CQC 5.5 years old. Update 1 due yet?

[CMDR Evolution]

Good afternoon @Bruce G

This is the thread we spoke about yesterday on the livestream. Thank you so much for taking a look and really look forward to hearing back.

Same here. @Bruce G took the feedback to the dev teams 3.5 weeks ago (AFAIK), thanks so much Bruce. Just waiting to hear back please.

Hi @Bruce G?

Yeah, I think and hope the same. I'm a bit worried that @Bruce G from the CM team hasn't said anything yet as it's been a long time.

Bruce, can you drop us a quick update when you can please? Many thanks

Sorry to need to keep asking but it's difficult when we haven't heard anything back. I hope my polite requests for an update (over the course of over 2 months) haven't been seen as nagging as it's really not intended like that.

I'm sorry to ask, but perhaps another CM could help please?
@Arthur Tolmie / @Zac Cocken / @sallymorganmoore

Thank you so much and happy 6 year anniversary for CQC everyone o7.

 

[avow555]

There won't be a single dev in house who worked on CQC originally.
Judging how they ignore old content, good luck.

 

[avow555]

Lol. It didn't die and is still breathing. It just needs some Oxygen and it'll be up and running properly

Nah.

 

[Kellan Fell]

CQC was just another in a long list of stuff pushed out, badly implemented, with minimal content, that they then say they're not developing further because no-one is playing it.
Here's a thought... If you'd implemented it properly in the first place, then maybe, just maybe, people would actually use it...

 

[TheDragon2001]

If you'd implemented it properly in the first place, then maybe, just maybe, people would actually use it...

I very much agree with this statement every time I see it. Unfortunately, it has yet to bare fruit...

 

[Agony_Aunt]

CQC arenas need to be in game and have NPC opponents filling in. Seriously have three stations for each power where we can go and join a game. Bring in the guardian fighters too

Think about this suggestion for a moment.

How would you stop people joining in their Anacondas/FdLs/whatever?

How do you think networking will fare if loads of people jump into the system, perhaps using winging to drag in more than the instance can realistically handle?

As for the topic as a whole, while i'm sure many people would love to see improvements to CQC, let's add another question

Do you want FD to spend efforts on CQC rather than the main game?

I think its clear how the overall opinion on that one would be.

 

[CMDR Evolution]

Think about this suggestion for a moment.

How would you stop people joining in their Anacondas/FdLs/whatever?

How do you think networking will fare if loads of people jump into the system, perhaps using winging to drag in more than the instance can realistically handle?

As for the topic as a whole, while i'm sure many people would love to see improvements to CQC, let's add another question

Do you want FD to spend efforts on CQC rather than the main game?

I think its clear how the overall opinion on that one would be.

I agree with you on the networking side.

For your last question, I don't think that's relevant if you look at my original post, that's already answered as it's not a case of one or the other. That's the beauty of agile development and product teams continually improving aspects. The teams can be small, but still, they're always making things better

I look forward to the day when there'll be new CQC matches. Please see below for the situation, specifics and a solution:

The situation:

• CQC came out 5.5 years ago on Oct 2015 as an MVP.
• It was then put on Steam but pulled as there wasn't enough content.
• I was surprised it was put on Steam, considering CQC only has 4 levels and 4 ships.
• Of course, Frontier then logically removed it from steam early 2017.
• By that time, Horizons had already been out for a year and many in the community expected ground based CQC but even now in June 2021, there's nothing new like the 10 points below:

Specifics:

1. Cross Play***,
2. Sphere of combat?
3. the Guardian fighters aren't there,
4. other new fighters like the Taipan, also,
5. SRV CQC,
6. Elite racers CQC,
7. on-foot CQC,
8. new levels,
9. new lobby,
10. CQC bots - For the last point, that wouldn't be needed if cross play was done .

Solution:

• From the perspective of someone who works in tech for a leading UK company - an obvious and ideal solution would be to have a dedicated CQC product team.
• Frontier really should have Agile product teams for products rather than classing features as projects and having a waterfall release process.
• Agile product teams allow constantly refining and improving different aspects without impacting other development from devs continually context switching.
• Elite could be so, so amazing - even more so than it already is and I love Elite already Hence my +6250 hours in game and around a grand spent with Frontier.
• I don't regret it but I hate to see problems and missed opportunities coming up again and again.

Please Frontier, don't ditch it. Just update the MVP PLEASE!!!!! Please, please, please.

What you released half a decade ago was great, it just still needs to be fleshed out.

Thanks so much o7

 

[LeoBartlet]

Frontier never tell people when they deprecate game features but you can guarantee that CQC is dead as the proverbial Powerplay in their eyes.

 

[CMDR Evolution]

Frontier never tell people when they deprecate game features but you can guarantee that CQC is dead as the proverbial Powerplay in their eyes.

Mind you though, they still do CQC streams all the time and it wasn't too long ago, that they added the queue system to the main game.

It seems it's still somewhere in their considerations

 

[LeoBartlet]

Mind you though, they still do CQC streams all the time and it wasn't too long ago, that they added the queue system to the main game.

It seems it's still somewhere in their considerations

Yea ok keep the hope alive, there is a vast difference between a CM playing it for an hour a week to fill the community calendar slot and it being a genuine consideration in the eyes of the developers.

Like with powerplay, they tinker around the edges but any actual real development is not even on the radar.

 

[CMDR Evolution]

Yea ok keep the hope alive, there is a vast difference between a CM playing it for an hour a week to fill the community calendar slot and it being a genuine consideration in the eyes of the developers.

Like with powerplay, they tinker around the edges but any actual real development is not even on the radar.

Thank you, I'll try o7.

Yep indeed. I work in tech as a Senior QA and understand the differences of all teams that keep leading tech businesses running, but thanks though mate. There's also a difference in CMs playing CQC and devs implementing the queue feature, so yeah, let's keep the hope alive o7.

It's not developers who make the call, it's the product/project owners, product managers... They usually take their case to a business/sector leadership board who will give a green/red light, then it's the PMs job to liaise with UX to do UX research / fake door tests / a/b tests with low fi prototypes to gauge peoples impressions. All being well, UX design builds a hi fidelity prototype, which is where the devs come in, they use that to build the changes and as QAs, it's our jobs to oversee the whole process and test the work through automation, scripted and exploratory testing. If we're not happy, we stop the release going ahead or if it's all passing, we give the green light to the PM. It's then the PM who makes the final call as sometimes issues will be fixed-forward rather than fixed in staging/UAT

 

[LeoBartlet]

Thank you, I'll try o7.

Yep indeed. I work in tech as a Senior QA and understand the differences of all teams that keep leading tech businesses running, but thanks though mate. There's also a difference in CMs playing CQC and devs implementing the queue feature, so yeah, let's keep the hope alive o7.

It's not developers who make the call, it's the product/project owners, product managers... They usually take their case to a business/sector leadership board who will give a green/red light, then it's the PMs job to liaise with UX to do UX research / fake door tests / a/b tests with low fi prototypes to gauge peoples impressions. All being well, UX design builds a hi fidelity prototype, which is where the devs come in, they use that to build the changes and as QAs, it's our jobs to oversee the whole process and test the work through automation, scripted and exploratory testing. If we're not happy, we stop the release going ahead or if it's all passing, we give the green light to the PM. It's then the PM who makes the final call as sometimes issues will be fixed-forward rather than fixed in staging/UAT

To the next five years.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

For your last question, I don't think that's relevant if you look at my original post, that's already answered as it's not a case of one or the other. That's the beauty of agile development and product teams continually improving aspects. The teams can be small, but still, they're always making things better

Agile is not a panacea for all problems and also comes with its own set of problems. Agile can also increase the amount of work that needs to be done for a feature because if people know they can change things because "Agile" they tend to. There are good reasons why most projects are done Agile, but it doesn't mean its always the best solution.

Not that i'm wanting to get into an Agile/Waterfall debate here, but you seem to be obsessing a bit too much about Agile like its some sort of wonder process.

Agile still requires that work to be done, somehow, using resources. Resources will still be spent.

So my question remains valid.

Agile/Not-Agile - let's say making change X to CQC will take 1000 zots. Would people want those 1000 zots spent on CQC or the main game?

 

[CMDR Evolution]

Agile is not a panacea for all problems and also comes with its own set of problems. Agile can also increase the amount of work that needs to be done for a feature because if people know they can change things because "Agile" they tend to. There are good reasons why most projects are done Agile, but it doesn't mean its always the best solution.

Not that i'm wanting to get into an Agile/Waterfall debate here, but you seem to be obsessing a bit too much about Agile like its some sort of wonder process.

Agile still requires that work to be done, somehow, using resources. Resources will still be spent.

Sorry if I was coming across like that. It's not the holy grail and you're exactly right, there can be other issues that crop up (scope-creep) but you'll see most tech businesses have been using it for a long time and by going through the research phases I mentioned, that mitigates scope creep to a large extent. You are right though, I've often tested and found issues which aren't technically bugs, but have been missed features beforehand as everyone's human, then devs have had to adjust features / UI etc, to make it fit with the overall product theme.

So my question remains valid.

Agile/Not-Agile - let's say making change X to CQC will take 1000 zots. Would people want those 1000 zots spent on CQC or the main game?

Yeah, your question is still valid and it just depends how Frontier work. Product teams would be the answer to that question but I can't say either way. I may be wrong, but to me it seems like Frontier use a project delivery model rather than a product model. Saying that though, Odyssey has seemed like a product so far. Fingers crossed, that'll continue and be used for other aspects like CQC, Powerplay etc

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Sorry if I was coming across like that. It's not the holy grail and you're exactly right, there can be other issues that crop up (scope-creep) but you'll see most tech businesses have been using it for a long time and by going through the research phases I mentioned, that mitigates scope creep to a large extent. You are right though, I've often tested and found issues which aren't technically bugs, but have been missed features beforehand as everyone's human, then devs have had to adjust features / UI etc, to make it fit with the overall product theme.



Yeah, your question is still valid and it just depends how Frontier work. Product teams would be the answer to that question but I can't say either way. I may be wrong, but to me it seems like Frontier use a project delivery model rather than a product model. Saying that though, Odyssey has seemed like a product so far. Fingers crossed, that'll continue and be used for other aspects like CQC, Powerplay etc

Yeah, i wonder if they do have product teams at all. They probably do within the areas they are focusing on, but then those teams get broken when they release the MVP version of the feature and then those things are left to languish.

I don't see it so much as a process problem (although they might have process problems, the number of regressions in each patch tends to indicate this) but more of a focus problem. They make something, then move on, rinse and repeat, rarely to return and turn the MVP feature into something better. Mining is one area they showed some love to over the years. Exploration somewhat. Engineers got a rework. But CQC/Powerplay (gods, i wish they would just get rid of Powerplay - sorry Rubbernuke) as well as other features have been left to languish.

 

[zikolach]

What if CQC would have been integrated into main game? Something like permit-lock system(s) where you can travel only by Apex and then join specific arena in a way similar to Frontline solutions. It could be also bots added to make it working for Solo players and to fill time where there is no opponents. The billboards on the main station's concourse would show current rankings, active rounds etc.

 

[CMDR Evolution]

We really appreciate all the hard work your team and Frontier are doing.

Is there any news yet please @Bruce G?

 

[Terry Daniels]

Released on December 15, 2015 players are able to land on airless planets
Released in May 2021 they introduced another planet type that's practically the same with a coloured skybox and the occassional plant
... and that has it's own team - 5.5 years and they couldn't even do clouds or weather!

Doesn't feel very agile to me.

 

[RyuStaar]

Quite frankly, IMO the only thing they need to do to make people play CQC is reduce the absurd requirements to get Elite CQC. I mean who wants to grind out a year of CQC when you can get Elite trader/explorer in a few hours. I started trying for the glorious quad elite before horizons, looked at how long it would take. I was Semi-pro, 3 ranks in and JUST OVER 1% done after playing steadily every day a couple hours for 2 weeks. Like I'm wasting my life with that. I don't even mind CQC but no rewards seems crappy. Make Elite attainable and I guarantee more people will play just for that. Though I doubt you can now because then you trivialize the work people who do have elite CQC have done.

I just looked semi-pro (level 3 is 40, 000 points), and Elite is 3,685,000 lolololol. Like wut check out Elite V cqc (22,110,000 points) good luck Musketeer!!

 

[NoVR - What_The_X_F_Dev]

I look forward to the day when there'll be new CQC matches. Please see below for the situation, specifics and a solution:

The situation:

• CQC came out 5.5 years ago on Oct 2015 as an MVP.
• It was then put on Steam but pulled as there wasn't enough content.
• I was surprised it was put on Steam, considering CQC only has 4 levels and 4 ships.
• Of course, Frontier then logically removed it from steam early 2017.
• By that time, Horizons had already been out for a year and many in the community expected ground based CQC but even now in June 2021, there's nothing new like the 10 points below:

Specifics:

1. Cross Play***,
2. Sphere of combat?
3. the Guardian fighters aren't there,
4. other new fighters like the Taipan, also,
5. SRV CQC,
6. Elite racers CQC,
7. on-foot CQC,
8. new levels,
9. new lobby,
10. CQC bots - For the last point, that wouldn't be needed if cross play was done .

Solution:

• From the perspective of someone who works in tech for a leading UK company - an obvious and ideal solution would be to have a dedicated CQC product team.
• Frontier really should have Agile product teams for products rather than classing features as projects and having a waterfall release process.
• Agile product teams allow constantly refining and improving different aspects without impacting other development from devs continually context switching.
• Elite could be so, so amazing - even more so than it already is and I love Elite already Hence my +6250 hours in game and around a grand spent with Frontier.
• I don't regret it but I hate to see problems and missed opportunities coming up again and again.

Please Frontier, don't ditch it. Just update the MVP PLEASE!!!!! Please, please, please.

What you released half a decade ago was great, it just still needs to be fleshed out.

Thanks so much o7

11. Thargoid Scouts as opponents