Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Having participated in DDF discussions, I don't share the opinion that there were no arguments in DDF proposal threads.
Request for a "Player Council", Resurrected DDF, Streamer Representation to Dev track, Focused Feedback or Similar Directed Community Engagement
- Thread starter Hydrino
- Start date
1) Right, but no-one designed that as a feature at Frontier either. It was a result of two separate changes coming in and the consequences of one for the other not being spotted [1] until it was too late. The value of the commodity being a million credits per tonne was a consequence of a completely different change - BGS going to multistate - being implemented at the same time, combined with the long standing bug (of the time) that certain goods didn't have price sensitivity to demand. Without that parallel change and that bug Void Opals would have capped out at about 250k/tonne in terms of reliable prices. For the amount of effort required to obtain them relative to continuing to laser-mine Painite, that would have been reasonably balanced, and mapped RES wing Painite mining would likely still have been ahead.
2) No problem at all with a commodity being worth millions of credits per tonne in the right circumstances. The key is how long it takes to obtain, which isn't possible to tell from the text discussions anyway. Ignoring Fleet Carriers - which didn't exist at the time - they could have implemented a core gem type which only occurred in distant Codex regions - tying together the Mining and Exploration updates - and priced it a few million per tonne without it being remotely overpowered.
(And then Fleet Carriers would have horrendously broken that balance, so in retrospect it's a good thing they didn't, of course)
[1] Would greater player involvement in both changes have spotted it? Well, at the time I was literally the only person researching BGS market behaviour in any sort of detail, and I missed it, despite it being an obvious consequence in retrospect. And even then it'd only have spotted the principle that it could happen - would people have really remembered to say "remember that the cumulative demand price modifier for core gems needs to cap out at about 2x if the base price is that high" loudly enough that the Community Managers ploughing through hundreds of pages of threads would have picked up on it? (Noting that the BGS discussion would have been dominated at the time by people questioning the political effects, so even getting an economic discussion going would have been tough)
On the contrary - the Council would be a massive magnet for player blame when Frontier released anything unpopular. Wanting to be on it should be the only qualification, their account names should be automatically added to everyone's friend list and they shouldn't be able to use Solo or PG, so that people can meet up to tell them what they think of the Council's ideas more easily.
Their product relies on continued using by it's playerbase and expanding that base. To do so, they can invest in actual community manager who can siff through and compile important stuff.
For example, if Devs released development diary focused on how you going to acquire plant samples and mechanics behind that, ten community manager could compile and point out on trend that it's deeply unpopular and here are more popular takes on it. That comes of give Devs option to go over it and make changes or leave it as is till public testing for focused feedback and give community a response about it.
That would give all of us idea what is going on and chance to influence game. Leaving it to some select smaller group usually leads to undesirable results
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which does not seem reasonable with regard to Council members who don't want to play among other players? There'd need to be some Council members who don't prefer Open, as all types of players should be represented on such a council....
Open Only Council or bust.Which does not seem reasonable with regard to Council members who don't want to play among other players? There'd need to be some Council members who don't prefer Open, as all types of players should be represented on such a council....
This is a product not a collaborative art piece.
The DDF concept was a good idea at game concept stage, even though much was ignored so that the game could be released at a time dictated by commercial pressures.
Let professional game designers do their jobs then choose to play or do something else with your life.
The DDF concept was a good idea at game concept stage, even though much was ignored so that the game could be released at a time dictated by commercial pressures.
Let professional game designers do their jobs then choose to play or do something else with your life.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I suspect that the outcome would be "bust".
That's a fair point, but in that case I would ask you, was the discussion and disagreements in the DDF, anything like the utter chaos the forums are now? Or was it more civilised?
It started out more civilised, but with almost no impact on design baring one particular feature, but ended up with a small group of very vocal people continuously shouting abuse at FD until they pushed FD into giving up on it.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Some players are vocal in their criticism, some not so much, and I doubt that there are many players who are "entirely uncritical of the game".
Some players bought the game for what it is, recognising that they are one player among millions of copies sold. Some players bought the game and then seem to want the game to be turned into something else to suit their personal preferences (and don't seem to care how that might affect existing players).
How about The Council of Excellence™ is just you and me, Robert? Can't get any more balanced in viewpoint than that.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I strongly suspect that there would be those vehemently opposed to one or more of those proposed candidates participating....
Nah, they'd love all 1000 pages of debate that would go with it.I strongly suspect that there would be those vehemently opposed to one or more of those proposed candidates participating....
What is needed is a way to channel ideas to FDEV, they can then decide what they want to do according to their design manual (i hope they got one).
Some interaction with the player base like we had with the DDF would be nice, however it need to be in a format that FDEV can control so they don't drown in requests.
After all it's their game, warts and all, they own it, we're just playing it.
Some interaction with the player base like we had with the DDF would be nice, however it need to be in a format that FDEV can control so they don't drown in requests.
After all it's their game, warts and all, they own it, we're just playing it.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which thousand? The first or the twelfth?
How about this then?:
Frontier could charge people who want to give feedback a nominal amount.
They could be given access to the game's new features earlier than every other paying customer.
This should be limited to one platform only and not across all of them.
They could then create a dedicated thread on a dedicated forum for such feedback but players could also post feedback on the general forums and ignore that dedicated one.
Then all other customers who have only paid the full amount for the game plus any store purchases could be safely ignored and have no feedback.
Console players could come last of all, with all attention given to the PC version with not even an update as to when Console players can expect the same features and whether they will also get to give feedback before general release or whether they dont matter at all. Best if CMs get annoyed with these people asking for any update at all so they know their place, they are now an afterthought and on the back-burner and should know this.
No updates should be given as to reason for delays or whether original or postponed release eta dates are still the same for Consoles, even vague ones.
Frontier could charge people who want to give feedback a nominal amount.
They could be given access to the game's new features earlier than every other paying customer.
This should be limited to one platform only and not across all of them.
They could then create a dedicated thread on a dedicated forum for such feedback but players could also post feedback on the general forums and ignore that dedicated one.
Then all other customers who have only paid the full amount for the game plus any store purchases could be safely ignored and have no feedback.
Console players could come last of all, with all attention given to the PC version with not even an update as to when Console players can expect the same features and whether they will also get to give feedback before general release or whether they dont matter at all. Best if CMs get annoyed with these people asking for any update at all so they know their place, they are now an afterthought and on the back-burner and should know this.
No updates should be given as to reason for delays or whether original or postponed release eta dates are still the same for Consoles, even vague ones.
Suggestion forum exists and Frontier give it due consideration by ignoring it.
Why have pay-to-win, when you can have pay-to-decide-the-terms-of-winning?
As always, I bow my head to your knowledge of the game... but please understand, it's exactly that knowledge that gives me confidence that the developers would benefit from your insight! It's frustrating to know that the voices of players like you do not carry more weight... the name of the game is literally 'Elite', and yet the 'Forum Elite' are not granted access to Frontier's 'Shinrarta Dezhra'!
Well you'ld get my vote! Even if you are lukewarm on the whole idea, the fact that you are consistently polite and reasonable counts for a lot, in my eyes... nobody wants a crazed dictator pulling on the developers' strings, but not everyone is a crazed dictator, on the contrary, some people are really nice.
(Also, surely part of the reason why 'streamers & youtubers' were suggested is because they have already earned a degree of respect among the community, by virtue of the time they have devoted to covering this game... if some rando like me was appointed Player Ambassador To The Devs, then everyone would be suspicous of me, because no one knows me or has any reason to trust me - but if it was someone well known, someone already established and well-respected, like yourself... well, that's different.)