If this "adjustment" to mining was intentional, then I'll leave it up to others to comment on their thoughts about it and question TPTB. However, if all this heavy-handed nerfage was unintentional, then how did it pass Q&A/testing etc?
ANNOUNCEMENT Fleet Carriers Update - Patch 3
A good developer does not just write lines of code. It must constantly get into the end user’s head.
Without wishing to sound like a , end-user computing is quite different from software development in a technical environment for large scale systems.
That is why you have Analysts to do the analysis and the design for a given requirement or issue. Developers cant anticipate something that they are not even exposed to. I can imagine in a very lean environment, that developers are being expected to do the Analysis job, and that's not working out very well.
Because the Software Development Life Cycle processes in place at Frontier are not up to snuff.
Last edited:
You could pass QA perfectly and then be f***ed by deploy issues.
They don't test it, it was clear when Beta 1 of FC was out, in 10 minutes of playing it every player was able to tell a lot of bug and game mechanics broken (10 minutes, not hours).
But, surely, that would mean deployment of wrong code, wouldn't it? Or perhaps a version control issue.
Nope (dev here) deploy pipeline and envs matters. I work on huge distributed projects on multiple clusters and I can state that the deploy of a new version of a specific application could take weeks. Furthermore, a deploy with no issues happens once every 2 years
Nope (dev here) deploy pipeline and envs matters. I work on huge distributed projects on multiple clusters and I can state that the deploy of a new version of a specific application could take weeks. Furthermore, a deploy with no issues happens once every 2 years
I`m sure, but what you're talking about is very environment-specific.
It smacks of very narrow unit testing rather than proper integrated/scenareo testing.
Last edited:
Nope (dev here) deploy pipeline and envs matters. I work on huge distributed projects on multiple clusters and I can state that the deploy of a new version of a specific application could take weeks. Furthermore, a deploy with no issues happens once every 2 years
Hmm. I was in functional testing (for my sins!) for a while on system environments that processed rather, shall we say, considerable sums of money. People worked exclusively on the Q&A side to decide whether the new deployment was fit for purpose.
I was more on the "does the currnet stuff still work and is the new stuff doing what we want it to". My assumption, then, is this update was intended to work as it does. I hope I'm wrong...
I've worked in fintech in the last few year too, before moving to IoT/Big Data/Previsioning and I can say it's a mess. Hammering production server with live hotfix was a daily task (as money in real life is a bigger problem). And I cannot really consider it a healthy or good practice for programmers to fix stuff straight in production env. Said that, once you deploy on a new env, bugs happens. A production env sits under that rule too.
Yes, bugs do slip in, even if your test env mirrors your prod one. However, with this update, it seems to me that it's working as ED wanted it to.
You forgot about the economy: With the shared supply and demand it is pretty much impossible to make any reliable profits with either trading nor mining. And while the economy only replenish demands and supply on the tick, you must be without a job and have a potion of luck to make at least a bit profit.
Keep in mind: it took only 20 minutes to empty a station with a supply of 260.000 tons of tritium
IMHO the economy should be even more complex in order to make the gaming experience more varied.
Let's say LTD are involved in Armour crafting process.
If no demand for armor is met, no demand for LTD should be replenished too.
Doing this players will move to LTD only in high demand situation, racing to sell it in the more profitable way. The same would happens for other minerals, actually totally ignored.
Exactly... so even worse...
As a carrier owner, I need reliable income - also considering pauses of elite playing due to real life and other games. ED must not be a second job!
And instead of fixing the big stinky pile (for almost years by now) of bug reports in their issue tracker they constantly pull out their Nerf-bat... Silly Gamer, you! Thou shall grind, grind, griiiiiiiind - just to keep your Carrier alive and your rebuy ensured.
Last edited:
i think im done with this game till the devs understand the word balance ... so might be for good because they should be rebalancing combat in the sense that the bounties should be higher or the pay for the missions should be afterall if u make mistakes and lose your ship the insurance could be around 47mil like my cutter and all i could make was a couple million at best ....#notworth
I do threat 7 signal sources missions in my python with no rebuy risk, it would be very difficult to pop in a Cutter...
I'm getting much slower server transaction times after the update, port forwarding is on, UPNP is off. Is this update related?
THIS is the problem with a weekly upkeep fee - our carriers cost us credits regardless the state of the game and our ability / desire to play it. If I were to quit today out of frustration and go back to Space Engineers, my carrier will still be burning through my credit balance. At the very least, upkeep costs should be suspended when Frontier has acknowledged known bugs and their plans to release a future patch (coming up on #4) to fix those bugs. A taxi driver can't charge me for the time it takes to change his flat tire, after all.
Is Space Engineers any good i am looking for an alternative to this bag of fetid dingoes kidneys