Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 41 of 41

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: Frontier please dont make us wait until 3.1 for the FSD booster, unless 3.1 is 2 weeks or less.

  1. #31
    Originally Posted by jasonbirder View Post (Source)
    Well I'll certainly use an FSD Booster on my Exploration/Taxi ship a sweet optional 10 year Light Year Boost at the cost of extra Fuel Scooping (I can presumably activate it/deactivate it as I see fit) sounds like as close to a "Free Lunch" as you can get (its in keeping with Frontiers general "Power Creep" theme though...remember pre-Engineers when you considered yourself lucky to get 35 LY+ Jump Range on a ship...with this I'll be jumping 60+ with A drives, A Shields, SRV Bay, Cargo Racks and AFMU)
    That said...I haven't got one...until a couple of weeks ago I never even "considered them" and I was doing fine...if Frontier delivers it in Q4 fine and dandy...I don't feel any entitlement to have it NOW! Or in "2 Weeks" !!!
    the computer im using is a lot more powerful than the one i used in 1980 you can call that power creep if you want, i call it progress, if the game isnt to stagnate things should get better, like in real life, probably in the future, things will get better at a faster rate rather than slower. most long lasting mmos have what your calling power creep, its called leveling up, hopefully they will make new content that takes the "power creep" into account, in wow, i dont still kill rats, now i kill dragons. and even gods.

  2. #32
    Originally Posted by babelfisch View Post (Source)
    That's no surprise. Microsoft doesn't even have working processes after 40 years.

    Not an excuse by the way, just a fact.

    they call it spagetti code - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sp...hrome&ie=UTF-8


    world of warcraft had that in the early days, but they put the effort into it, to clean the code up, now they are able to add new stuff to the game without causing too many problems with already existing code.

  3. #33
    Originally Posted by Brett C View Post (Source)
    Problem with what you request is that our dev team has to branch the build out. If there's any additional changes done to the branch, the team has to re-merge the changes to the trunk/development build for a future release.

    This usually can (and sometimes does) induce numerous new bugs and other unwanted issues to the game client and server.

    As much as we'd like to push out rapid updates, it adds a lot of overhead to the development process.
    Just take your time its ok. but do it quick !

  4. #34
    The problem with not receiving bugfixes is not the missing (new) features.

    Merely, the problem is the story progressing missions are all unplayable because of the links to the Galaxy Map not working. See https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...Map-don-t-work for details.

    @Brett If you plan to delay all bugfixes by a quarter of a year you should also delay all the story progressing missions by the same amount. Currently, I'm still waiting for the bugfixes necessary so that I can play Ram Tah's call for help from 3 months ago.

  5. #35
    Originally Posted by valbarr View Post (Source)
    they call it spagetti code - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=sp...hrome&ie=UTF-8


    world of warcraft had that in the early days, but they put the effort into it, to clean the code up, now they are able to add new stuff to the game without causing too many problems with already existing code.
    Never played WoW, but are they really still adding much new code, or just adding more assets?

  6. #36
    Originally Posted by zimms View Post (Source)
    Never played WoW, but are they really still adding much new code, or just adding more assets?
    Most of their updates is new textures, story, balance changes but not much new features. Feature set of WoW has been same for long time.

  7. #37
    Originally Posted by Kamiyoda View Post (Source)
    Who said it was going to be a sub module? That sounds cool.
    nobody, but its something they should do. They are doing this with limpets, by introducing a limpet controller. So a limpet controller will allow so many types of limpets. this means the controller will use a single module slot, and allow maybe 2 or 3 different limpets to be operated from the single controller. you choose which limpets to insert in the controller.

    doing the same to power plants, FSD and shield generators will give better game play if they do. Some modules should have sub slots at least 1, some maybe 2

    Then extra bolts-ons to your modules would be inserted, making your module different to the main. As we discover more and more, we may choose to insert Guardian or Thargoid related bolt-ons.

    that's how I would do it... maybe I should add as a suggestion

  8. #38
    Originally Posted by Arthur Shappey View Post (Source)
    Except that you are asserting that Brett was implying: "our kitchen is too messy, won't fix. not very professional to say the least, but ... meh." - where as I am saying FDev cleaned up the Kitchen, withdrew the new, mistakenly released, non-functioning Breville Toasted Sandwich maker (TM), and that was indeed the most professional thing to do.
    i'm not questioning that decision, it just highlights (as you yourself imply) that there is no convenient way to address any non-trivial issue in the current build due to possible side effects in the next. this is bullcrap, any competent sw department is expected to be able to do that as required. that begs the question: was it, required?

    wich brings us to the decision itself. well, luckily it was just another junk module that could be simpy ignored. personally i won't miss it at all! but this is removing a feature delivered with defects altogether instead of fixing it, because fixing it is too problematic. see above. if the feature was released mistakenly (was it?) doesn't matter much, anycase would suggest a different, additional problem. it was released. what if the defect happened to be in something important (as far as stuff can be important in the game)?

    no harm done? yay! great! i guess ... but no, seems the kitchen is not clean at all: frontier seems to have serious difficulty in trying to maintain their own software releases, and this is not the first example at all. it was however the first example where a frontier spokesman openly admitted that they can't manage code branches professionally.

  9. #39
    Originally Posted by zn˘rt View Post (Source)
    no harm done? yay! great! i guess ... but no, seems the kitchen is not clean at all: frontier seems to have serious difficulty in trying to maintain their own software releases, and this is not the first example at all. it was however the first example where a frontier spokesman openly admitted that they can't manage code branches professionally.
    Except cherry picking and hotfixing live branch is a policy and sometimes companies actively avoid that because as Brett said it can introduce screw up cascade. Both cases are valid policies and professional decisions on case-by-case basis.

  10. #40
    it wasn't tested you are right. I cannot believe alpha testing or QA allowed that through.
    I would rather wait till 3.1 and get it working, and working in a better way if possible,

    I doubt they will introduce it as a sub slot, but we can ask.

    I have also put as a suggestion

  11. #41
    Originally Posted by Cmdr. Numa View Post (Source)
    A good idea and a bad idea at the same time. It would save a module slot, yes, but it would also render the sizes almost moot, everyone could just slot in a class 5 booster on every ship. You could instead just give all FSDs a flat 10ly increase. I'd also have a very specific problem on my exploration/SAR Conda. The ship runs on a tight energy budget, fully armed. With hardpoints out it can still keep the FSD online for a quick escape. Essential on a build that is very light. The FSB booster however couldn't be powered anymore. I'm counting on it being possible to have the FSD up and the booster down, to still be able to run with default FSD range.
    I agree. The point of additions is not just addition of extra free ship abilities, it is the addition of choices. You want to jump further? Fine, but scratch that extra AFMU... I'm fine with choices, I don't need or want omnipotent ships.

    Frankly I'm going to use that FSD boost mostly in the bubble, to get that g Federal Corvette from one end to another and have the module it will be replacing sent via snail mail.

    EDIT: I too want the ability to activate the booster separately. It will be used in marginal cases at the edges only.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123