ANNOUNCEMENT Community Update (22/10)

[babelfisch]

The current roadmap is just that- current. It does not even take into account old features that have bee ignored. The last roadmap I saw had five big blobs and a sentence for each. If we were talking the roadmaps the Star Citizen folks pop out then I'd agree.

True, and even that was enough to cause a forum meltdown when it changed.

My view? Yes FD had to fix things and its a good move- but, as a result of ED being mismanaged with its Brookes / Sandro / current era chopping and changing EDs direction, quality assurance has not kept up with the updated features which themselves have been ignored for even more new features which themselves are half baked- this ignores huge balancing issues that break parts of the game that persist.

I am not going to argue about the 'long standing issues', it's a fact that the community can neither agree what they are nor how they should get fixed. Anyway, if half baked features are a problem, delaying fleet carriers is actually the best thing that could happen. If that really results in a better game remains to be seen. However, speculation about it is a bit pointless. I guess that once they are released, people will find something to complain about regardless of the implementation. The question is, how much worse would it be if they released them in December or even last year?

I really do hope FD use this time to seriously knuckle down, because they have overreached themselves since probably 1.3. But, is it too late? FD could have done the slow and steady to begin with, and lock in what we expect of them early on with new features seeing quality, considered updates at each point release afterwards.

True, I don't think it's too late though. It would be too late if nobody played the game anymore. Could it be better? Sure. Are they doing everything right? Nope. Is it still my favourite space game. Yes.
That doesn't mean there should be no criticism. I often agree with you because you are mostly reasonable, even though I don't necessarily agree with the criticism itself. For me there isn't always a clear right or wrong.

My beef is not with the need for bug fixing- my annoyance is that it was required in such a dramatic way that has stalled the games forward momentum.

For me the forward momentum remains in the next era stuff. Everything in between is just fluff. To be fair, I am not very interested in fleet carriers so I guess other people will have harder feelings about it.

 

[A D]

But that's still no excuse for calling anyone 'a complete idiot'. That is archaic, it's abusive, it's offensive to the brain injured and the profoundly mentally and those who care for them, and it's speech crime.

Before you get into a politically correct meltdown it might be worth mentioning that he didn't actually call anyone a 'complete idiot'. He just described the type of person who might be. As we haven't yet found one it's hypothetical.

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with being an idiot, evey village has one.

 

[Eliza]

where? on the psn store, on the game description (oficial) and pretty much everyone says its a simulator you are the first person thats telling me its not tbh!

Okay...just to be sure, I actually looked over the OFFICIAL Elite: Dangerous page. Nowhere is mentioned, that E: D is a simulation.

This is really not an affrond. Please give me a hint.

Elite Dangerous - Leave your mark on the galaxy

Elite Dangerous brings gaming’s original open world adventure to the modern generation with a stunning recreation of the entire Milky Way galaxy.

www.elitedangerous.com

 

[Rubbernuke]

I am not going to argue about the 'long standing issues', it's a fact that the community can neither agree what they are nor how they should get fixed. Anyway, if half baked features are a problem, delaying fleet carriers is actually the best thing that could happen. If that really results in a better game remains to be seen. However, speculation about it is a bit pointless. I guess that once they are released, people will find something to complain about regardless of the implementation. The question is, how much worse would it be if they released them in December or even last year?

And yet, FD ignore CQC and Powerplay continually each time there is a pause and will again. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised this time! Each pause just brings more features that need updates and they in turn are forgotten. Multicrew, Galnet Audio, Codex....it just adds up. FD would have had a massive win if they kept quiet about FCs and properly filled these in.

True, I don't think it's too late though. It would be too late if nobody played the game anymore. Could it be better? Sure. Are they doing everything right? Nope. Is it still my favourite space game. Yes.

FD should have set our expectations early and then none of this would have happened. Its why peoples views about ED being developed around other titles is so strong because everything is so haphazard and lurches from one crisis to the next. One of FDs biggest sins is leaving things far too late and letting problems build up.

That doesn't mean there should be no criticism. I often agree with you because you are mostly reasonable, even though I don't necessarily agree with the criticism itself. For me there isn't always a clear right or wrong.

This is very true.

For me the forward momentum remains in the next era stuff. Everything in between is just fluff. To be fair, I am not very interested in fleet carriers so I guess other people will have harder feelings about it.

For me forward momentum starts with Powerplay (as you well know ) which sits on the naughty shelf at FD, along with CQC and all the other areas that were introduced. If MC, PP, CQC, Codex saw love to the levels of engineering, exploration and mining etc it would be far more popular. Once thats done, then FD can really look to the future.

 

[Eliza]

The bugs hurt the game more than the absence of fleet carriers. There's only so many cards you can stack before you realise that you've built a house of cards, and it's better to sort the foundations and leaks out before you go adding more rooms.

Yeah they made a plan, but plans change. The September patch proved that the game code just can't cope with anything else being added without breaking other things, so you need to take a step back & start refactoring and fixing that lot. It'll ultimately help fleet carriers (& presumably the 'new era') so I'm 100% cool with the change of direction. It's long overdue IMO.

Exactly that!

One of my favorite citations: "A plan only lasts as long as the first shot has been fired"

 

[Terra6790]

Okay...just to be sure, I actually looked over the OFFICIAL Elite: Dangerous page. Nowhere is mentioned, that E: D is a simulation.

This is really not an affrond. Please give me a hint.

Elite Dangerous - Leave your mark on the galaxy

Elite Dangerous brings gaming’s original open world adventure to the modern generation with a stunning recreation of the entire Milky Way galaxy.

www.elitedangerous.com

Elite Dangerous
Video game
6/10 · Steam

95% liked this video game
Google users



Description
Elite Dangerous is a space-flight simulation game developed and published by Frontier Developments. Piloting a spaceship, the player explores a realistic 1:1 scale open-world representation of the Milky Way galaxy, with the gameplay being open-ended. Wikipedia




Initial release date: December 16, 2014
Developer: Frontier Developments plc
Series: Elite
Platforms: PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Microsoft Windows, Macintosh operating systems
Designers: David Braben, Sandro Sammarco, Tom Kewell, Dan Davies
Genres: Combat, Simulation Video Game

- this is a transcript from the elite's google description! i could show you the one on the psn and fish out other places where ED is reffered to as a simulator but honestly 1st- cant be bothered over what? i doont even understand your curiosity\fascination about this! 2nd i have a feeling you just need to talk alot, 3rd- if you never saw elite dangerous described as a simulator then its not that important to me but jsut WOW! finnaly - you think you believe elite doesnt deserve to be a simulator? i think i believe that more lol on that note hope that shows you im not speaking out of any hat! :3

 

[Eliza]

Elite Dangerous
Video game
6/10 · Steam

95% liked this video game
Google users



Description
Elite Dangerous is a space-flight simulation game developed and published by Frontier Developments. Piloting a spaceship, the player explores a realistic 1:1 scale open-world representation of the Milky Way galaxy, with the gameplay being open-ended. Wikipedia




Initial release date: December 16, 2014
Developer: Frontier Developments plc
Series: Elite
Platforms: PlayStation 4, Xbox One, Microsoft Windows, Macintosh operating systems
Designers: David Braben, Sandro Sammarco, Tom Kewell, Dan Davies
Genres: Combat, Simulation Video Game

- this is a transcript from the elite's google description! i could show you the one on the psn and fish out other places where ED is reffered to as a simulator but honestly 1st- cant be bothered over what? i doont even understand your curiosity\fascination about this! 2nd i have a feeling you just need to talk alot, 3rd- if you never saw elite dangerous described as a simulator then its not that important to me but jsut WOW! finnaly - you think you believe elite doesnt deserve to be a simulator? i think i believe that more lol on that note hope that shows you im not speaking out of any hat! :3

All 3.rd-party false interpretations of the word "simulation". I prefer to stick to the only source of information that really counts. The informations given by the developer itself.
That's the sad truth about informations received in the 21st century. All only half-baked, interpreted, misunderstood, second guessing, second-handed.

But nevertheless: Thank you, honestly, for taking the time.

 

[Oldviboy]

.

 

[Oldviboy]

Exactly that!

One of my favorite citations: "A plan only lasts as long as the first shot has been fired"

The bugs hurt the game more than the absence of fleet carriers. There's only so many cards you can stack before you realise that you've built a house of cards, and it's better to sort the foundations and leaks out before you go adding more rooms.

Yeah they made a plan, but plans change. The September patch proved that the game code just can't cope with anything else being added without breaking other things, so you need to take a step back & start refactoring and fixing that lot. It'll ultimately help fleet carriers (& presumably the 'new era') so I'm 100% cool with the change of direction. It's long overdue IMO.

only that they made many shots before and none hit the target ,come on guys,you are very funny


if there was no st++d open letter they would not have done anything, there were not even so many problems IMO, you imagine many things in your heads instead of accepting reality, they worried when they saw that the spenders could stop spending, this is how the world works ,assume it

 

[Terra6790]

All 3.rd-party false interpretations of the word "simulation". I prefer to stick to the only source of information that really counts. The informations given by the developer itself.
That's the sad truth about informations received in the 21st century. All only half-baked, interpreted, misunderstood, second guessing, second-handed.

i believe that if there is a descripancy between the descriptions, reality and what the developer states, then there is a serious and i dare say almost fraudulent in nature, attempt to sell the game! but really doesnt matte rthat much because a person can see what the game is just watching videos whatnot so! no harm there :3

 

[Juniper]

only that they made many shots before and none hit the target ,come on guys,you are very funny

if there was no st++d open letter they would not have done anything, there were not even so many problems IMO, you imagine many things in your heads instead of accepting reality, they worried when they saw that the spenders could stop spending, this is how the world works ,assume it

Well, in answer to that, I can only refer you to my initial post in this thread.

If you want to believe the 'open letter' is the sole cause, go right ahead.

 

[babelfisch]

And yet, FD ignore CQC and Powerplay continually each time there is a pause and will again. Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised this time! Each pause just brings more features that need updates and they in turn are forgotten. Multicrew, Galnet Audio, Codex....it just adds up. FD would have had a massive win if they kept quiet about FCs and properly filled these in.

True. As I said in a different posts, it would probably be best to stop asking them about roadmaps.

FD should have set our expectations early and then none of this would have happened. Its why peoples views about ED being developed around other titles is so strong because everything is so haphazard and lurches from one crisis to the next. One of FDs biggest sins is leaving things far too late and letting problems build up.

One of the first things I read from Frontier was 'if we get there, we'll plan to do x'. That's from the newsletter about the early LEP and that's how I set my expectations.

This is very true.

That's no fun!

For me forward momentum starts with Powerplay (as you well know ) which sits on the naughty shelf at FD, along with CQC and all the other areas that were introduced. If MC, PP, CQC, Codex saw love to the levels of engineering, exploration and mining etc it would be far more popular. Once thats done, then FD can really look to the future.

True. On the other hand we've seen a massive overhaul of trading, exploration, USS system, mining and the BGS. I can see two problems:
First, people act like that never happened and still accuse FDEV of not addressing the placeholders.
Second, many people don't like the changes and undoubtedly the same would happen if they decide to revisit PP. That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do, I just don't think it helps that everyone pulls in a different direction.

 

[Eliza]

if there was no st++d open letter they would not have done anything, there were not even so many problems IMO, you imagine many things in your heads instead of accepting reality, they worried when they saw that the spenders could stop spending, this is how the world works ,assume it

Now you are trying to be manipulative and try to switch my words. The citation never mentioned a "bulls-eye".
and I AM accepting the unmasked reality as is (sad, dissapointing, or whatever). But in opposite to many of the forum people here, I accept the current state, lean back, try to relax and waiting for the things to come.

If the reality of FDev or Elite: Dangerous doesn't "satisfy" me anymore, I'll quit the game and move on (e.g. KSP, Stellaris)

 

[Oldviboy]

Well, in answer to that, I can only refer you to my initial post in this thread.

If you want to believe the 'open letter' is the sole cause, go right ahead.

basically I see that they cheated you once ,they have done it again and you say "bravo" anyway.
Olé for you.

 

[Oldviboy]

Now you are trying to be manipulative and try to switch my words. The citation never mentioned a "bulls-eye".
and I AM accepting the unmasked reality as is (sad, dissapointing, or whatever). But in opposite to many of the forum people here, I accept the current state, lean back, try to relax and waiting for the things to come.

If the reality of FDev or Elite: Dangerous doesn't "satisfy" me anymore, I'll quit the game and move on (e.g. KSP, Stellaris)

I think you are not as relaxed as you think, I answered a person, and quickly you and another person jumped to say things to me and anyone who speaks what?


For me, since yesterday, I have no intention of talking to you ,It's easy for me , today I didn't do it until you named me, relaxed person.

 

[Eliza]

I think you are not as relaxed as you think, I answered a person, and quickly you and another person jumped to say things to me and anyone who speaks what?

Sure, communication is based upon statements over statements. Otherwise it would be a monologue. To be honest, a public forum is not the right place for monologues.

 

[Oldviboy]

Sure, communication is based upon statements over statements. Otherwise it would be a monologue. To be honest, a public forum is not the right place for monologues.

if you answer, with your opinion, to each person who expresses their opinion, it certainly is, learn from it

 

[Crazy Joe]

Another SANE person just arrived...THANK YOU!!!

I thank you for thinking I'm sane, not something a lot of my friends or family would readily agree with!

 

[Rubbernuke]

True. As I said in a different posts, it would probably be best to stop asking them about roadmaps.

Roadmaps IMO are a symptom of poor expectation management. If you set expectations early and stick to them, it would speak for itself. So, in my fantasy FD would have said "each year all existing features will be updated in one xmas patch" would be enough, and FD deliver a patch of updates based on a focussed feedback earlier in the year

One of the first things I read from Frontier was 'if we get there, we'll plan to do x'. That's from the newsletter about the early LEP and that's how I set my expectations.

Thats all I hear- if if if. Thats fine, but at some point you have to deliver. Again expectations have been set too soon, or too late (via feedback etc) and then it all goes to hell when the feature is delayed.

That's no fun!

Sometimes agreement actually happens

True. On the other hand we've seen a massive overhaul of trading, exploration, USS system, mining and the BGS. I can see two problems:
First, people act like that never happened and still accuse FDEV of not addressing the placeholders.

I agree- my only minor quibble is that a lot of changes are done based in isolation without consulting us. For example mine arming or drag munition changes. These were mistakes because FD thought they knew what was right, when players who use them in reality could quickly and cheaply tell them the outcome of said change.

Second, many people don't like the changes and undoubtedly the same would happen if they decide to revisit PP. That doesn't mean it's not the right thing to do, I just don't think it helps that everyone pulls in a different direction.

As Sandro said, its not a democracy and I fully accept that. FD should take a reasoned approach, listen to people who use features and know them and then do the changes.

 

[Rat Catcher]

But that's still no excuse for calling anyone 'a complete idiot'.

I was putting myself forward for the position...