What does the community want? Post your request here

[Rochester]

For FD to effectively roll back the clock several years and implement the concepts they originally proposed, and by their own admission, not impossible to code, only ‘timely’ to invest.

1: NPC crews / management / contacts
2: Gas giant gameplay
2: Exploration to utilise the mechanisms FD initially proposed pre-launch.

 

[EdzUp]

For me one thing: Elite dangerous rewritten using Unreal 5, Cobra does seem to be cutting it these days and then rerelease the game on all targets (PC/XBox/PS5). I know Cobra is FDEV's internal engine but from the forums and the glitches and errors that are still to fix it comes across that fdev dont understand their engine or how it interfaces with other systems which introduces the glitches. Maybe using a new engine which has a proven track record would be a better way forwards and retire the old engine to the scrapheap.

 

[CMDR Carbo]

For me one thing: Elite dangerous rewritten using Unreal 5, Cobra does seem to be cutting it these days and then rerelease the game on all targets (PC/XBox/PS5). I know Cobra is FDEV's internal engine but from the forums and the glitches and errors that are still to fix it comes across that fdev dont understand their engine or how it interfaces with other systems which introduces the glitches. Maybe using a new engine which has a proven track record would be a better way forwards and retire the old engine to the scrapheap.

My take on this is It's possible to write awful code on any engine. I don't want them to start over and produce another game that runs terrible and take another one and a half years to make it run decently. Because I have seen this on Unreal Engine before....

What I want is some commitment from FDEV to the game. Because I think I haven't seen that since 2015.
I don't want to constantly "run" after a game company and bug them to improve their game and fix the bugs. I don't want to jump through hoops to get a bug report accepted on the issue tracker by community voting. I don't have to do that with other multiplayer online games. Or life services games. They usually improve their games on their own.
I'm sick and tired of the "It mostly works... It's good enough... We'll never touch this part of the game ever again. Go draw some dinosauers now" attitude.
I'd like them to have let's say 20 devs that constantly work on the game and improve it.

 

[Ruurka]

One example of "not all players want the same things"....

My bad, however, still I'm thinking about at least limit BGS effect on Private or Solo modes. BGS is a public thing, where everyone can see, do system is worked or not.

Imagine that situation: You're find a place, where you can call home. You're doing missions and do everything, to make this faction expand. Then, two other PC CMDR's decides to work there to opposition in private mode. You're doing everything in Open and you see, that something is wrong. Four days later you see, that your faction are close to war, but you still don't know about, who works there. Now question: How you want to contact with attackers, if you know only, that they work in private group and they doesn't have fleet carrier?

And remember: That's only proposition, you don't have to agree with me.

 

[Zieman]

My bad, however, still I'm thinking about at least limit BGS effect on Private or Solo modes. BGS is a public thing, where everyone can see, do system is worked or not.

Imagine that situation: You're find a place, where you can call home. You're doing missions and do everything, to make this faction expand. Then, two other PC CMDR's decides to work there to opposition in private mode. You're doing everything in Open and you see, that something is wrong. Four days later you see, that your faction are close to war, but you still don't know about, who works there. Now question: How you want to contact with attackers, if you know only, that they work in private group and they doesn't have fleet carrier?

And remember: That's only proposition, you don't have to agree with me.

Everybody affects the BGS for everybody. FDEV's mistake was to make one player's efforts / bumbling around to affect it about 1000 times too much.
So you choose to game something that wasn't meant to be gamed, but to stay on the background, making the Galaxy not completely static?
Tough luck.

 

[Robert Maynard]

My bad, however, still I'm thinking about at least limit BGS effect on Private or Solo modes. BGS is a public thing, where everyone can see, do system is worked or not.

The BGS is indeed a public thing - for players in all three game modes to experience and affect, not just those in Open.

Open is not "special" in terms of the BGS - it's just one of the three game modes that players can choose to affect the game from.

Frontier's choice to make the three game modes affect the shared galaxy means that other players, and therefore PvP, are optional extras in this game - whereas all players affect the BGS, regardless of game mode.

Imagine that situation: You're find a place, where you can call home. You're doing missions and do everything, to make this faction expand. Then, two other PC CMDR's decides to work there to opposition in private mode. You're doing everything in Open and you see, that something is wrong. Four days later you see, that your faction are close to war, but you still don't know about, who works there. Now question: How you want to contact with attackers, if you know only, that they work in private group and they doesn't have fleet carrier?

By sending messages "to whom it may concern" in system chat - it's pan-modal and has been for some time. That's not to say that they need to take any heed of the messages though.

Bear in mind that there are currently five discrete Open modes - up from three (before Odyssey then Horizons 4.0 launched) - and that the game runs 24/7 (apart from Thursday maintenance and the occasional update) - also that the matchmaking system won't necessarily be able to instance all players in the same location together - and, last but not least, the block feature, which each player can use to excise particular CMDRs from their game (introduced before the game launched and made more effective and easier to use over the years). Just because a player is playing in Open does not mean that they will instance witl any other player in that location.

And remember: That's only proposition, you don't have to agree with me.

Quite.

Players have been suggesting that players not in Open should be penalised, in terms of their effects on the shared galaxy, or even having their effects removed completely, for years - from about the time the game design was published, when some backers realised that players would not need to play with them to affect the game. That didn't stop Frontier continuing their development of the design through Alpha, Beta & Gamma and then to release. What that means is that the game has attracted players with no interest in in-the-same-instance PvP - and they bought the game on the same terms as those who enjoy PvP.

Which is why, after years of discussion on the subject of game modes sharing the galaxy and the optional nature of PvP, if Frontier were to be inclined to offer those who don't actually want to share the galaxy with players they can't shoot at (or talk to for that matter) one or more features that could not be affected by players in Solo or Private Groups then the most equitable solution, especially if those features are existing and currently pan-modal IMO, would be to create a new "Open only" game mode with its own separate galaxy state to affect. That way the game would not be changed in any way for those who wished to continue to play in the tri-modal shared galaxy and those who don't want to share a galaxy would be able to play in the new one.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I think space legs was more or less a reaction to player demand. It's of course FD's take on legs. And it was never anybody's intent to have legs like in Odyssey, it was always something better, grander, more fun. Despite many predicting pretty much the current outcome. You can't beat stupid player dreams - just simply ignore them and do your own thing as a dev. At least we know who to despise after bad design decisions

The point is, the coherent artistic vision in general produces better games than stuff designed by poll.

no way would frontier just make such a major DLC out of the blue based on complaining players..... this DLC was always on the cards imo we just didn't know when. ( anyone who followed the game knew it was coming at some point anyway)

that is not to say it couldn't have been done better

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

This thread neatly illustrates the problem. "The community" don't unanimously want anything. All players have individual wish lists which in their details and priorities don't agree very much.

Faced with this, FD just get on with what they think is good. That's probably a good strategy.

FD already outlined a plan in 2013. I would love them to go with that.

 

[Robert Maynard]

no way would frontier just make such a major DLC out of the blue based on complaining players..... this DLC was always on the cards imo we just didn't know. (although anyone who followed the game knew it was coming at some point)

From Newsletter #29, just before the Lifetime Expansion Pass was withdrawn from sale

Lifetime Expansion Pack - to be withdrawn from sale

Alpha and Premium Beta came with a whole lot more than early access to the game - the Lifetime Expansion pack that is included is a significant benefit of being an early backer of Elite: Dangerous.

We have regularly said that depending on the level of success of Elite: Dangerous we intend to continue expanding it with new content and new features.

We plan to follow that same incremental development philosophy that we’ve done throughout our Alpha and Beta phases, and continue to significantly enhance the game via further expansions post-launch.

We do intend to release small, free updates after launch, but expansions that include significant new features and content will be charged for separately. For example, our current roadmap is to add (in no particular order):

• Landing/ driving / prospecting on airless rocky planets, moons & asteroids
• Walking around interiors and combative boarding of other ships
• Combat and other interactions with other players and AIs in the internal areas of star ports
• Accessing richly detailed planetary surfaces
• Availability of giant ‘executive control’ ships to players

Alpha and Premium Beta customers, and those who have already bought the £35 expansion pass alongside either Beta or the full game, will have access to all these features and updates for as long as we create them at no further cost.

This means that if we are as successful as we hope to be, you will still be benefiting from the fantastic early support you gave us for a long time to come.

As we are now fast approaching the standard Beta phase, the time is right to withdraw the Lifetime Expansion Pass from sale.

On 29th July the Lifetime Expansion Pack will no longer be available to buy in the store shop, to coincide with the start of full Beta.

So if you are planning to join the Beta or buy the final game and want to add the Lifetime Expansion Pack, you now have one month to get automatic access to all future major expansions of Elite: Dangerous for £35.

You can purchase the Lifetime Expansion Pack here.

Alternatively you can purchase or upgrade to Premium Beta and start playing Elite: Dangerous today, which includes the Lifetime Expansion Pack. Premium Beta will be available until 15th July, as we announced last week.

Each paid-for expansion will subsequently be put on sale separately (for people that don’t have the Lifetime Expansion Pack), before its release.

 

[KG_Jedi]

Take a year off by not introducing completely new content and instead focus on polishing existing one. Black holes, Powerplay, NPC crews... you name it.

 

[CMDR Carbo]

Take a year off by not introducing completely new content and instead focus on polishing existing one. Black holes, Powerplay, NPC crews... you name it.

Didn't this happen before? What they'll do is take a year off and.... do nothing.

 

[CMDR-AD]

Still early gameplay hours for Odyssey for me (maybe 20?) but what comes to mind so far:

1. Further performance optimizations. I can't see any visual reasons that would seem to warrant the performance, especially compared to other games that look as good or better, and run vastly better.

2. Walking in the ship. At the very least: When I click disembark, I rise from my chair to my feet. Walk to the door at the rear of the cockpit, and interact there (same as the concourse elevators) and fade to black at the exterior door of my ship. I then am in control to walk down the stairs/ladder to the surface. To board, go up the ladder/stairs interact with door, and fade to cockpit (no blue circle out on the ground). This would require no new interior spaces. These already exist.

A minimal function added to the cockpit interior could be a screen/locker where I and friend could prepare suit/backpack loadouts. Sure, all this is possible via HUD/menus with zero need to even rise from the chair. But we can rise, the entire Odyssey expansion is about being out the chair, so.... Might be fun to give the ship cockpit a sense of being a "place" same as the station concourse, or fleet carrier bridge.

Rules here can be simple... Interior walking is only possible when the ship is landed. If a Team CMDR is inside the cockpit and the ship owner CMDR begins takeoff, the other CMDRs are simply moved directly to their seats. No Team mates preventing takeoff by not being seated, etc. No Team CMDRs bouncing around the cockpit in zero-G as the ship is flown.

3. Further Exobiology and Exploration gameplay. I'm already Elite in Exploration, and of course just beginning Exobiology. But expanding and adding depth to these gameplay elements is ever welcome for me.

This might include more in-space objects like comets and large asteroid/sub-planet sized objects (perhaps inside asteroid belts?).

Locating orbital probes, relays, or other objects which may have been placed years back, or present day (perhaps as a variation on encoded and degraded signal source type). Maybe these are abandoned/dead, or maybe some are alive and working? Much like scanning a data beacon on the ground, some superpower gives you a Voucher for the intel. Maybe there are a connected series of these which the player can tie together for a chain for bigger Voucher payouts. If such objects are not persistent (imagine such probes may crash, are destroyed or collected by their owners, etc.) let some randomization on how another chain comes together be used to create a bit of variety for repeated future play throughs of the mechanic, as we explore other systems later on.

Adding to the above, missions which give a "Satellite Beacon" to CMDRs cargo hold which they are tasked to drop into orbit around a specific body (or across multiple planets/systems). Minor Factions maybe putting out some spy probe, or data relay, and the CMDR participates by dropping the cargo which deploys itself, then require the CMDR to activate it with a scan from their Data Link Scanner. A simple way to explain these objects being found nearly anywhere, and... a counterpoint mission for CMDRs to destroy such objects. The mission gives a planet body(s) where such a probe has been found. CMDR uses FSS to ID the likely signal source, and drops in to destroy the beacon (possibly a crime). Also simple way to illustrate why they are not very persistent.

Certainly planets with higher atmosphere density, and some additional exobiologicals to match.

When a Team of players are inside a single ship, why not have the FSS usage and results be shared among them all? Let Team members divide the system scanning duties up to get the system scanned more quickly ("Hey, I'll scan the A star, you handle B"). And then give an equal split payout for each Team member who scanned bodies? Or if you want to make sure each player did enough actual scanning, just require a number of system bodies, or percentage of the system that each Team member needs to scan (even if this means overlapping with what another CMDR has scanned) to quality for equal payout split.

 

[bangermsuk]

Quite.

The only thing that some players have in common is that they play the same game.

or do they?!!! there a very big rift in oddy and horizons and it getting bigger.

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

One thread to rule them all.

 

[Kaocraft]

Make the game from the Kickstarter.

 

[Stealthie]

....the most equitable solution, especially if those features are existing and currently pan-modal IMO, would be to create a new "Open only" game mode with its own separate galaxy state to affect. That way the game would not be changed in any way for those who wished to continue to play in the tri-modal shared galaxy and those who don't want to share a galaxy would be able to play in the new one.

Indeed.

The fundamental issue is one of taking stuff away that people already have.
Doing that is a bad thing.

Personally, I'd suggest the way forward would be to create something like Powerplay (I guess Powerplay, itself, could be re-purposed but that goes straight back to the issue of taking stuff away from people who already have it) which is targeted solely at PvPers from the outset.

Problem is, of course, that you can't reward PvPers with "stuff" that they could take out into the rest of the game that'd grant them some advantage.
The entire thing would need to be completely abstract from the rest of the game.
Pretty sure it'd be possible with a bit of creativity, though.

 

[CMDR The Riz]

For this, share your top 5 most wanted features.

Well, since I'm over here scratching my head over how to build a Chaff-resistant / immune Clipper loadout that doesn't use Frags and could be borderline passible should I happen to stumble across a competent enemy player, I might as well take a break and list some things off the top of my head.

1. Auto Harmonization / Convergence for Fixed Weapons
   1. So I can stop flying my Clipper sideways when using PAs... please!
   2. The Other Space Game* does it - why can't Elite?
2. Ship Rebalance
   1. End the FDL meta
   2. End the Shield tank meta
   3. Begin the HULLTANK META
   4. Why is the Clipper's boost so weak?
3. Ship Weapon Rebalance
   1. Shock Cannons still exist, you know!
   2. And Enzyme Missile Racks!
   3. And Mahon's Toaster Beam!
   4. Laser DPE / Falloff buff maybe?
4. Oppressor Buff
   1. Relevant thread
5. Odyssey FPS rebalance or outright redesign
   1. Long TTKs are awful and don't fit on that "COD <------> ARMA" line FDEV mentioned they were aiming for in a pre-Odyssey launch stream that I can't seem to find at the moment
   2. The L-6 can completely dominate any PvE engagement, making map control a breeze. Oh and you can carry two of them that auto-reload with three rockets per magazine...
   3. Resistances are way overtuned (60% Kinetic Resistance for a G5 Dominator's Shield and 82% Thermal Resistance for a G5 Damage Resistance Dominator's Armor, for example)
   4. Projectile velocities are comically slow - thank FDEV for not implementing bullet drop
   5. Weapon Effective Ranges are too short, with several weapons hitting damage falloff starts inside buildings (one of them being a rifle...allegedly)
      1. As an aside, I'd love to see some long-range engagements at those Horizons Settlements...
   6. Why are there so many Enforcers in CZs as of late? Last I checked, I wasn't playing Team Fortress 2...

The above are my opinions and may or may not be ludicrous suggestions fueled by the frustration of too many hours of theorycrafting Clipper loadouts.

Now, back to that Quad-Plasma Clipper build...

Spoiler: *

Star Wars: Rogue Squadron II.

What? You thought I'd say Star Citizen, didn't you?

Imagine that situation: You're find a place, where you can call home. You're doing missions and do everything, to make this faction expand. Then, two other PC CMDR's decides to work there to opposition in private mode. You're doing everything in Open and you see, that something is wrong. Four days later you see, that your faction are close to war, but you still don't know about, who works there. Now question: How you want to contact with attackers, if you know only, that they work in private group and they doesn't have fleet carrier?

Yep, that's basically me in Minun. Relevant post in the official Hotel California thread:

The Open v Solo v Groups thread

PvP isn't entirely limited to Open, and if it were, still wouldn't be the only feature that could specifically ruin an experience in Open. I had a harsh reminder of that today when I finally lost my most recent attempt at taking over Minun. I managed to push my faction to win 3 days in the...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[Gut]

No 1 , Stations throughout the Galaxy
No 2 , GOTO No1

 

[Bigmaec]

1) Panther Clipper
2) Exobiology revamp, better gameplay (bring back the minigame, cut the range restrictions, exo scanner module for ship and exo SRV)
3) thargoids as on foot enemy
4) issue tracker fix (do something else, something that works)
5) bug fixes

 

[Jmanis]

OK sure, I'll bite

1) Fix Hostile Rep Status: Make the Hostile rep state function the same as when Wanted, activating anonymity protocols to allow docking, deny most station services and make superpower Hostile rep apply universally for factions belonging to it.
2) Introduce the "Criminal Mission Board"; accessible when using anonymity protocols. Functions like a normal mission board, except instead of missions arranged by the local faction they help... arranged by the local faction they hinder. Missions are offered by anonymous contacts instead of faction representatives, and mission payoff increases based on how bad your rep is with that faction
3) Military Career Path, perhaps as part of a Powerplay rework... first-pass would also be a mission board offered through a (local superpower or powerplay) contact, which offers missions to disrupt activities of other neighbouring superpower-controlled factions or powers.
4) Tier 2 NPCs; Odyssey gets part-way there with the concourse/base mission contacts, but they need to be fleshed out with proc-gen services offered by these contacts, access based on reputation with that individual, services could include purchase of goods otherwise illegal in the system, wiping a level of notoriety by expending rep, limited pre-engineered tech broker services etc.
5) More utilisation of extant mechanics in procedural/dynamic ways.