Frontier you need our help.

[Darty]

I just saw that a great thread was locked on the op's request due to his point being misinterpreted either intentionally or otherwise, by a bunch of posters. Understandable. I don't have the same aversion to people ting on me for no good reason, and I think the point he made is valid and needs addressing. So, without further to do...

Frontier needs the help of the players. They need to listen to our feedback, have beta tests, and discussions. And to their credit they do all of these things, but not enough. Beyond had a very short beta test, and as a result we have had 2 hotfix patches to fix simple issues that could have been caught with a longer beta, and there are still major outstanding issues (Coms panel being completely broken for example). There was a lot of discussion about the engineers changes, and almost all of it got ignored it seems (two of the major issues was the powercreep and unfairness that grandfathering led to, the former of which was just made worse and the latter of which was only addressed in part). Fdev seems to be very selective in what feedback they listen to as well. Dozens of posters talking about the material trader trade rates being way to punishing? "Oh we want to see how things will play out in the live game, wait until then." I make a tongue in cheek joke video taking the p*ss out of a bug and the gold rush mentality by exaggerating how bad the bug was? They removed ALL mining missions within a day of that post and for 2 WEEKS to prevent any players from getting a bit more credits per hour than fdev wanted them to. On the other hand, when I make a serious bug report on an actual mining related issue (that just so happened to negatively impact player's material income) I didn't even get a RESPONSE for 2 weeks. It seems that fdev prioritizes preventing the players from progressing to fast over giving them a good experience.

You see post after post after post about there being too much grind and rng and fdev stills stand by the fundamental concepts causing those issues. Fdev seems to have a vision for this game, and they seem more devoted to realizing that vision than creating a game that is actually fun for those playing it. This is a really bad thing. If they want this game to become great, they have to realize that some of their ideas that might seem really good on paper aren't so great in practice. They can only do this by listening to us and our feedback, and not dismissing it like we are stupid children (which is what it felt like when sandy dismissed the dozens upon dozens of posts about how the material trader trade rates were too high with a single line about how he "wasn't convinced").

I don't mean to on fdev either. They seem to be really nice people who have done some amazing things with this game and that is admirable. And they do go above and beyond what I have seen other dev teams do. The thing is those other dev teams now have a dead game on their hands, precisely because they didn't listen to player feedback. I don't want the same thing to happen to elite.

This isn't meant to be a "the sky is falling" or "my way or the highway" type of thread. Instead it is a plead with fdev to reconsider how they are interacting with this community and try to listen to our complaints more. There are a lot of major issues that have gone unaddressed for ages (pp and multi-crew lacking real content, layers of rng in engineering, ect. I'm too tired to list them all), and while I do get that they have to prioritize certain things over others, it would be nice if fdev would tell us from time to time what issues they are aware of and want to eventually fix, so it doesn't feel like what we are saying falls on deaf ears.

 

[Schmack]

I'd like them to listen but I don't think they need our help. Those who want to play it will and those who don't want to won't. That's no different than it ever was.

Sure, they nerf the credit avalanches faster than other issues (raining skimmers, for example) probably because the player base funnels to that avalanche and it throws the balance of that system out of whack. That's not fair for a faction that's trying to play the BGS how it's intended. I love the credit avalanche events just as much as anyone, but when the word gets out and everyone rushes to that area, that's when FDev acts on it. It's not because it was reported, but because of what the report did.

That's my optimistic viewpoint. The pessimist in me says bah humbug, let me kill skimmers for 200m a trip and let me haul passengers for about that same amount, but shhhh... don't want everyone doing it.

 

[krylite]

I think FDev listens enough and they listen far more than other games. One of my suggestions actually did get implemented. (of course I could be unaware there were previous posted same suggestions, but suffice to say some suggestions are listened to. )
And I'd rather they continue their current way of doing timely beta, update release, and fixing bugs later progressively when they have the "time and resources" to do so. Rather than wait longer like half a year or more. Fdev got the same "game is dying" complaints back when the updates during horizons weren't coming fast enough (due to ps4 port imo) so they can't "win" either way, so I'd rather they just continue as they are doing with about a month long beta wait for which in the grand scheme of things is just a partial update. 3.0.0 is more like a + x.1 update as they were planning about four major updates this year rather than a +x.1 update for two to four years until 3.3.x

The progressions of the updates and the game is fine the way it is, imo. I'm glad Frontier are nerfing the exploits earlier now and I agree with the no-exploits policy to stem credit inflation. The 'quick and easy' playerbase have had it too good for too long compared to other big mmo's with history out there where this kind of exploiting would never fly.

 

[damon8r351]

Problem with listening more to player "feedback" is we can't agree what we want, and to be perfectly honest, if Fdev stopped to address every insufferable request to merge the modes or make BGS not work in anything but Open, nothing would ever get done, least of all everyone's precious spacelegs and/or atmospheric landings.

And let's be honest with ourselves, half of our "feedback" is insufferable nonsense.

 

[Adhock]

They need to listen to our feedback, have beta tests, and discussions. And to their credit they do all of these things, but not enough.

The problem is that there is no general consensus for such things.

The gold rushing issue? Did anybody actually go skimmer killing or mining in the beta? Or was everyone too busy playing with the Chieftain and the new Engineers? That's the problem with Open Betas in that developers are not going to be able to get players to actually TEST anything. Players will be too busy trying out the new toys rather then going back to the old content to make sure it's working as intended.

Unlike when the game went live and everyone went back to their usual routine. HELLO CALIFORNIA!!!!

Ultimately? The player base is rarely a good source of discussion and feedback. I just recently made a post about how I lost a ship and brushed it off showcasing how I can learn from the experience and even made a breakthrough on a new "Mayday" mechanic. Which could lead to more gameplay experiences as it would allow for recovery from mechanics that cause loss of control like having damaged thrusters malfunction.

This was buried almost immediately under three pages of people whining about the new C&P and how they can't just faff about without consequences anymore. Ironic given that prior to the update. Everyone was screaming about needing more draconian C&P and crime having consequences. Well they got what they asked for and now they don't want it?

I could be insensitive here but I'll just sit back and let you fill in your own analogy.

We can armchair Dev all we want but given that I've proven that 95% of the forums is illiterate and can't read (as evidenced by the very topic you linked) I don't think we're the shining bastion of reason that will improve the game you hope we are.

There are some diamonds in here but most of it is just dirt.

Everyone wants X fixed but nobody agrees what should take priority. Everyone wants Y improvement but then don't want it when it's put in or Frontier "did it wrong". Everyone complains about Z when it's easily circumvented with a little effort that nobody wants to put in. Take your pick.

Most you can do is trust Frontier to progress at their own pace. Why do you think Anarchy systems are dangerous places?

 

[lokvette]

I do wonder somtimes if the FD moto is the three monkeys.

Saying that and to be fair to FD, I wouldnt listen to half the people on this forum and even less on Reddit, and god forbid anyone listens to me.

 

[Valorin]

There are many assumptions in this post. Also, at least that grind thing is something people scream and complain about, but actually the player base is not unified in this. I never ever grinded in Elite. I think you only can grind in Elite if you want things faster than intended. And I am not alone with this thought (which I voiced very often in other threads and needs no discussing here I guess...).
Just a heads up that the opinions of the loudest screamers and complainers are not necessarily the most popular ones. They are just the loudest.

And yeah, some things went wrong with this update and needed correction. So what? Will be fixed and done. It's a game.

 

[Mohrgan]

FD are one of the great examples of any company, let alone a game developer, that actively seeks out their customer's help and advice. FD have proven to be highly reactive to the needs and complaints of their players.

What is mistaken for not hearing, or listening; is not agreeing with all of the opinions and suggestions offered. They are all but showered, daily, by commentary and critique, from all corners. It is obvious, that on each and every option open to FD, there are camps on either side of the question, ready to take offense at the stand they take. By making any one decision, it is sure to inflame some portion of us players.

I would like to remind everyone about the recent changes to the KWS. FD changed it, to something they felt was reasonable, but found that the players were dissatisfied. Quickly, FD set about to gather the data required to put it right. They went turn by turn to understand our opinions, and negotiated their way to that fit both their vision, and our needs. And, they stand ready to adjust more, if the mechanic still doesn't suit. This is but one example of the like. They have had, and intend more, 'Focused Feedback' Sub-Forums on the topics of a year long fleshing out of the game's current mechanics. Largely, because that is exactly what the player base has asked for. Don't we remember the chorus of "FD fix the bugs, rather than develop more mechanics"? They are doing just that.

Again, I would just like to remind the readers here that not agreeing with, and/or not enacting all of the suggestions/opinions FD are offered, is not a sign of them not listening. More over it is a sign that they just can't please everyone, and butts do get hurt.

 

[Deareim]

FD are one of the great examples of any company, let alone a game developer, that actively seeks out their customer's help and advice. FD have proven to be highly reactive to the needs and complaints of their players.

What is mistaken for not hearing, or listening; is not agreeing with all of the opinions and suggestions offered. They are all but showered, daily, by commentary and critique, from all corners. It is obvious, that on each and every option open to FD, there are camps on either side of the question, ready to take offense at the stand they take. By making any one decision, it is sure to inflame some portion of us players.

I would like to remind everyone about the recent changes to the KWS. FD changed it, to something they felt was reasonable, but found that the players were dissatisfied. Quickly, FD set about to gather the data required to put it right. They went turn by turn to understand our opinions, and negotiated their way to that fit both their vision, and out needs. And, they stand ready to adjust more, if the mechanic still doesn't suit.

Again, I would just like to remind the readers here that not agreeing with, and/or not enacting all of the suggestions/opinions FD are offered, is not a sign of them not listening. More over it is a sign that they just can't please everyone, and butts do get hurt.

I almost cried, almost..

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

As players, most of us know exactly what we want.

However, what we want, and what we need are completely different.

And what's good for the game is different again.

 

[Robert Maynard]

As players, most of us know exactly what we want.

However, what we want, and what we need are completely different.

And what's good for the game is different again.

Then there's the simple fact that we don't all agree on a single point, much less all of the issues relating to a game like this one.

Who should Frontier listen to (as they cannot simultaneously accommodate all players' desires)?

 

[AbsinthSvK]

they dont need to completely relying on players opinions but there should be some management like they should make 3 options for problem and players decide what option is best.

Sorry but how they do things last year two is totally stupid and make even more unbalance/question and then more fixes. They announce change, but make it completely independent from players. We except A or B maybe C but they do D. :S

 

[Darty]

Then there's the simple fact that we don't all agree on a single point, much less all of the issues relating to a game like this one.

Who should Frontier listen to (as they cannot simultaneously accommodate all players' desires)?

The thing is there are issues that are really one sided in how many players have an issue with them. For example the grind. Even the dumbest and most illogical defenders of the grind have never gone as far as saying they actually enjoy hunting for HGE's, they have always tried to play it off as "I don't have a problem with it so you shouldn't." While these players may have no problem with the multilayer rng of the grind, I have not seen one of them try to argue that it would be BAD if fdev improved it, only unnecessary. It wouldn't be any skin off their back (unless they actually enjoy knowing other people have to suffer through the grind) if fdev did more to address the grind.

Same thing with material trader rates. No one has tried to argue that it would make the game less enjoyably to them if they trade rates were better, only that it's fine as it is. Or the ability to autoroll all previous engineering grades with the click of a single button (instead of having to click a dozen times).

During beta a lot of players complained about the drop rates of boron and lead from mining, and sandy responded to these complaint dismissively saying that the drop rates were the same as other common materials and that if they weren't we should submit a bug report. How hard would it have been for them to take all of the feedback we gave AS a bug report and do a bit of investigation. But they didn't and when beyond went live boron and lead dropped about as frequently as rare and very rare mats while mining, so I had to submit a bug report.

Again fdev does a pretty good ob at listening to community feedback sometimes. But other times it seems they just ignore us or dismiss us because they think they know better.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Even the dumbest and most illogical defenders of the grind have never gone as far as saying they actually enjoy hunting for HGE's, they have always tried to play it off as "I don't have a problem with it so you shouldn't."

It'll be interesting to see how much the "big NPCs can now drop G5 materials" changes things.

Short term, not a lot, of course. "Everyone" is wanting to re-max their engineered ships and HGE hunting, while dull, is a lot more efficient than blowing up pirate Anacondas on the off-chance.

Longer-term ... perhaps people will find that the Anaconda hunting has accumulated them a bunch of G5 materials so when they want to engineer their Krait they already have all the bits.

(None of which is to say that the HGE mechanism doesn't need some serious work anyway)

Same thing with material trader rates. No one has tried to argue that it would make the game less enjoyably to them if they trade rates were better, only that it's fine as it is.

Well, sure. But either ...

1) You can apply that argument indefinitely to the engineering process, and conclude that the *most* fun would be obtained if you could create a max-spec G5 module with experimental at any station for the cost of 1 credit.

2) You can decide that that would not be best, and that therefore the engineering process is better when it takes non-zero time. And then ... well, sure, there may be not much difference between it taking X hours and X-1 hours to engineer a ship, but if you're happy with X:
- X-1 might be worse overall, despite no individual step towards it being obviously an issue
- making the changes from X to X-1 is a use of Frontier's finite dev and test time, which could be spent on atmospheric space-leg squadron bugfixes, or some such.

'1' is certainly a valid opinion, but the response to the 5-to-1 exploit (and comparing that response to the responses to money-of-the-months) suggests that actually most players want there to be some length to the engineering process (i.e. '2'), even if they can't say why.

(On your other point, a "roll as far as it will go with current material stock" button would be a useful timesaver, yes. But for saving a few seconds of clicking per module - out of a much longer time collecting the materials - I'm happy for it not to be a development *priority*.)

Again fdev does a pretty good ob at listening to community feedback sometimes. But other times it seems they just ignore us or dismiss us because they think they know better.

And sometimes they listen and it turns out the players should have asked for something else.

One of the problems is that the people who enjoy the current system are too busy playing the game to complain on the forums about it. So, as we saw just now:
- 3.0 releases, with wing missions
- people come to the forums to complain about how too many missions are wing missions
- 3.0.3 releases with a far lower rate of wing missions
- the people who had been enjoying doing them suddenly show up to say "hey, where'd they go"
So listening to the "obvious" complaints is not necessarily the right thing to do.

Frontier certainly do listen to the forums and feedback, but a lot of their - in retrospect - most complained of decisions can be linked 1:1 to a former repeated community complaint or request. So, what does that prove?

 

[Schlack]

And let's be honest with ourselves, half of our "feedback" is insufferable nonsense.

your half maybe!

But yes there is a lot of chaff. That said it is strange that the most recent changes were made without notice considering the more open and consultative approach taken since 2.4

 

[Hellakitty]

I don't think it helped at all that the thread you referenced was worded in such a condescending way, like the OP was talking down to a five year old.

And while this thread is essentially that, but with less condescension, the dev team are going to do things their way because it's their toy box and they choose how it's run.

Pleas like this are just a waste of time, and mainly serve to give those who like the sound of their own voice somewhere to shout into the ether, rather than provide anything remotely constructive.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

And let's be honest with ourselves, half of our "feedback" is insufferable nonsense.

I'll have you know that ALL my feedback is insufferable nonsense.

The rest of you are just amateurs

 

[AdriánGuth]

The Fatal Conceit

 

[iFred]

In my opinion there are only 2 ways to solve the current problems.

1. DON´t listen to the community, just continue to develop right after the Early Game Design (which is great, but yet only half of it is in the game). Stop asking people, stop listening to "majorities", JUST DO IT.
2. Let the community decide by transparent feedback. Show us your possibilities and ressources, and let "us" decide about the major features. Bwahaha... just kidding.

Number 1 is the way to go. Stop gathering stupid feedback by players who haven´t understood half of the game but wanting to decide in what direction we all have to go - the result is the situation we have now: A demotivated player base, but hey, what a cool C&P-System, and oh how cool Engineering is right now - but for what purpose? Exactly - for an empty game.

Certainly something has to change and in my opinion it is asking the community what to do and how to handle game features. In my opinion all those discussions have lead to the disappointing situation we have now. And if that doesnt work you can do some fingerpointing towards David But I am certain his ideas will work.

 

[Darty]

One of the problems is that the people who enjoy the current system are too busy playing the game to complain on the forums about it. So, as we saw just now:
- 3.0 releases, with wing missions
- people come to the forums to complain about how too many missions are wing missions
- 3.0.3 releases with a far lower rate of wing missions
- the people who had been enjoying doing them suddenly show up to say "hey, where'd they go"
So listening to the "obvious" complaints is not necessarily the right thing to do.

Frontier certainly do listen to the forums and feedback, but a lot of their - in retrospect - most complained of decisions can be linked 1:1 to a former repeated community complaint or request. So, what does that prove?

The thing is there is a simple solution to that issue: Increase the number of all missions and make a quota system for wing and solo missions so that there are always a lot of both.

Or do what they did with passenger missions and add a separate mission board for them. This is another issue with fdev's development process, they make simple numerical changes to address design issues instead of trying to redesign the system that has the problems.

It'll be interesting to see how much the "big NPCs can now drop G5 materials" changes things.

Short term, not a lot, of course. "Everyone" is wanting to re-max their engineered ships and HGE hunting, while dull, is a lot more efficient than blowing up pirate Anacondas on the off-chance.

Longer-term ... perhaps people will find that the Anaconda hunting has accumulated them a bunch of G5 materials so when they want to engineer their Krait they already have all the bits.

(None of which is to say that the HGE mechanism doesn't need some serious work anyway)

It'll help for sure, but it won't solve the issue. I've tried to take advantage of the mechanics by using an exploit that allows me to kill deadly anaconda after deadly anaconda and even then it wasn't super time efficient (although the number of g4 mats I got made up for it), and most importantly it DIDN'T give me some of the hardest to find g5 mats because they only drop from cargo ships or military ships.

Well, sure. But either ...

1) You can apply that argument indefinitely to the engineering process, and conclude that the *most* fun would be obtained if you could create a max-spec G5 module with experimental at any station for the cost of 1 credit.

2) You can decide that that would not be best, and that therefore the engineering process is better when it takes non-zero time. And then ... well, sure, there may be not much difference between it taking X hours and X-1 hours to engineer a ship, but if you're happy with X:
- X-1 might be worse overall, despite no individual step towards it being obviously an issue
- making the changes from X to X-1 is a use of Frontier's finite dev and test time, which could be spent on atmospheric space-leg squadron bugfixes, or some such.

'1' is certainly a valid opinion, but the response to the 5-to-1 exploit (and comparing that response to the responses to money-of-the-months) suggests that actually most players want there to be some length to the engineering process (i.e. '2'), even if they can't say why.

(On your other point, a "roll as far as it will go with current material stock" button would be a useful timesaver, yes. But for saving a few seconds of clicking per module - out of a much longer time collecting the materials - I'm happy for it not to be a development *priority*.)

Fair enough, but the devs changing a single number from 6 to 4 and waiting to see if it makes things too easy doesn't seem like too much of risk compared to the potential reward of saving player's time and frustration. Worst case scenario some players get a few g5 mods too fast and the devs can change the 4 to a 5.

Your point about the clicking not being an issue compared to the mat collection process would be valid if the devs seemed to be putting any time into adding new mechanics that made it easier or more entertaining. Considering how many players seem to be very upset about all the clicking (its dozens of clicks per module which isn't that bad for a single module IMO, but if you are trying to g3 or g4 a bunch of modules on a new ship then it can be a pretty annoying time waster)