[Video] Open letter from community to Elite Dangerous

[[PS4] Lorenzo Waringos]

In the UK we had a short spell of high profile people telling us what the ‘silent majority’ thought. I still wonder how they knew? The silent bit in ‘silent majority’ is pretty descriptive.

 

[Nerth]

Yep its absolutely fine, there are always a few minor bugs after a patch. They are also banging out fixes like they are possessed proving FDEV listen and care about the game.



More pointless than unreasonable, past beta's in ED were always just something of a drama magnet between the haves and the have nots and a bit of a gimmick really. People just checked out ships to see if it was worth getting them main game and spent a lot of time complaining progress didn't carry over. Then afterwards have a meltdown because FDEV didn't listen.

I'm sure if FDEV had valued our contribution to them they'd have kept it going.

 

[Stigbob]

I'm not trying to change their opinion. That should never be the aim of a discussion. What I'm trying to do is make the conversation more constructive by highlighting the absurdity of ad hominem and the snarky back-biting which is all too common on these boards. The forum warriors, as I call them, are only interested in picking at the people who voice criticism (as you say), but that's not helpful for anyone--including them.

That's a bit snarky to be honest.

If we could make the discussion constructive, that is, about the issues being discussed instead of fetishizing particular wordage or who belongs to red team or blue team, we'd have both a healthier community and a better game.

Its hard to be constructive when some people actually get upset if anyone's positive. There's also an issue over agreeing what the issues actually are for example I expect bugs after any patch and think open only is a terrible selfish unworkable idea.

 

[babelfisch]

Honestly, save your breath. These people are just trolling anyone who isn't happy with the state of the game and voices it. They're not worth the effort to engage and are better off being added to your ignore list. They're happy with the game as is, and good for them, but nothing you can say will change their opinion.

Nah, I only troll trolls. If you can make some reasonable criticism I'll agree with it. If making your point requires dev bashing (something that the initiators of the petition disagreed with by the way) it instantly gets invalid. Make your point without insulting people. If it's controversy accept that some people will disagree with it. That's all I ask but it seems to be impossible.

 

[Enderby]

Is it fixed yet?

 

[Zapgun]

So by default, as a minority community, representing only their own views, they expect special treatment by Frontier, in preference to the majority who also play the game and would normally be associated as "the community"?

And how exactly do you know you are not in the 'minority community' and they are in the majority?

 

[Factabulous]

If we could make the discussion constructive, that is, about the issues being discussed instead of fetishizing particular wordage or who belongs to red team or blue team, we'd have both a healthier community and a better game.

This is where we would disagree - the Open Letter is a request for fdev to place their QA process, release process, release contents and financial payout dates in the hands of a bunch of anonymous people on the internet - because they think they know better. Many of us find that absurd, and would rather fdev got on with doing all that themselves. They run the financial and reputational risks - not us. Fair enough telling them their current QA isn't good and asking for improvements, but most of the rest - no thanks. There is literally nothing to discuss here - only a statement to make: please improve the QA.

 

[babelfisch]

Have you considered using an ipetition to get a response?

I am still looking for an influenza.
PS
Personally I prefer strawpolls.

 

[Stigbob]

Is it fixed yet?

It was never broken.

 

[babelfisch]

I'm not trying to change their opinion. That should never be the aim of a discussion. What I'm trying to do is make the conversation more constructive by highlighting the absurdity of ad hominem and the snarky back-biting which is all too common on these boards. The forum warriors, as I call them, are only interested in picking at the people who voice criticism (as you say), but that's not helpful for anyone--including them.

If we could make the discussion constructive, that is, about the issues being discussed instead of fetishizing particular wordage or who belongs to red team or blue team, we'd have both a healthier community and a better game.

Did you just complain about the very thing you just did?

 

[Zapgun]

I'm not trying to change their opinion. That should never be the aim of a discussion. What I'm trying to do is make the conversation more constructive by highlighting the absurdity of ad hominem and the snarky back-biting which is all too common on these boards. The forum warriors, as I call them, are only interested in picking at the people who voice criticism (as you say), but that's not helpful for anyone--including them.

If we could make the discussion constructive, that is, about the issues being discussed instead of fetishizing particular wordage or who belongs to red team or blue team, we'd have both a healthier community and a better game.

I wish I had that much focus and patience

 

[babelfisch]

Alright. That's a perfectly reasonable response. I'd argue that they really should be doing better, but that's getting away from the point, and I really just wanted to see why people were defending FDev in this thread.

Please, I am not defending FDEV, I am defending my virginity common sense.

 

[Stigbob]

This is where we would disagree - the Open Letter is a request for fdev to place their QA process, release process, release contents and financial payout dates in the hands of a bunch of anonymous people on the internet - because they think they know better. Many of us find that absurd, and would rather fdev got on with doing all that themselves. They run the financial and reputational risks - not us. Fair enough telling them their current QA isn't good and asking for improvements, but most of the rest - no thanks. There is literally nothing to discuss here - only a statement to make: please improve the QA.

It wasn't a request it was a series of demands complete with threats of repercussions.

 

[playfuldreamer]

This is where we would disagree - the Open Letter is a request for fdev to place their QA process, release process, release contents and financial payout dates in the hands of a bunch of anonymous people on the internet - because they think they know better. Many of us find that absurd, and would rather fdev got on with doing all that themselves. They run the financial and reputational risks - not us. Fair enough telling them their current QA isn't good and asking for improvements, but most of the rest - no thanks. There is literally nothing to discuss here - only a statement to make: please improve the QA.

Then we disagree on what, exactly, is the underlying message/purpose of the petition. That's fine.

 

[Old Duck]

It was never broken.

I think it's time to change your avatar.

 

[babelfisch]

I think it's time to change your avatar.

If you want to stop Stigbob from being positive you all just need to stop complaining.

 

[Stigbob]

I think it's time to change your avatar.

The current one was gained under much funnier circumstances so its a keeper. It would take a proper comedy meltdown to rival it.

 

[Kamiyoda]

The current one was gained under much funnier circumstances so its a keeper. It would take a proper comedy meltdown to rival it.

I got you on fleet carrier day.

 

[Stigbob]

If you want to stop Stigbob from being positive you all just need to stop complaining.

That's not much to ask is it ?.

 

[Rat Catcher]

I'm not making either of those claims.

I'm reminding you (and Ratkacher) that because the majority of a given population are silent, their opinions are unknown. This means that the minority of voices can (and often do) rerpesent the opinions of those who are not expressing them. This is literally how representative government works.

I have not declared if I am in a majority or minority, nor do I intend to. (As I have no idea which I may fit into)
The whole of the discussion would revolve around numbers - the number of game copies sold runs into milions - the number of signatories to an online petition in the low thousands, with just those numbers one can extrapolate where a minority may be constructed.

I agree entirely that the silent majority have not voiced an opinion, but by not voicing an opinion that does not imply consent to action by a minority, surely?

Comparing it to goverment is - what did you imply I was using... At least with a General Election everyone who is entitled to vote will have beeen informed, many times, of the option - a totally opposite situation to an online petition by 'influencers', do you not agree?