A quick search implies it was last used in April this year on a bounty hunting CG.
Trailblazer Resupply | Community Goal Update
- Thread starter Phil W
- Start date
FDev sets an impossible target.
Player base "BOO You guys suck theres no way we can complete the CG" and no one turns up.
or
Player base "So you reckon we cant complete this? Hold my beer" and it's completed in 4 days..
It's an impossible position to be in. Personally I'd rather it ends when it's scheduled to but many other don't
And there have been a few CG's since...
Hence my point
I wasn't disagreeing
fairI wasn't disagreeing
As I say I (almost) sympathise with them when it comes to things like this... but they rather made a rod for their own back from the way they behave in general so it's hard to take their side...
That being said, it's easy to sit on the outside and say "they should do this" or "they should do that" when we don't really know how plausible those things might be or what other plans might be in the works. If they were a little (a lot) better at keeps the community informed about what was going on and explained why things were done the way they were, that might help.
But in general I think many people are sour towards the company based on past missteps and no longer inclined to give them the benefit of any doubt.
Or maybe its consumer feedback? Personally, I’m unaffected by this change and stand to profit significantly, but others who invested time in the initial CG are having their progress undermined and that's not cool. The developers do remarkable work with Elite Dangerous, but their quality control and planning often fall short. When criticized for these missteps, they sometimes deflect by using parts of the fanbase as a shield, because they know there will be those who dismiss compaints of others for them.
Edit- Perhaps, instead of extending a CG and shifting the goalposts, consider creating a new CG in a different system with similar objectives. That way there would not be an induced fear of losing progress because you can't keep up with the sweaty player base with unlimited time on their hands.
Last edited:
I was quite surprised to see a one-week CG; but interestingly they set a goal that was not achieved by the end. I think each one ended at Tier 3 out of 8. If it had been a 2-week one, it would probably have got to 100%, or very close.
Inara is now estimating the current one will end at 82% when the time runs out, but that will change if more people join in.
Inara is now estimating the current one will end at 82% when the time runs out, but that will change if more people join in.
problem is in that case every participant in Top 75 would receive 4 times the 2x 5d and 2x 6d - so 8 of each total.... as the CG would repeat weekly in that 4 weeks.....I´d like that though - would get the Plipper to 1364 to capacity.....
Well, the rewards don't necessarily have to be identical. Perhaps offering access to a new engineer could be a viable alternative as a participation unlock? There are several directions they could go with this. I wonder if the developers might have underestimated the impact the Panther would have? They likely had an 'oh no' moment and decided to extend the current Community Goal as a result.
Edit: To clarify, I'm not advocating for a second chance, but rather opposing the practice of extending a "race" at the midpoint due to referees deciding to alter the rules mid-competition... for whatever rationale they might have.
Last edited:
Because everyone in the playerbase has the same outlook and opinion as the rest of the playerbase right? This "can't win" argument is pretty silly given how opinions can change over time, and not one person speaks the opinion of the community as a whole.
"It's too short". Valid argument. Extensions are understandable, give a reason for it in-game to make it make sense.
"You're moving the posts too much/often." Valid argument. Sometimes a goal ought to fail or be completed. Let the playerbase make the decision based on contribution.
It's not an either or equation. It's about balance between these two extremes.
For my argument, this isn't just this specific CG, but the trend of always appearing to move goalposts, or making the CGs not completable.
"It's too short". Valid argument. Extensions are understandable, give a reason for it in-game to make it make sense.
"You're moving the posts too much/often." Valid argument. Sometimes a goal ought to fail or be completed. Let the playerbase make the decision based on contribution.
It's not an either or equation. It's about balance between these two extremes.
For my argument, this isn't just this specific CG, but the trend of always appearing to move goalposts, or making the CGs not completable.
I believe that's what I said.
There's always going to be someone (probably many someones) who are unhappy with any decision made. That's literally what "can't win" means.
Considering that FDev made a point of "player driven narrative" for most of the life of Elite: Dangerous, the second of your points has a LOT more cause behind it. If FDev are moving away from that to a more structured or "story-driven" approach, then they should be more transparent about it.
There's always going to be someone (probably many someones) who are unhappy with any decision made. That's literally what "can't win" means.
Considering that FDev made a point of "player driven narrative" for most of the life of Elite: Dangerous, the second of your points has a LOT more cause behind it. If FDev are moving away from that to a more structured or "story-driven" approach, then they should be more transparent about it.