Request for open development and real communication with players.

This mindset of player, thinking that dev team is completely unaware of issues or huge design fault is extremely naive. They are aware, more than any of us, but the question: is it worth the hassle to waste resources and time to bring XYZ? Answer is almost always - NO. Because even if they do, and it is objectively positive change for a game, literally half of playerbase with rise up with torches and pitchforks.

ED community is extremely conservative. Any changes to current, even absolutely nonsensical design decisions, will not go well here.

So, just be like me, and prey every day that at some point, ED finally goes offline and we would be able to mod it, to finally play the game we always wanted, released to its full potential, and not this...
 
In my opinion this course of action would resolve the biggest issue that I see with Frontier - that you consistently waste dev time on new functionality/design or changing old functionality/design that, when it actually comes out, the majority of the player base doesn't like or doesn't like all of.
That's a very big, bold, wide sweeping statement. At least you premised it with "In My Opinion".

Put a bit more thought into your statements. Pretty sure if players didn't like the vast majority of changes the game would not currently exist. Do some players complain on the internet.... yep. Do they represent the majority of players? Nope.
 
Honestly, what gets me about FDev development is when a feature comes along like the gene sequencer.

In concept, the tool is a great idea and an obvious, worthwhile addition to Exploration. There isn't one explorer who thinks otherwise. The implementation, though, is horrific. It's good FDev have acknowledged this but their stand-in solution is pitiful.

Now, what does this have to do with OP?

Well, what gets me about FDev and these sort of features...
They never used a test group. It's like they don't know Q/A exists, and its pretty darn cheap, too.

And that's if you really can't trust your own community staff to recruit players directly and keep them under NDA.
Which...interestingly enough...FDev does with streamers.
But not testing.
Where it would make the most difference.

Every single streamer could have told FDev the gene sequencer implementation was awful. Not just imbalanced, but conceptually the mini-game doesn't work. Every single one of them. But they didn't ask. They didn't hire out Q/A - or if they did, they chose a yes-man business that doesn't question design, only function. If that's the case, the gene sequencer works great! It's a twitch mini-game and a Q/A might have identified difficulty but little else.

Whyt, why, WHY!?

Why does FDev not use test groups of actual players? They'd do it for free. That's how an alpha is supposed to function. Not sell preorders for a product that is launching in under a few months, too far along to have any meaningful feedback considered and implemented. Time and again, FDev just can't seem to do the obvious: ask the player during design, then build it. They're a very capable developer, but good grief...they can't read their customers to save their souls.
 
Isn't Odyssey in alpha test phase?
An alpha for a product launching in under three months.

Is FDev listening to the feedback? Absolutely, you can already see that.
Is there enough time to implement meaningful change? No. Not remotely.

This alpha exists for one purpose: to sell preorders. Is that bad? No, it's business.
But that sort of business practice only helps in the short run, and Elite is a prime example of short-term planning.
 
...

In concept, the tool is a great idea and an obvious, worthwhile addition to Exploration. There isn't one explorer who thinks otherwise. The implementation, though, is horrific. It's good FDev have acknowledged this but their stand-in solution is pitiful.

...
Scientific research and data cataloging is all well and good as an option if implemented well and in a contextually apt way. Exploration is not defined within those terms though. The game doesn't get to arbitrarily decide what exploration actually is, only what is implemented in the game.

In my opinion, implementing any obligatory gamey mini-game to go exploring in the game is counterproductive.

TL;DR: Speak for yourself.
 
Scientific research and data cataloging is all well and good as an option if implemented well and in a contextually apt way. Exploration is not defined within those terms though. The game doesn't get to arbitrarily decide what exploration actually is, only what is implemented in the game.

In my opinion, implementing any obligatory gamey mini-game to go exploring in the game is counterproductive.

TL;DR: Speak for yourself.
Well, to turn it on its head...

Any tool implemented won't change how you current experience exploration. So, at worst, it adds nothing - and removes nothing - to your play style. At best, it adds to it or enhances how others play.

The issue I take is your use of the word 'obligatory'. The gene sequencer isn't obligatory. Just like the SRV, or synthesis, or AFMUs, so on and so forth.

As for the game arbitrarily deciding...yes, they do. It's their game. NMS exploration is a point and scan method, and little else. Can you 'explore' without this? Absolutely - as you've pointed out - but that doesn't change the game's mechanics very clearly determine what is and is not exploration. It's a game.

Borderlands thinks FPS means exploding heads and guns that reload by throwing them away.
Call of Duty thinks FPS means hyper-realistic technology and ballistics.
NMS thinks FPS means a mining laser that is powered by (checks notes)...carbon?

The gene sequencer is an excellent addition to what most gamers imagine a gaming version of exploration to look like: utilization of tools and gameplay loops related to seeing new places and/or finding new things to them. With how elite is laid out, 99% of the game's biologicals and types of phenomena will be 'first discovered' by an immeasurably tiny percentile of the playerbase. Which means hardly anybody can consider themselves an explorer, yet that's exactly what they are as determined by the game.

TL;DR Semantics are fun, but rarely useful.
 
3 years of secret squirrel Development for a mindless 2015 era space cod clone that doesn't even have a revive mechanic, soulless cardboard cutout stations, and tacked on foot expo mechanics that were clearly not even thought about for more than 5 minutes oh and no VR for legs anyway because it's hard to do???

we STILL can't get up in our ships and make a cuppa or have any agency with our surroundings, yea that went well... I agree with OP. as KK said fade to black.. because in odyssey we are SRP's "surface recon people" :( I am UTTERLY unenthused and I used to love this game how can FD be so ut of touch with its player base?
 
Last edited:
...
The issue I take is your use of the word 'obligatory'.
...
OK, I'll settle for compulsory.

Anyway, just because the game calls something exploration doesn't mean it actually is. Likewise, just because the game doesn't call something exploration doesn't mean it isn't. If you're talking exploration in the game's terms for it, I suggest distinguishing it by putting it in quotation marks, capitalizing it, or similar. Either way, players aren't beholden to those terms.

Any implemented feature set, tools, or otherwise, can and often do affect other aspects of the game, such as exploration (not in quotation marks) and/or "exploration." Whether or not that's a good thing is subjective.
 
Last edited:
My request to Frontier is for them to switch to more open development, to have a more detailed public roadmap, to have regular (more than once a week) updates via live streams and to have those streams answer questions raised by the community (see below), discuss the development and current progress of the game and not have them showing Frontier employees trying to play the game.

As part of this I would like to see Frontier making active use of the forum suggestions, questions and feedback. We already have an ED suggestions forum (though it does seem to go mostly ignored), if you added an ED questions forum and an ED feedback forum then they could serve as a valuable resource. Players could raise threads with suggestions, questions and feedback in each forum respectively and Frontier would be able to order them by most replies and be able to see straight away which suggestions, questions and feedback most players were discussing. The most active of these threads could then be discussed in the regular live streams mentioned above.

I understand Frontiers reasons for closed development but I think their fears are greater than they need be and the benefits of open development would considerably outweigh the downsides.

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. By keeping all the plans behind closed doors you are hurting yourselves more by wasting dev time on features that you ultimately end up removing, having re-done or that the players have to end up putting up with. Every one of these unwanted 'features' adds another thing that the players don't enjoy about playing Elite Dangerous. As you get more and more of these in the game you are going to get more and more players saying 'I've had enough...' and moving on.

Having a public roadmap and more open development does not mean that you have to show us everything before a DLC is released. Yes, you would need to discuss features and mechanics, so that you can get player feedback, suggestions and questions on them but you don't need to show them or you don't need to show all of them. If you need to show how a certain part of a mechanic looks then you could use art work or a screenshot rather than a video to help explain how you were going to do the mechanic and players could supply feedback from that.

For example - in the case of the recent sampling tool - you could have shown art work of the sampling rings and explained how you thought they should work back when they were first being planned. Players would have given the feedback you are getting now back then and all that wasted dev work could have been avoided.

In my opinion this course of action would resolve the biggest issue that I see with Frontier - that you consistently waste dev time on new functionality/design or changing old functionality/design that, when it actually comes out, the majority of the player base doesn't like or doesn't like all of. I have been a backer of Elite Dangerous since the second day of the Alpha, back in September 2013, and this same scenario has been repeating over and over again ever since then. I was a part of the original DDF so I know all the suggestions and feedback that Frontier received in those forums. I am also well aware that a lot of it was ignored (and since removed) by Frontier and nobody wants to have that happen again.

This request is made in the hope that Frontier will listen and make these changes but if you intend to do things your way regardless of player feedback, Frontier, then please ignore this request as it would be pointless and be a waste of your, and our, time without your intention of actually listening and acting on our feedback.

This course of action could also potentially help resolve what I see as the second biggest issue with Frontier - that you have no open communication with your players. If you want to improve your relationship with the player base then you not only need to start listening to what the player base has to say on your games development but you also need to start talking to us about your thoughts on the subject in response to what we have to say. It needs to be a discussion, not just a 'we have heard you and are taking it on board'. Those sort of responses help nothing and whilst you continue to fob us off with these platitudes nothing is going to change, you are going to continue to have 'unnecessary friction' with your player base. I'm afraid the blame for this lies squarely with you, Frontier, I just hope that you are willing to do something about it and start really talking to us, for the sake of Elite Dangerous, which I still love despite all of the lost potential and frustration with its developers.
TL;DR

No, FDev's plans do not include open discussion... Not going to happen!
 
Top Bottom