Where is the post-FX communication?
- Thread starter playfuldreamer
- Start date
Really good news Alec! Here's to Ed and his awesome FD community bros and sis!
Dale, I understand where you're coming from but honestly given the open nature of modern development I think it'd be wise for Frontier to consider a more consistent and open approach. No ETAs, no guarantees would be fine, if we were actually being shown what was being made in the first place, and we aren't.
I hate to point to other developers, but look at what paradox do. Wiz (the lead designer) is consistent in updates each week, which build up to each release. He too has an 'its not finished yet' catchphrase ('hot code, numbers aren't final') but Paradox do so much better at communicating that the community doesn't mind if features change or adapt from what they originally said. In fact, a lot of stellaris features are being almost completely changed from what was previously announced as we speak, and the community is celebrating! Why? Because they were engaged at every step and given a full explanation.
Here's one of their dev diaries: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/dev-diary-91-starbases.1052064/
Please pass this message on as best you can, I want frontier to become known as a company that communicates well, and I know you're trying. If nothing else, maybe just try it for a 3 month period leading up to Q1 or Q2? I promise you, do it with enough openness and the community will reciprocate.
Finally, don't be afraid of putting stuff out and generating negative comments. That happens, look at the dev diary I linked. But over time, if you're communicative, and fix problems with early hotfixes (something else paradox are very good at), then the community as a whole (not just those that will defend you to the hilt) knows you are listening and will have far more patience and support for you.
I hate to point to other developers, but look at what paradox do. Wiz (the lead designer) is consistent in updates each week, which build up to each release. He too has an 'its not finished yet' catchphrase ('hot code, numbers aren't final') but Paradox do so much better at communicating that the community doesn't mind if features change or adapt from what they originally said. In fact, a lot of stellaris features are being almost completely changed from what was previously announced as we speak, and the community is celebrating! Why? Because they were engaged at every step and given a full explanation.
Here's one of their dev diaries: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/dev-diary-91-starbases.1052064/
Please pass this message on as best you can, I want frontier to become known as a company that communicates well, and I know you're trying. If nothing else, maybe just try it for a 3 month period leading up to Q1 or Q2? I promise you, do it with enough openness and the community will reciprocate.
Finally, don't be afraid of putting stuff out and generating negative comments. That happens, look at the dev diary I linked. But over time, if you're communicative, and fix problems with early hotfixes (something else paradox are very good at), then the community as a whole (not just those that will defend you to the hilt) knows you are listening and will have far more patience and support for you.
Because when something is shown people feel they have been promised and jump on devs when something is taken back.
Paradox aren't in space games and space game community is ....interesting to say at least. Only more drama can be found in car sim community.
Yes, like the T-10 Defender.
So much hype about this tease but, as somebody else joked before, it might be a binary number.
Almost none of that hype came from devs though. Also we have seen it in real life in footage, so we know it exists and it's coming.
All that hype came from the Devs ... they left it in the list of multi-crew ships lol.
Yes, a very large ship is featured in the Trailer .... we are assuming it is the Type 10; it will be fun seeing what this has to be used for.
I really laughed out loud in the house. Trust me mate, they ARE taking their time, in all aspects of this game.
My opinion on this matter is probably going to be unpopular. 
"Design by committee" is an excellent way to produce mediocre garbage. So, while I think it's super nice for a developer to ask the community for input or feedback they should be under absolutely no obligation to (be seen to) do anything with that feedback. Instead, we (as consumers/community) need to trust the developer to do their damn job. After all, they have a vested interest to do the best job they can for so many reasons that it would be pure insanity for us to to assume that they aren't.
In addition to that, we typically don't see or understand the complicated issues which can arise and prevent certain changes/additions (which we might think are "obvious" wins) being done immediately, or at all. Additionally we don't see the future plans which also affect those things.
So, for those and other reasons our opinions of what should be done are typically uninformed opinions and I think they can be useful for guiding development broadly speaking (i.e. the players want better in-game group control - soon we'll have squadrons) and they can be useful for small isolated changes (like the recent rebuy penalty discussions in the last beta) they aren't useful for detailed design of large features which have to fit inside the existing structure of the game, both technically and thematically.
My 2p
"Design by committee" is an excellent way to produce mediocre garbage. So, while I think it's super nice for a developer to ask the community for input or feedback they should be under absolutely no obligation to (be seen to) do anything with that feedback. Instead, we (as consumers/community) need to trust the developer to do their damn job. After all, they have a vested interest to do the best job they can for so many reasons that it would be pure insanity for us to to assume that they aren't.
In addition to that, we typically don't see or understand the complicated issues which can arise and prevent certain changes/additions (which we might think are "obvious" wins) being done immediately, or at all. Additionally we don't see the future plans which also affect those things.
So, for those and other reasons our opinions of what should be done are typically uninformed opinions and I think they can be useful for guiding development broadly speaking (i.e. the players want better in-game group control - soon we'll have squadrons) and they can be useful for small isolated changes (like the recent rebuy penalty discussions in the last beta) they aren't useful for detailed design of large features which have to fit inside the existing structure of the game, both technically and thematically.
My 2p
Stellaris? Granted it's not a space flight, game, but it IS a space game. Tbh I really don't think the community are to blame for the negative feedback. Granted, they have a very specific vision of what they want from the game, but so do FD.
The problem so far as I can see is that FD never really decided if they wanted a sim or a game. They seem to be trying to strike a balance, but in that there will always be conflicts. Really it's neither FD's nor the player's fault, in terms of base attitudes. but in terms of trust and information sharing, FD has majorly dropped the ball there, but not so badly it could never be picked up again.
My opinion on this matter is probably going to be unpopular.
"Design by committee" is an excellent way to produce mediocre garbage. So, while I think it's super nice for a developer to ask the community for input or feedback they should be under absolutely no obligation to (be seen to) do anything with that feedback. Instead, we (as consumers/community) need to trust the developer to do their damn job. After all, they have a vested interest to do the best job they can for so many reasons that it would be pure insanity for us to to assume that they aren't.
In addition to that, we typically don't see or understand the complicated issues which can arise and prevent certain changes/additions (which we might think are "obvious" wins) being done immediately, or at all. Additionally we don't see the future plans which also affect those things.
So, for those and other reasons our opinions of what should be done are typically uninformed opinions and I think they can be useful for guiding development broadly speaking (i.e. the players want better in-game group control - soon we'll have squadrons) and they can be useful for small isolated changes (like the recent rebuy penalty discussions in the last beta) they aren't useful for detailed design of large features which have to fit inside the existing structure of the game, both technically and thematically.
My 2p
That's a solid opinion, and one I respect.
I think the problem many have is not that they aren't being listened to, but rather that what is actually being done is shrouded in mystery, which leaves many feeling like FD aren't actually doing anything. Yes this is 'just' a feeling, but it's an unpleasant one, reinforced by what we see as underdelivery (which could have been softened by advance knowledge of what to expect). That unpleasant feeling leads to mistrust and so, so much salt.
The truth is, people are being listened to, perhaps too much in some cases (see money sinks/fuel/module costs, credit inflation, etc).
They just aren't seeing any movement on 'their' particular problem (in my case, low sandbox smuggling profits compared to trading, mixed with smuggling being too easy with the silent running button. Bring back freeze drifting!)
It's clear to me that everybody is reluctant to sign up for a perceived suicide mission. PR is a thankless job with nothing to gain and everything to loose under what seems like a general gag order. Pressing them more will not get us any "insight" on features that could be still in flux, undecided or even unfunded from a resource management standpoint.
Nothing, however, can excuse their inability to stick a GoPro on a tripod and a MIDI switcher with a couple of boom mikes at the Expo with an intern to record some of those sessions even at 720p for people who could not attend. They would have been a nice placeholder to watch while the 2.4 "narrative" continues to drip.
Nothing, however, can excuse their inability to stick a GoPro on a tripod and a MIDI switcher with a couple of boom mikes at the Expo with an intern to record some of those sessions even at 720p for people who could not attend. They would have been a nice placeholder to watch while the 2.4 "narrative" continues to drip.
You know what helps? Real life. I look what's going on outside, with my own life, and frankly ED is one of most consistent things in my universe. FD is amazing at that.
It is all perspective and spending time here listening people who trolls people for salt and posts hyperboles really helps very little.
I think most important part what I took away from FX is that FD really does not like to touch section of code without good, solid reason. Small improvements aside, for example, only way for FD to improve let's say supercruise with small QoL is only along with bigger lump of changes. Because refactoring is a pain, testing is a pain, but shared pain is better.
So let's say people want caves. FD want caves and devs said they have prototypes how to do that with their engine. But they won't do caves in game unless there's gameplay added who can heavily contribute to planetary surface gameplay. So such things will be rolled into one big pack.
This is cost of added complexity. I forgot to ask them about CI, but I will suspect that interface wise it is very hard to do that beyond unit testing. BGS most likely uses CI at this point though.
Speaking of, I would love love LOVE to see this! Being across the pond, I couldn't make the event in person, so is the "How to make a Galaxy" presentation available online somewhere?
-- (ninja'd..ish) --
Last edited:
Dale said that FX one wasn't filmed
But they will arrange better one (with all presentation goodies) for stream at some point. Mr. Gross most likely is very busy though, but I hope we don't wait for long.
Excellent post, and I agree 100%. Paradox, along with many other dev studios, do an amazing job of communicating and including their communities in the design process. Frontier used to do a better job than they do today, but since 2.1 (when the sneak peaks stopped) they have gotten much worse at it. I'd love for Frontier to change policy on this and start acting more like Paradox in this regard, it would be immensely positive for the Elite community.
That's a shame, but oh well. I would be very happy if Mr. Ross were to give a similar talk at some point in the future for the Youtube channel.
+1, CMDR.