<grins> How about naming my damn ship?
Petition to bring back the DDF/DDA and get back on track.
- Thread starter Sanderson
- Start date
I named mine ages ago.
(HMSS Drake, named after the ship my Grandfather sailed on in the First World War, which was, in turn, named after Francis Drake.)How about telling anyone else what my ship is called, in game?
Until they implement it in-game, I refuse to name my ship! Call it a silent protest!
Hadn't thought about a prefix for it though - if I do have one, it'll be HIMSS, I think.
Confusion about this original forum title was there from day one. Check this out, from April 2012...
i like a silent protest myself, keeping quiet then ^^
I think a lot of constructive hard work was done by the DDF, but I am not convinced that it was constituted of a good mix of backgrounds to create a sounding board for a 21st century game. I was not a member of the DDF, but my impression, albeit probably a wrong one, was that the DDF was mostly focused on the single player experience of Elite. For me its very telling the DDF has died and every update since launch has seen substantially only multiplayer content and now there is a call to have the DDF back. As an example, CQC is a standalone game, if you polled the DDF what percentage would have said no? My guess is a large proportion. If you polled the under 25 players what proportion would have said yes? I think FD have understood that the key to making this game a success is to engage the younger generation.
If FD do anything they should create a small focus group of players, but take a wide demographic so that a full cross section of the player base can critique.
If FD do anything they should create a small focus group of players, but take a wide demographic so that a full cross section of the player base can critique.
If people say that it usually means they have no valid arguments at all.
You might very well be right.
Just begin somewhere.
I'm interested.
Until then I presume I am right.
Last edited:
Yes, that confirms my statements I believe.
The community can discuss and make suggestions, but FD makes the design decisions... of course.
It seems so obvious. I can hardly believe I had to explain that earlier, because to me it is like saying that there is water in the sea. It could not be any other way.
Actually, there was no confusion whatsoever. The kickstarter (which is the thing that matters, not some forum post) quite clearly used 'decision', not' discussion'. That is what people were pledging for. The fact that Ashley was using the discussion word on the forums before the kickstarter ended (you seem to be on the wrong side of the pond - that post was on the 4th December, not 12th April) does tend to support the 'incompetent' theory rather than the 'evil bait and switch' theory, however.
Last edited:
There was never any confusion at all on anyone's part. Everyone knew that DDF members weren't just talking for fun, they all knew they were supposed to be helping FD make design DECISIONS, not just idle banter for the sake of pledging $500 and mingling with devs.
Something, IDK what, changed around September/October of last year and since that time FD has changed immensely. The recently announced positions at FD, IMO, points to a much bleaker future, for those of us that wanted the KS DDA game anyway. It might be great for consoles and timed exclusive deals but, for PC gamers that bought into the "vision", we I think are out of luck.
Something, IDK what, changed around September/October of last year and since that time FD has changed immensely. The recently announced positions at FD, IMO, points to a much bleaker future, for those of us that wanted the KS DDA game anyway. It might be great for consoles and timed exclusive deals but, for PC gamers that bought into the "vision", we I think are out of luck.
Last edited:
Absolutely wrong. A good number of DDFers *wished* we had spent more time on the single player experience, and worried that too much time was spent on multiplayer. Yet, considering how much time I spend playing the game by myself versus interacting with players, I'd say the balance was about right. Most of the features discussed in the DDA were not reliant on multiplayer. Some, but not most.
I cannot agree more. If you need a 2:2 to be a desk IT tech at FD and have to move kit yourself, that means there are no minions to do the lifting for you. HND's will be in the dole queue forever
Except nobody in the design forums ever agreed completely on any decision. The idea that we were going to sit there and vote on each feature was ludicrous when every topic was open-ended and we were granted unlimited discussion to make suggestions. Design by committee would have been disastrous for the forum. Frontier had to maintain its authoritative stance as the decider of which features went into a final proposal, else it would have been chaos, and we would have wound up with proposals which could not even be implemented because they were not practical.
We were a sounding board, and good one at that, I'd say!
Just look at how well received the DDA final proposals were and are to date. Well guess what? The DDA final proposals were modified versions of Frontier's original proposals -- based on all our feedback! Frontier was the ones who sorted through a bazillion posts in the original proposal threads, pulled out the gold, and put them into the final proposal.The DDF worked. And worked hard.
And for the most part, I think they've been true to the vision. There I said it. Satisfied customer. Is everything in there? Of course not. Do I wish there was more? Of course I do. One of my peeves is a more transparent and robust economy.
The implication that changing the name from Design Decision to Design Discussion or what have you had any significant impact on what Frontier meant when they set out the reward -- it's a charge that has been leveled before -- or that we were somehow misled into pledging it is just pure silliness. The rules for the DDF were set forth the moment we logged in. We all knew what the score was, and we participated anyway.
But I'll ask. Did you really think we would be voting? And that it would be design by committee?
And I thought the point of the thread was that the DDF did a good job, the DDA proposals are great, and we want to see more of it. Therefore, that the DDF did its job, the format of discussing and Frontier deciding was the right one, and our only shared wish is that more of was contained in the game.
Last edited:
No, people paid $500 to be privy to the discussions going on behind the scenes, not the right to make arbitrary of from the developers.
some people did, about 400 of 700 eligible. the rest paid to get stuff more relevant to them. and no way in 700 people take part in the ddf. again a few regulars contributet, maybe 100 ? but again that is beyond the point, isn't it.