Request for open development and real communication with players.

[VR jefranklin18]

In a utopian world, Frontier would have something like a public-accessible (but read-only) Trello board that had features going through stages Planned, Designing, Building, Released (or whatever stages they wanted) and a suggestion submission system that went through a visible lifecycle where developers were able to interact with the submitter.

However, Frontier is a mature company with its own operating model and that model precludes significant interaction with the customers outside of the CM team. We may not like it and we may think there are better ways of doing it, but Frontier are not likely to change.

 

[varonica]

I wasn't, no. Why? Do you think the majority of the player base would expect the plans to be laid out in stone?

The original DDF is still quoted by many disgruntled players as evidence that FDEV have betrayed the player base, so yes, many would indeed expect that!

 

[varonica]

Seemed like a good place for this!

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

Against, i do not want development hell and endless cry-cry.

 

[zombieapocalypse]

To be honest that is more a case of some people misrepresenting what was said in the first place. Anything that was "might", "would want" or "would like to be" isn't a promise of anything. Anyone trying to make what was said into a promise instead of what it was needs to be ignored.

That's precisely my point, and why I think your belief that "A public roadmap doesn't mean that the players expect everything on there to happen as laid out, most of us realise that it is a plan and plans can, and do, change." is extremely naive. It has happened time and time again throughout the history of this game and many, many other games.

 

[alterNERDtive]

Odyssey is not ready. This release date clearly shows that the main focus of Odyssey is not releasing a great DLC, it is getting sales in before the end of Frontier’s financial year. Even if it is at the expense of the DLC, and by extension also of the main game. All the changed code will affect even people that don’t buy Odyssey, including frame rate issues, new bugs, horrible new UX design choices that can’t be changed with such a tight schedule.

I’ll lean back, watch the release happen, and probably enjoy some space legs in No Man’s Sky. Then I’ll come back to playing Elite when the worst things have been addressed later this year (hopefully …), and eventually buy Odyssey on sale at some point.

 

[John Stoutbeard]

The original DDF is still quoted by many disgruntled players as evidence that FDEV have betrayed the player base, so yes, many would indeed expect that!

True, but I think most people understand that goals change, business needs changes.
Which means that 'something that was planned 5 years ago' may no longer be true.
Priorities changes. For the worse or the better for us customers.

We're (luckily, on this forum) entitled to tell what we think.
However - It's our own responsibility to choose how we communicate.

But trying to sway someone opinion by telling them "you betrayed me" probably wont go very far.
Imagine yourself listening to a old acquaintance telling you this yourself.
I know I wouldn't be interested in listening to that conversation for too long ...

It's all how we choose to communicate.
"Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself" is a great motto, aye?

 

[Chorda]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrGrOK8oZG8

 

[Logan Terrick]

In a utopian world, Frontier would have something like a public-accessible (but read-only) Trello board that had features going through stages Planned, Designing, Building, Released (or whatever stages they wanted) and a suggestion submission system that went through a visible lifecycle where developers were able to interact with the submitter.

However, Frontier is a mature company with its own operating model and that model precludes significant interaction with the customers outside of the CM team. We may not like it and we may think there are better ways of doing it, but Frontier are not likely to change.

In that case I would request Frontier to stop asking for our feedback and stop saying that they are listening to it.

View attachment 222309

Seemed like a good place for this!

Seems like a really inappropriate place to me. We're discussing how and when feedback is given in general not specific feedback or whether that feedback should be taken into account.

 

[Logan Terrick]

...but they have already done that.

their stock market update at the start of the year said
(paraphrasing)

1. Elite Odyssey on PC by the end of the financial year (End of May 2021) - tick (19th May)
2. Elite Odyssey on console by Autumn 2021.

do you want more detail than that?

Yes I was wanting more detail than that. I'll edit my OP.

 

[Popalu]

Seems like a really inappropriate place to me. We're discussing how and when feedback is given in general not specific feedback or whether that feedback should be taken into account.

LOL, so Varonica's feedback is inappropriate to a thread, where your saying people don't take notice or listen to feedback?

 

[VR jefranklin18]

In that case I would request Frontier to stop asking for our feedback and stop saying that they are listening to it.

Hey, you're the one that wanted the roadmap and suggestions to be taken seriously. I just pointed out that is not how Frontier work and they do take on board our feedback when they solicit it and sometimes when they don't, via the CMs.

Frontier are not going to change the way they communicate with us unless they want to.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I know, but if it is truly the case of 'this is our game and we are going to make it how we want it to be' then why have they just removed the sampler tool functionality?

In response to feedback offered during the Alpha testing phase of the development of the next DLC.

It seems they are saying one thing and doing another. If they want to stick to the 'this is our game and we are going to make it how we want it to be' mantra then fine, just stick to it. We don't have any say in it and if we don't like it we don't play it, simple. BUT they also keep saying that they want our feedback and want to listen to us. Why do they want our feedback and want to listen to us if they are going to totally ignore that feedback and do what they were going to do anyway? It makes no sense.

Feedback may lead to minor changes, e.g. reduction of Fleet Carrier upkeep costs. The Carrier feedback didn't turn them in to shared Squadron assets or introduce Carrier combat scenarios....

Frontier need to decide what their position actually is first of all, if indeed it is not a democracy and they are going to do what they want regardless of feedback then all of this is pointless. The feedback threads are pointless, the suggestion threads are pointless. Frontier saying that they want our feedback is pointless.

Frontier's position is for Frontier to decide - and they can change it as they see fit. While the scope of Odyssey was not discussed with the player-base, feedback has been sought on each phase of Alpha with some changes being made, including the removal of the bio-scanner twitch mini-game.

 

[metatheurgist]

The Carrier feedback didn't turn them in to shared Squadron assets

No, but they were initially floated as Squad assets and the question I asked in that focused feedback was "Does it make sense to spend resources coding stuff only a portion of the player base will use?" and this was back in the dark ages of content. I guess they agreed with me. You're welcome.

 

[znôrt]

View attachment 222309

Seemed like a good place for this!

tbh, i'm not sure a player committee would be much worse than whatever the frontier committee is, it has a good track record of "monstrosities" ;-)

 

[John Stoutbeard]

EDIT: nevermind, I was misclicking. The twitch stream didn't start quite yet.

 

[Logan Terrick]

In response to feedback offered during the Alpha testing phase of the development of the next DLC.

Exactly my point. They are saying that 'this is our game and we are going to make it how we want it to be' which should then mean that they are not going to make changes based on player feedback, which is exactly what they then turn around and do? It's confusing the issue to me. I (and others it seems) am not clear on whether Frontier want feedback from us so that they can take it into consideration when making their game. If they don't want to take player feedback into consideration when making their game that's fine, we just need it to be clear, either way.

Feedback may lead to minor changes, e.g. reduction of Fleet Carrier upkeep costs. The Carrier feedback didn't turn them in to shared Squadron assets or introduce Carrier combat scenarios....

Completely removing a feature is not a minor change though (sampler tool)? Frontier choosing not to listen to some feedback doesn't change the fact that they do listen to other feedback. Going back historically Frontier dedicated an entire year of development to changing what they had already put in the game (quality of life stuff, Engineering, etc.) because of player feedback. How does that clearly correlate with them saying that it's their game and they change it / add to it as they see fit? Surely it shows that they are willing to make changes to their game based on player feedback?

Frontier's position is for Frontier to decide - and they can change it as they see fit. While the scope of Odyssey was not discussed with the player-base, feedback has been sought on each phase of Alpha with some changes being made, including the removal of the bio-scanner twitch mini-game.

Totally agree that it's Frontiers decision on what position they take. I am just asking for them to be clear on what their position is.

 

[Vandaahl]

Frontier have said that this is not a democracy - it's their game and they change it / add to it as they see fit. That seems clear to me, hopefully that is a clear statement to you too. They are saying they will make the game as they see fit and player feedback is not going to be taken into consideration when making their game.

Where did they say that? Because that is exactly what they have been doing.
They said DESIGN is not up for debate, is that what is confusing?

 

[Mimix]

Request for people to understand that game development isn't democracy, and devs are not obliged to listen to anyone here.

 

[Logan Terrick]

Where did they say that? Because that is exactly what they have been doing.
They said DESIGN is not up for debate, is that what is confusing?

Well that depends on your definition and the context of the word 'Design'. In game development 'Design' of a game could relate to just about everything.

As for where they said it - I don't know, a moderator said that they had said it a few pages back.