in SC. That would have been a great player-as-passenger view feature as well as optionally joining a multicrew from the same station without holo-me. Well, they want to see how it goes, so it still seems like it's a testing phase even after beta. Hopefully they get rid of holo-me once they do have spacelegs like five years from now along with NPC crew on the gunner and nav stations. And insta-travel would involve paying a passenger fee on some transport. So some staggered time passing roleplay to account for insta-travel.
Last edited:
This statement, even when not taken out of context, could be interpreted in different ways.
Is this the personal opinion of Brett C, or the official stance of Frontier Developments PLC?
I think the galaxy is big enough for me and a couple multiboxers. It isn't a problem in wow, it won't be in elite
Thanks for going to the effort of transcribing the Q&A for us.
To me this reads like "As long as we get more money, who cares?", really not a fan of this attitude...
On the bright side it nicely torpedoes any previous arguments against player to player trading, as multicrew is a much more effective and harder to detect avenue for gold sellers. £5 to sit in my Corvette for a few hours while I grind a res please and thanks!
To me this reads like "As long as we get more money, who cares?", really not a fan of this attitude...
On the bright side it nicely torpedoes any previous arguments against player to player trading, as multicrew is a much more effective and harder to detect avenue for gold sellers. £5 to sit in my Corvette for a few hours while I grind a res please and thanks!
yeah that stuck out like a sore thumb. I don't like the fact FD is cool with it.
the thing is, how are you going to stop people from multiboxing?
if works a solution is 1 copy per ip..but then u have other problems u dont know if other ppl on that ip play the game lol
As another poster says just above, it smacks of "As long as we get the cash, who cares what goes on?". I'd go on, but someone would accuse me of employing the 'slippery slope' fallacy. (Though it's only a 'slippery slope' if you say that some thing *will* happen, rather than it *might*...
)Anyway the solution is simple - no extra pip.
- - - Updated - - -
Dunno. But you've made me sad now. Again.
Last edited:
Thanks for your great job ! Commander. +1
That's an interesting point. I had already thought about how easy it would be to boost new accounts with it (not necessarily a bad thing, just a consideration), but gold sellers getting in on it never occurred to me.
Just making it clear that it was against the rules would stop a lot of people from doing it. Beyond that, it should be fairly easy to notice a ship which is always multicrewed by the same accounts but has no turrets for the gunner to use and a fighter pilot who never actually flies a fighter.
Last edited:
10 year development plan, man, they will stretch the poor classic for the years to come! ;-)