What DDF Proposals would you like to see Frontier work on?

Pick Three DDF Proposals You Would Like Frontier To Work On

  • Player To Player Trading

    Votes: 79 21.0%
  • Persistant NPCs

    Votes: 176 46.8%
  • Background Simulation

    Votes: 162 43.1%
  • Ship Naming

    Votes: 116 30.9%
  • Player Logs

    Votes: 72 19.1%
  • Smuggling

    Votes: 79 21.0%
  • Exploring

    Votes: 177 47.1%
  • Passengers

    Votes: 139 37.0%
  • Salvaging

    Votes: 179 47.6%
  • Ship Crews

    Votes: 150 39.9%

  • Total voters
    376
I would have added more DDF proposals, but the ones I haven't added are too similar to what is already in the game, this is pretty much what is left.
I disagree. There are plenty of proposals that have had some love, but fall well short of the DDA proposals. Take wings, for example, as an example of one that is pew-pew oriented, and thus FD have done work on it. But there is an awful lot more that was in the wings proposal than we got, including all the supporting stuff (bulletin boards, financial agreements, ranking, probability of baling out, and so on) for having NPCs in wings. If we as a community are going to try to nail what we want for FD, then I would suggest that you need to ask folks for other things to add to the list. For example, I would still like to see the transponder, since the 'flashing blue light' has certainly encouraged all the behaviours that we expected it would. Now that as a subject certainly split the community, and was one of very few where there were large numbers dead against a compromise (which is what the transponder is) who insisted that their way was the only way.
 
The 'least bad' approach is, I suspect, dependent on the number of options to select from. Perhaps 3 is too many with only 10 options. If there were 20 options, 3 would work pretty well, I suspect
I wanted to do more than the 10 here ... there simply wasn't enough left in the DDF archive not already in the game.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree. There are plenty of proposals that have had some love, but fall well short of the DDA proposals. Take wings, for example, as an example of one that is pew-pew oriented, and thus FD have done work on it. But there is an awful lot more that was in the wings proposal than we got, including all the supporting stuff (bulletin boards, financial agreements, ranking, probability of baling out, and so on) for having NPCs in wings. If we as a community are going to try to nail what we want for FD, then I would suggest that you need to ask folks for other things to add to the list. For example, I would still like to see the transponder, since the 'flashing blue light' has certainly encouraged all the behaviours that we expected it would. Now that as a subject certainly split the community, and was one of very few where there were large numbers dead against a compromise (which is what the transponder is) who insisted that their way was the only way.
No reason we can't do another poll, but let's give this one a chance now it's going. ;)
 
I wanted to do more than the 10 here ... there simply wasn't enough left in the DDF archive not already in the game.

Advertise for more. I bet you get at least 30.

If something as trivial as naming ships gets an entry on the list, I'm sure we can come up with plenty more.
 
Interesting poll - made interesting reading after voting as well.

Salvaging would be a nice addition - and even easier now since we have limpet drones!
Well - we can hope!
 
It's often those 'trivial' things that greatly enhance the game experience!

Oh, I agree. But it is also so trivial to do (actually, given the effort they went through to capture ship names from the backers, it was inexcusable that they did not make it to the game for the first release). I would, personally, not 'waste' a vote on a small feature, just in case FD do look at these polls and act on them to some extent. I don't want there to be an easy excuse to do ship naming instead of one of the bigger ones like exploring, and thus 'freeing up' resources for 'son of powerplay'.
 
I don't want there to be an easy excuse to do ship naming instead of one of the bigger ones like exploring...
Sadly, I think it's too late to rescue exploring.

... the effort they went through to capture ship names from the backers...
I must have missed that - or my frazzled old brain has forgotten it (which is more likely).

- - - Updated - - -

Just to add: when I say 'ship naming' I'd hope that would include a registration number, ship history, etc.
 
I must have missed that - or my frazzled old brain has forgotten it (which is more likely).

I actually just looked at the original Kickstarter Campaign page for a reward level mentioning ship naming, but couldn't find it.

But for some reason this rings a bell... AnnuverScotinExile - please grant us enlightenment!
 
I actually just looked at the original Kickstarter Campaign page for a reward level mentioning ship naming, but couldn't find it.

But for some reason this rings a bell... AnnuverScotinExile - please grant us enlightenment!

The backers application had a field for us to enter our ship names, as there was with our commander names. They then went (or, I believe they went) through a vetting process. I entered by chosen ship name in that field. If you look at one of the (probably multitude of) old threads on 'what have you named your ship', I would expect that you would find people discussing that.
 
Back
Top Bottom