Here’s my take on what Elite Dangerous is getting wrong…

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

I don’t believe Frontier are under any obligation to communicate at all. I paid my money, got my game. End of conversation.

I blame these stupid Breakfast TV shows or radio phone ins for giving the public the idea that their opinion was required on anything. “Have your say” sends shudders down my spine.

If you purchased a book, the author is under no obligation to maintain an open channel with you to discuss the merits or otherwise of it.

You may argue that as Elite is an ongoing construction, you have some right to be able to steer that. Again, I disagree. You paid one bit of money, once, had your fun, conversation over.

Just because you paid for a subscription to a streaming service to watch Peaky Game of Stranger Blinder Throne Things does not entitle you, or obligate the makers, into having a conversation about the direction of the series.

No one forced anyone into buying the game, the cosmetics, additional equipment or anything.

 

[lenna]

But having said that, I'd rather FDev did less streams, and released more trailers/teasers and more dev diary types of things. Even say that one Community Manager was tied up for 2 hours per stream, twice a week and it was them alone, that could be a morning or afternoon spent prowling the forums and interacting with their current customers. But a stream never is just one employee and a webcam, there is always at least two FDev staff on the streams - and often more, plus the prepwork writing the scripts, vetting the content, etc, those streams must chew up at least 20+ "man hours" per week, twenty hours a week would generate lots more engaging things than a couple streams.

It does not matter whether the format is a live stream, trailers/teasers or a dev diary, ultimately they will all consume an extensive amount of man hours but perhaps in different ways. I don't think changing the format is likely to significantly change the amount of content produced nor the amount of time spent on developing the product itself.

Live Streams are better than dev diaries in someways because it allows for open interaction with the community and can allow for better discussion - scripts for live streams need not be scripted to the nth degree like you are intimating, they just need a clear agenda and a time-cap.

 

[lenna]

I don’t believe Frontier are under any obligation to communicate at all. I paid my money, got my game. End of conversation.

True - but you can bet your behind that FD do not do so out of a sense of obligation, they do so when and if they feel it makes commercial sense to do so.

As for FD being not required to take our opinions into consideration - they both are and are not obligated to do so. There is the legal standpoint of keeping the product in-line with what was originally sold to each of us (DDFs regarding non-realised features are in the main moot since the product went live) and then there is the point that engaging with the community and considering our opinions is key to the product's long term survival.

FD do not have any obligation to implement things exactly as we suggest, but they would be wise to keep the broad spectrum of opinions in mind when they do eventually implement things. IMO The FSS/DSS changes are a clear case where they failed to do so, Squadron Carriers being redesigned as Personal Carriers is a clear case where they succeeded.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

Well, I agree that they could be more forthcoming with information on what they are developing. However, I don’t think it’s an issue that they don’t respond to suggestions.

Forum users are not employees of Fdev. We don’t get to dictate their game. Also, most of the suggestions are absolute junk

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

True - but you can bet your behind that FD do not do so out of a sense of obligation, they do so when and if they feel it makes commercial sense to do so.

As for FD being not required to take our opinions into consideration - they both are and are not obligated to do so. There is the legal standpoint of keeping the product in-line with what was originally sold to each of us (DDFs regarding non-realised features are in the main moot since the product went live) and then there is the point that engaging with the community and considering our opinions is key to the product's long term survival.

FD do not have any obligation to implement things exactly as we suggest, but they would be wise to keep the broad spectrum of opinions in mind when they do eventually implement things. IMO The FSS/DSS changes are a clear case where they failed to do so, Squadron Carriers being redesigned as Personal Carriers is a clear case where they succeeded.

I was under the impression that once out of kickstarter and the product was released on general sale, all obligations had been met, therefore, they’re beholden to no one. I stand to be corrected if this is not the case.

The /DSS issue is personal. I have used both systems and my preference is the FSS so not a great example for me but I get the point you’re making.

I get the idea that it is commercial viable for them to ‘engage with their base’, another horrific throw up in the modern parlance but in most cases this is a veneer of pretence, a gesture because for some reason the public believe that their opinions are wanted, valid and should be considered. Most companies are just playing a game with you, doing a dance. Even politicians know it, “We’ve listened to the public”, then they go on to do what they like but they’ve spouted the line because we expect them to.

Boot on the other foot for a minute. I can go into a shop now and buy a shirt, they want my email address, they say, to send me a receipt but we all know it’s to spam me with offers, to carry on the transaction conversation. Phone your power, internet, mobile phone provider and they try to put you on to sone survey, to get your opinion. None of us want it. We nearly all refuse. Yet here we are demanding it in other areas.

I know this is personal choice but when I buy something, unless it’s faulty, we are done. If it was just crap, I don’t but it or from them again.

I hate the smell of entitlement around this. I guess the difference is between a company inviting opinion or a customer demanding to give one. I view the first as mainly a hollow gesture and the latter as just gauche.

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

This is weird. My post says:

But I didn’t type that and when I try to edit it, I see I didn’t type it.

 

[Old Duck]

If you purchased a book, the author is under no obligation to maintain an open channel with you to discuss the merits or otherwise of it.

Imagine you purchase a book and then the author comes in and removes a chapter after-the-fact (ADS) and inserts a bunch of grammatical errors (bugs) that weren't in the book when you bought it. In fact, he goes and changes huge parts of the plot, so that the book is no longer the same one you originally bought. Sounds silly? Well that's what you get for comparing software to a book.

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

Imagine you purchase a book and then the author comes in and removes a chapter after-the-fact (ADS) and inserts a bunch of grammatical errors (bugs) that weren't in the book when you bought it. In fact, he goes and changes huge parts of the plot, so that the book is no longer the same one you originally bought. Sounds silly? Well that's what you get for comparing software to a book.

Well, I can see that if you were to take it as a direct comparison, you could reach that conclusion. Saying that, both are ‘authored’ and generally provided for entertainment or education purposes. It’s not as though they have no similarities.

If you notice, I did go on to give another comparison that you may or may not find so silly.

The thing is though, it was about my perspective (not one I’m demanding anyone agree with, just one proffered).

It’s about the idea that when I purchase a book, software, sausages, a lottery ticket or some underwear, (I purposely put silly examples in there) for me the transaction stops right there.

Unless there is an immediate fault with the item, I feel the conversation is closed. I don’t believe, because I parted with a few quid, once, this gives me the right to contact that company on a daily basis for the next few years and demand they listen to my invaluable advice that they would be foolish to ignore.

Even if that company openly invites me to part with my undoubted wisdom, I still don’t believe that they’re under any obligation to recognise it let alone implement it.

 

[Old Duck]

It’s about the idea that when I purchase a book, software, sausages, a lottery ticket or some underwear, (I purposely put silly examples in there) for me the transaction stops right there.

Unless there is an immediate fault with the item, I feel the conversation is closed. I don’t believe, because I parted with a few quid, once, this gives me the right to contact that company on a daily basis for the next few years and demand they listen to my invaluable advice that they would be foolish to ignore.

But if that company were to come in and constantly change the underwear in your drawer, say from boxers to briefs, or change your sports tickets from basketball to baseball, then wouldn't you then feel you had a right to voice your opinion?

Now if were able to go back and play the game I originally bought (version 2.3 on PS4), before Frontier added all these bugs and changed the game, then I would be more accepting of your argument. I actually did this with RDR2, since there is debate to whether the original version looks better than the updated version. I can't do this with ED. I paid for a game, and now it's a different game, and it will continue becoming more and more different (and knowing Frontier, more and more broken). IMO, that gives me a say in the matter, even if nobody listens to what I have to say.

And thus why this forum exists in the first place, no?

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

But if that company were to come in and constantly change the underwear in your drawer, say from boxers to briefs, or change your sports tickets from basketball to baseball, then wouldn't you then feel you had a right to voice your opinion?

Now if were able to go back and play the game I originally bought (version 2.3 on PS4), before Frontier added all these bugs and changed the game, then I would be more accepting of your argument. I actually did this with RDR2, since there is debate to whether the original version looks better than the updated version. I can't do this with ED. I paid for a game, and now it's a different game, and it will continue becoming more and more different (and knowing Frontier, more and more broken). IMO, that gives me a say in the matter, even if nobody listens to what I have to say.

And thus why this forum exists in the first place, no?

I hear that and tbh, it’s hurting some people. For example, the FSS thing is personal. I prefer it, I have used both systems and yes it could use a tweak (speed up the POI count) but it has inspired me to do way more exploring than I did before it arrived. Personal.

I just watched your videos in that thread you just posted. Whether you believe me or not, I’m not getting those issues. If I could be bothered to create then link a YT account to the PS4 I’d show you.

So those issues are personal to you (and others no doubt), I was simply offering my perspective. I have no game breaking issues with the game. If I did, I’d stop playing. Simple as. I would not believe for a minute that me posting about it on a forum would change it.

Interesting aside, when I buy a game, it’s on average £50-£60. If I get around 25-30 hours play on it, I consider it value for money. Job done. That it no longer entertains me or changes after that period I don’t get upset. I had my money’s worth.

As for the forums, again, it’s part of the modern way isn’t it? Nearly every company has an internet presence to engage with their customers. It reminds me of the habitual and meaningless greetings we have here in the UK.

Hi, how are you?
(Doesn’t really care just being polite)

Fine, you?
(Totally not fine, in fact, feeling suicidal, also bolts on polite ending)

 

[Old Duck]

I have no game breaking issues with the game. If I did, I’d stop playing. Simple as. I would not believe for a minute that me posting about it on a forum would change it.

Hopefully you feel the same about the forum, because don't believe for a minute that you posting to this thread will change it.

Interesting aside, when I buy a game, it’s on average £50-£60. If I get around 25-30 hours play on it, I consider it value for money. Job done. That it no longer entertains me or changes after that period I don’t get upset. I had my money’s worth.

But you seem upset that others get upset, and you didn't pay a dime to join the forum

 

[Soron Silin]

This is weird. My post says:

But I didn’t type that and when I try to edit it, I see I didn’t type it.

That is the forum censoring you. The abbreviation you wanted was FSS, but you had two Fs and one S. That is a different acronym that might be considered aggressive or obscene.

I had a similar problem when talking about the twiddly things on my new control panel. I had to circumvent* it by spelling it with an accented K: "ķnob". If I don't do that it comes out as "", and yes, it is in there but you can't see it. Other censoring appears to replace the F word with "gently caressing".

---
Edit:
* circumventing censorship is morally defensible only when the word I want to use is innocent and there are no reasonable alternatives. I understand why the word is censored -- it's a popular and obscene slur in the UK at least -- but I was using it to refer to a control in the correct and clean sense and I couldn't think of an alternative.

 

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

That is the forum censoring you. The abbreviation you wanted was FSS, but you had two Fs and one S. That is a different acronym that might be considered aggressive or obscene.

I had a similar problem when talking about the twiddly things on my new control panel. I had to circumvent* it by spelling it with an accented K: "ķnob". If I don't do that it comes out as "", and yes, it is in there but you can't see it. Other censoring appears to replace the F word with "gently caressing".

---
Edit:
* circumventing censorship is morally defensible only when the word I want to use is innocent and there are no reasonable alternatives. I understand why the word is censored -- it's a popular and obscene slur in the UK at least -- but I was using it to refer to a control in the correct and clean sense and I couldn't think of an alternative.

Thank you.

Hopefully you feel the same about the forum, because don't believe for a minute that you posting to this thread will change it.

I’m not trying to change the forum. I’ve viewed this place more as a source of information. The sharing of things like loadouts or ‘how to’s’.

But you seem upset that others get upset, and you didn't pay a dime to join the forum

I’m not upset, I can take an opposing view and not be upset. It is after all a discussion forum.

OP states that the biggest mistake Frontier is making is not listening to the community. I disagree with that point of view. No commotion.

 

[Enderby]

The suggestions section is, i think, just for the forum-users’ to air their ideas and feel like they’ve contributed something. A plecebo sort of thing. A hole into which ideas can be thrown. And then ignored.

And, fair enough.

 

[cheesenbiscuits]

One of the best tools Frontier can provide is a way to vote on feature requests the same way we vote on bugs. Give us more control over how new features are implemented, a way to see what our community wants the most. Then use that tool to directly engage with the player base so that we are all working on the same page. So that we all understand the things we want the game to do, and the things the game can do. Fostering better communication, providing better channels for understanding, and providing the community more information about progress will make a world of difference, and will do more to bring the veteran players back than any number of fleet carriers or space legs.

I’d rather leave the developing to the developers to whatever end.
We’d just end up with people trying to rally the cause behind their ideas and end up with a game designed by people who can play the forum game the best.
We’d also be handing over development to a relatively small portion of the player base.

 

[Enderby]

If you want to design the game apply to FD for a job.

 

[Old Duck]

If you want to design the game apply to FD for a job.

If they give me the source code, I'll fix the bugs (at least the ones that bother me) for FREE

 

[Enderby]

If they give me the source code, I'll fix the bugs (at least the ones that bother me) for FREE

Give ‘em a call!

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Let's remember that some of the most complained about ideas that Frontier has implemented have come from the players

Players: "We should make sure that criminals get sent to a prison a long way away from where they committed their crime"
Frontier: {implements detention centres}
Players: "Aaargh! I'm in the middle of nowhere and all I did was shoot down an NPC because I thought it was someone else"

Players: "Engineering should always improve your module"
Frontier: {engineering reforms}
Players: "What do you mean I can't just get the best module in a single roll any more?"

Players: "In-system micro jumps between POIs are too inflexible. We need a way of moving around that lets us go anywhere"
Frontier: {implements supercruise}
Players: "Hutton Orbital is where?!"

Players: "Exploration is just honk and jump, there should be more to it than that with actual scanners you use so it's more interactive"
Frontier: {implements FSS}
Players: "Nooooooo!"

Players: "The economy is boring and there's no supply and demand"
Frontier: {tweaks some economic variables to make them slightly more aggressive}
Players: "I can't find any Palladium for this mission!"

Players: "This game doesn't have any meaningful consequences for player actions"
Frontier: {implements some}
Players: "It's terrible that my station got UA-bombed. Frontier shouldn't allow this"

It's not usually been exactly the same players making the 'before' and 'after' statements. Usually. But it is generally true that when players say that Frontier should listen more to what players want, they're missing out several key qualifiers to that statement.

 

[lenna]

I was under the impression that once out of kickstarter and the product was released on general sale, all obligations had been met, therefore, they’re beholden to no one. I stand to be corrected if this is not the case.

I am not talking about kickstarter obligations (those mostly ended at point of product release - I thought I made that clear with my reference to the DDFs being mostly moot) but the obligations to existing users of the released product (c/f compliance with Trading Standards and similar regulations), arguably removing the BDS/IDS/ADS functionality could be considered a breech of those obligations (and their own guideline/rule of building on the past), especially given both the nature of the replacement mechanics and the length of time the prior mechanics were in play - the placeholder argument loses all legitimacy at that point. Plus there is the point that FD seem to be resistant and/or dismissive of suggested improvements which arguably are necessary to meet their obligations - and I am not necessarily talking about reviving the BDS/IDS/ADS mechanics either.

Ultimately, the overriding point is that the introduction of the FSS/DSS failed to hit the point of acceptable compromise. It adversely affects the in-game experience for at least some with no acceptable alternate mechanic.