Does anyone else feel like Beyond is a graceful exit strategy ?
- Thread starter SAB380
- Start date
*Public* beta. Internal QA is ongoing. There's nothing really stopping FD to running beta servers, but I guess they want not to waste money and also their devops are needed elsewhere. I really don't see at huge deal breaker. QA will still go trough tickets and if they can replicate it and find a fix, they will.
sugar lies. marketing. bullcrap. i'm ok if you choose to believe it. there's nothing wrong with that. happiness is a product
looking forward for this best release in long time. you just piked my curiosity. i'll be there in a month aprox!
Please point out some of sugar lies FD have said that can't be explained 'I wa too optimistic'. If you mean hype, that's really on people.
i've not experienced any myself, i do not install frontier's betas anymore. but i do browse the bug reports, it's much more telling about the state of the software than forum opinions. it's all there, take a look:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/forumdisplay.php/241-Beyond-3-0-Open-Beta-Bug-Reports
there's everything from crashes to desktop, save game becoming unusable (forcing a clear save), ui lockups and freezes, unrecognized controllers and loss of bindings to 'lesser' bugs: weapons not firing (???), module storage not working (again!), "unreadable text" ...
see above. sorry but such problems aren't allowed on a beta version, it's just not serious. a beta version is not a nightly build, nor unfinished software. it's a release ready build that's placed in (public) testing to gauge user experience, gather feedback and maybe perform some tweaks. fixing a bug is not a tweak. integration testing, performance and load testing and of course sheer basic functionality compliance (that is, internal qa) must all be already have been tested and passed. could you tell me how some "unreadable text" is something you need the users to spot and weed out, and can't be done by the 'ongoing' qa dudes? for figs sake, that's the job and responsibility of paid professionals.
this is not the job of paying customers, and this is not an opensource community effort, it's a paid product. the moment you release such a clusterfig to your customers, however you call it, you loose all credibility as a software provider. if you then downplay it and say '3 weeks is more than enough' then ... sorry, i'll have to burst in hysterical laughter ... or just walk away
"Our awesome dev team are dedicated to continuing to build and improve the Elite Dangerous experience with an exciting long term vision in mind. We’re happy to be able to confirm that the next major updates following 2.4 will focus on core gameplay, existing features, quality of life and other improvements! We’re delighted to be investing a considerable amount of development and effort into making the core gameplay experience even better for our fantastic community or players."
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/354066-Elite-Dangerous-2-4-and-beyond
that statement was unterstood by many (including myself albeit with much skepticism) as much needed groundwork, and much welcome. this means fixing things, not adding more features. when you want to stabilize a system the last thing you do is throwing more complexity at it. now, a new ship is core gameplay? new weapons? a new useless bounty system? the only thing in this release (and probably in the whole beyond menu) that might actually be considered 'making the core gameplay even better' is the new planetary render. guess what? square patches have returned. it's just hilarious. maybe c&p and engineers might fall into that category, but the results seem controversial at best.
this is a consistent pattern. i don't need to remember the delay for 2.0 (?) on grounds of quality, a much inspired speech followed by the most buggy release ever. epic. but it's the business. ceos don't lie because they are mean, but because it's their job. if people then insists in taking those words at face value, and buying into all that nonsense then that's just sad to read in an (supposedly) adult audience. now you might say "that's just, like, my opinion". indeed. i never stated otherwise. it happens to differ substantially from the prevailing mindset around here, but i'm used to that.
now i need some breakfast. sorry for the brick.
This is consistent pattern of you finding stuff to moan about, not devs lying. I find 3.0 good solid shakeup of core things. Planets are better. New ship? So what? Old ships got tons of improvements, some asked for very long time, graphical improvements, etc. Crime and Punishment finally having some better leverage over criminals? Sure it is core improvement?
If you don't share FD enthusiasm over this update - that's fine. But it is not lying.
Last edited:
i told you these were my opinions. you don't need to share them but ... adhominem now? ok.
see? i have no problem with you having different ones.
oh, it definitely is.
Blackcompany
Banned
Hey it could all be worse... This could be No Man's Sky.
Reflect on that a while and bask in what FDev has brought to space games.
NMS is by far the better game for exploration. At least theres stuff to find, and ways to interact with it.
If NMS had Elites flight model, i would just uninstall Elite and move on.
Youre feeding a troll mate. He blindly defends fdev no matter what they do. I am almost certain its his job...
You haven't provided evidence it is. Thus your argument really doesn't hold up.
I still have loaded onto my PS4... and I agree, there is more to find on the exploration front. I'd also agree that a great experience lies somewhere between NMS and ED.
NMS is so easy to burn out on because while there are things to find... Those things are all pretty much the same things with variations in how they get generated. And sometimes that variation is seriously lacking...
I also don't like the arcade feel of it.. jump into a system and planets are close enough to see surface detail on every single one in the system with rare exceptions?
There are actually things I do like about No Man's Sky.. and things it does better than ED. But for look and feel, ED crushed it.
And you're not a troll?
I hate to repeat myself. What I saw mainly on those bug reports was not your few picked out examples, but mostly minor UI bugs, hardly any crashes which can often be attributed to personal system issues on any day, many opinions like on game balance, lots of things that don't really count as bugs but reported by seeming hypochondriacs(joking), overall very minor issues, and the same old complaints beta or no beta. When I said "suspect" I did not mean I hadn't looked at the bug pages. I had done a short view of the page when I first started the beta but my suspicion is that in general many reports are not consistently reproducible and I mostly saw minor bugs and the report form often used to express unrelated opinions. And my own playthrough ongoing I don't see anything different except the new changes to engineers. Better shading overall and graphical improvements. And I'm using an older system with an 860m GTX with decent internet. The same floating rocks bugs at certain ground bases, but that's been there this whole time and is systemic but hardly game breaking. For a similar case FSX had long had a problem with elevation offsynch with terrain mesh for many years for example. Overall, if this beta went live now, I'd say the game would be extremely playable and cmdrs would be rejoicing in the new features. Besides trying the new engineers and materials and tech broker, I played as I normally would in the beta, and see no showstopping reason why the beta couldn't go live now. And how did you experience the beta if you "don't install betas anymore".
I think this is fairly easily explained about NMS. NMS isn't really a space simulator. I'ts a dressed up walking survival game on a random planet level with cartoony space looking transitions. A major part of the cartoony style imo was to take a shortcut and excuse itself from having to conform its production style to a realistic looking demanding game. While ED has accomplished a genuine pioneering feat of simulating the star systems of the entire galaxy and embedding seamlessly a decent space combat game. With the advent of horizons and landings, yes it completely smashed the remaining genre competition that NMS had vs. ED. Then that bearded guy of hellogames, ridiculously did his no-man's-lyes, far more blatant "lying" than can ever be attributed to Frontier and its business practices. (for more truly outrageous fibbing in the industry, just head on over to cig-arrets land) To "hellogames" credit, they continued to update and bring about a rover and a personal base instead of just ditching the game entirely. But overall, NMS is mostly a single player limited survival niche game dressed up as spacelegs adventure with simple flight simulation.
Last edited:
sorry for the inconvenience, but you said you 'suspected', so i wasn't really sure you had gone through the whole list. i'm still not sure you have, yet, but let's just assume we have different standards.
i already explained that, but i don't mind expanding a bit. i've been analyzing bug reports for many years as part of my job. the nature and frequency of bugs does tell me a lot about the general state of a codebase and some key aspects of the process it went through.
I have absolute proof (which I will not post here), that Fdev knew about the Engineer exploit where G1 mats were being used to make G5 rolls, and did nothing about it, until a time when it became common knowledge, and then they downgraded all the G5 modules saying they were exploited..
Credible?
I also have proof where FDev said Passenger missions were working as intended, straight after the "amateur half hour" coding mess where missions were being offered for bazillion gazillion millions. They fixed that and said, the long distance passenger missions are working as intended. Distance is used as a measuring factor".. Then, they go pull them because it was an exploit?
Credible ?
I will call nonsense on this one. Beta 2 and beta 3 along with today's dev comments fixed huge deal of configuration part of 3.0. As for bugs it is always ongoing process. Some of them will be fixed for 3.0 release, some of them will be improved upon later.
Blackcompany
Banned
This mirrors how I feel. If NMS star systems and space flight could be taken seriously, and their fauna generator had a lot variety, the game would be amazing.
Like Elite, NMS needs a lot of polish yet...and more to.actually DO.
Starting to to.think it's just a weakness of the genre...only souch you CAN do with space games...
Achilles7
Banned
Ah yes...dogmatic faux-hilarity!
'Always a good option to express one's support when (a) one does not possess the wit to come up with anything oneself &/or (b) the prose in question isn't at all funny, but a passive-aggressive, like-minded perspective!
Heh, I have to admit when it comes to hyperbole and the misuse of the word 'literally' I tend to respondliterallylike Hitler.
Indeed you do, Sleuty...although, only expediently & antagonistically aimed at those with differing views to your own (instead of the slightly more controversial ethnoreligious persecution, of course) - 'funny that!
Btw, did you move to Belgium to gain a relatively better personality?
It's a LOT of work.. each have made their attempts at it.. but it's just unimaginably big. When you're talking about Galaxies.. I never would have believed years ago that we would see gaming even at THIS level.
The good news is, it WILL get better. I have high hopes for Elite reaching goals they've talked about... I really hope that they do.
Buy if they don't, then it's a stepping stone to the developer who at some point will reach them.
You're spot on though, with the crossover. If I could get the look and feel of ED and the content that NMS leans towards... It would be an amazing game.
Goose4291
Banned
At the risk of going offtopic, I think the way engineers has gone in terms of changes shows the differences between frontiers vision, what the easy mode playerbase want, and how quick frontier are to bow to their demands.
I think engineers was aimed at the 'one ship' ideology they initially seemed to try to make the game about. In its early form it was great. They were hard to come by, hard to craft and so if you were a single ship type guy like I was, you were rewarded.
Then the sothis/robigo burners with their 30+ ships and billion+ credits, who were used to easy mode winning started to moan, leaving us in this weird 'engineer or go home' mentality we're in now.
Actually, I don't know either one of you and honestly don't lean one way or the other. The context of the post.. 1984 vs Today, however, was funny.
Don't take it personal. It betrays the professor image you're shooting for.
I couldn't care less who was insulting who or why. That's your business.
Its nothing, some people just don't like it if you show a claim is wrong if that complain supports a shared opinion. Achilles has been upset about ED for some time, so he didn't like it when I mocked the rather silly notion that 'ED is just a reskin of the original'. There is nothing personal about that as long as you remember that just because someone shows your argument is wrong your subjective opinion is still as valid as any other. But frustration and bitterness tends to lead to a reduced sense of humor.
Someone on another forum mentioned that: Big Publishers werent wrong and stupid when they abandoned space games, the genre simply is ultimately boring for the average gamer. Which became a big of an issue when recent space games started marketing themselves as Everything Games, in particular SC and NMS. Things become a lot better when you drop the whole 'potential' angle and instead see it as just another game, which hopefully offers a few hours of fun. If more, then thats great! If not, onwards to the next game. The big appeal of space games is not what they can be, but what we fantasize they could be.
And NMS got a lot of flak (much of it deserved), but the current version often is on sale for +-E20 which is perfectly fair for what it is.