[Video] Open letter from community to Elite Dangerous

[iFred]

And that is why Frontier have probably stopped asking the community for feedback via the open sessions (whatever they were called) and design discussion forums because there'll always be parts of the community that will never be satisfied

Totally wrong. They stopped as everyone was posting "ARX ARX ARX". Good ol days.

 

[Nerth]

Of course its true, nothing you've said makes the carrier a non-squadron accessible feature.

I think you just got carried away with theorycrafting.

You misunderstand the difference between a feature being an intrinsic part of another feature allowing greater breadth of the latter, and a feature merely being accessible. Fleet Carriers were promised as an intrinsic part of Squadrons, allowing greater squadron gameplay and interaction. This was changed and such gameplay is now not possible via carriers. I theory crafted nothing. Were you at FX17 and hear them announced? Did you speak with the devs as I did?

 

[zimms]

I don't do PP or follow it so you'll have to dig up the dev quote and then I'll be happy to explain phrases like "we plan" and "hopefully" to you.

"A power that is in the bottom three ranks of the galactic standing list is at risk of collapsing and vanishing altogether. Simply being in the bottom three ranks does not automatically put the power at risk. It also has to fail to achieve any expansion during the cycle. The more cycles a power is ranked in the bottom three and fails to expand, the more likely it will collapse. Supporters of a collapsed power are freed from service; once they have come to terms with the ignominy of failing to save their power they are free to pledge to a new power."

Sorry, I couldn't find any quotes including the words 'hopefully' or 'we plan'.

 

[Stigbob]

You misunderstand the difference between a feature being an intrinsic part of another feature allowing greater breadth of the latter, and a feature merely being accessible. Fleet Carriers were promised as an intrinsic part of Squadrons, allowing greater squadron gameplay and interaction. This was changed and such gameplay is now not possible via carriers. I theory crafted nothing. Were you at FX17 and hear them announced? Did you speak with the devs as I did?

What specifics is it you think you've lost and why do you think you've lost them ?.

 

[Stigbob]

"A power that is in the bottom three ranks of the galactic standing list is at risk of collapsing and vanishing altogether. Simply being in the bottom three ranks does not automatically put the power at risk. It also has to fail to achieve any expansion during the cycle. The more cycles a power is ranked in the bottom three and fails to expand, the more likely it will collapse. Supporters of a collapsed power are freed from service; once they have come to terms with the ignominy of failing to save their power they are free to pledge to a new power."

Sorry, I couldn't find any quotes including the words 'hopefully' or 'we plan'.

You'll need to post a link rather than snip out just the one paragraph without context.

 

[Enderby]

We’re all agreed, then, that FD could do a lot better. Both in terms of the quality and content of updates and in communicating with us, their loyal, loving customers.

Come on FD, sort it out.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I don't do PP or follow it so you'll have to dig up the dev quote and then I'll be happy to explain phrases like "we plan" and "hopefully" to you.

It was in the original Powerplay manual published by Frontier as a feature which existed and had been implemented.

It was only after a power (Delaine, I think, was the first) met the documented conditions for an extended period with no effect that Frontier said that it wasn't in yet but they planned to add it later.

The bottom three ranked powers are in danger of collapse
A power that is in the bottom three ranks of the galactic standing list is at risk of collapsing and vanishing altogether.
Simply being in the bottom three ranks does not automatically put the power at risk. It also has to fail to achieve any expansion during the cycle.
The more cycles a power is ranked in the bottom three and fails to expand, the more likely it will collapse.
Supporters of a collapsed power are freed from service; once they have come to terms with the ignominy of failing to save their power they are free to pledge to a new power.

Note the complete absence of phrases like "we plan" and "hopefully"

EDIT:
https://d1wv0x2frmpnh.cloudfront.net/elite/website/assets/English-PlayersGuide_v2.00-Horizons.pdf page 127 - as you can see, it's an official Frontier document which neither of us have taken out of context

 

[Nerth]

I'm probably misunderstanding something here, but how would they have told you that a change had been made without announcing it?

Do you mean some sort of statement in (hypothetically - I've no idea when they actually decided) February saying "we still don't have a release date for Fleet Carriers, but we've decided to make them available to individuals rather than squadrons when they do come out"?

Yes, exactly that. I would have been disappointed and wanted clarification of the potential gameplay for Squadrons that has been lost but I and others wouldn't have been blindsided at the change. On balance I hope personal carriers are great I'm just disappointed at the disappearance of potential Squadron gameplay. It reinforces my worries that Squadrons is another undercooked and largely pointless feature with no actual gameplay attached. I worry they will do no further development on it as with other undercooked multiplayer features - multicrew, PP, CQC etc.

 

[Stigbob]

It was in the original Powerplay manual published by Frontier as a feature which existed and had been implemented.

It was only after a power (Delaine, I think, was the first) met the documented conditions for an extended period with no effect that Frontier said that it wasn't in yet but they planned to add it later.

Note the complete absence of phrases like "we plan" and "hopefully"

So its not a false promise its a work in progress then.

2-0 to Stigbob.

 

[EUS]

We’re all agreed, then, that FD could do a lot better. Both in terms of the quality and content of updates and in communicating with us, their loyal, loving customers.

Come on FD, sort it out.

I'd like to agree, but have to run it by my community leader first.

 

[babelfisch]

In that case, FD need to test what they release, and be more than 50% sure its going to last. Powerplay was launched hardly finished.

I guess asking for improvement is reasonable. Being frustrated for years not so much. I do admire your dedication though.

 

[zimms]

So its not a false promise its a work in progress then.

2-0 to Stigbob.

For 5 years without an update. Do you think people are allowed to be unhappy about that? And why would it count as WIP? I think I've just made a brilliant reply, I'll award myself 7 points for that.

Me 7:2 Tottenham Stigbob

 

[babelfisch]

Gatekeeping is when one person decides that their experience alone allows them to decide who is allowed to have an opinion on something and that anyone who disagrees with their opinion clearly doesn't understand the breadth and depth of their experience that allows them to make such judgements.

So it's pretty much like calling people white knights, fanboys and apologist? Not implying you ever did that, it's just an interesting observation and I guess I'll adapt that term for the crétins.

 

[Nerth]

So it's pretty much like calling people white knights, fanboys and apologist? Not implying you ever did that, it's just an interesting observation and I guess I'll adapt that term for the crétins.

Yes exactly, it applies to them too.

 

[Nerth]

For 5 years without an update. Do you think people are allowed to be unhappy about that? And why would it count as WIP? I think I've just made a brilliant reply, I'll award myself 7 points for that.

Me 7:2 Tottenham Stigbob

I work with a Spurs fan. Been laughing at him all day and working the number 7 into every convo and email XD

 

[babelfisch]

The mods seem to not agree with the OP or petition and so have allowed quite a lot of trolling and off-topic convos on this thread. I'll probably get warned/temp banned for writing this lol

Hey, I am just trying to keep this thread on page one. And I totally don't get a share from yamiks!!!

 

[operant]

Why is it self entitiled? The people who play the game are desperately trying to signal to Fdev that they have scewed up everytihng they touched in ED sinse beyond ch4 pretty much.

1. The document itself including the title.
2. If one feels that the product sold was not of merchantable quality or falsely advertised then I guess consumer protection should uphold one’s right to a refund.

I love the game (since the original on the BBC mirco) and am absolutely invested in it and will whine and moan with the best of them to try to influence its development. I too wish aspects of the game and development process were different. However, the notion that FD have an ongoing responsibility (beyond their commercial interest and duty to shareholders) to me and must do as I want, I find fanciful, arrogant etc.

As I said YVMV. But the way this has been done also reduces my respect for those involved. Again YVMV.

 

[babelfisch]

I'll give you one:
Fleet carriers being a Squadrons feature. By that, I don't mean it was a part of the same update but that it was an intrinsic part of the Squadrons feature.

I was there at FX17 when Sandro said "As an extra little treat we're going to allow Squadrons to purchase their own fleet carriers. So these really large vessels, really large dockable vessels are going to act as a mobile base of operations for Squadrons where its members can refuel, rearm and respawn so hopefully it's gonna be quite a bit of fun!"

When FCs finally got announced they were personal not tied to Squadrons. We waited 2 years for the "mobile base of operations" only for it to not happen. Like I said to Will at the time, I'd have been fine with this if we'd been told about this change when the decsion was made but they instead left us in the dark until the announcement.

That's invalid since you can use them with Squadrons. In fact you can have something like 300 mobile bases of operation in your squadron.

PS
And you just showed why communication with us is problematic.

 

[babelfisch]

So "the community" requested fleet carriers not to be implemented?

That doesn't make any sense. Fleet carriers are going to be implemented in a way the community asked for.
Wasn't this about FDEV should listen to us?!

 

[babelfisch]

Incorrect. It was specifically a Squadron feature that was removed from Squadrons with no prior comms. The fact that members of Squadrons can still use them does not make them a Squadrons feature. I was in the room at FX17. There was no ambiguity: they were a Squadrons feature.

And they are still a Squadron feature. A squadron feature that can be accessed by anyone.