ANNOUNCEMENT Community Update (22/10)

Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
They cannot drop suppo

Why not? The only people who can't be updated to Horizons are the Mac OS users (who have a PC license as well) and they've been dropped since Beyond 3.4. All other platforms support Horizons, so all the players that don't have Horizons yet could easily be updated to Horizons for free and would allow them to release the Horizons edition as the de facto base game. That would make the need for maintaining the base game as a separate entity unnecessary and would keep the maintenance requirements down to only Horizons and New Era.

I don't see the problem with this. Or are you claiming that there are die-hards out there who will absolutely never want to switch to Horizons and up?

Maybe you can explain why you think they can't drop support for the base Elite Dangerous game?
 
Last edited:
Nah the real justiication for calling the game dead would be if "New Era" doesnt materialise. That is where the main focus of the game is and has been for 1.5 years. Everything is on that shoulder, not some minor isolated new feature like carriers.

I agree. The carrier thing would only be the first checkpoint for us to see if the course correction indeed happened or not. If there won't be much of an improvement, surely you should hold back your expectations for the new era.

It's sad, I came here to ED from other neglected, dying mp games, sucks to see the same pattern here to. I'm hopeful that what Will said is genuine, and they still have a lot in store for us.
 
We know that the team working on Elite is much smaller than 100.

Umm, we don't know that, its the opposite of what both FD have said and people who have visited their offices.

Of course, FD could be fibbing and those who visted the office could have been hoodwinked, but that is at best speculation and doesn't mean we know anything either way.
 

sollisb

Banned
Why not? The only people who can't be updated to Horizons are the Mac OS users (who have a PC license as well) and they've been dropped since Beyond 3.4. All other platforms support Horizons, so all the players that don't have Horizons yet could easily be updated to Horizons for free and would allow them to release the Horizons edition as the de facto base game. That would make the need for maintaining the base game as a separate entity unnecessary and would keep the maintenance requirements down to only Horizons and New Era.

I don't see the problem with this. Or are you claiming that there are die-hards out there who will absolutely never want to switch to Horizons and up?

Maybe you explain why you think they can't drop support for the base Elite Dangerous game?

i thought I erased that sub reply. You are indeed correct.
 

Sir.Tj

The Moderator who shall not be Blamed....
Volunteer Moderator
Umm, we don't know that, its the opposite of what both FD have said and people who have visited their offices.

Of course, FD could be fibbing and those who visted the office could have been hoodwinked, but that is at best speculation and doesn't mean we know anything either way.

I was there. I'm pretty sure I wasn't hoodwinked as I know my trouser leg wasn't rolled up (Well not that time at least) and at no point did I hear a Goat.

But from what I saw there was the pescribed number of people working on ED.

I did hear @Obsidian Ant 's soothing tones in the back of my car later on refusing to pretend to be my satnav even after I begged him..

S&F
 
Kind of sad FDEV adopted the CIG development strategy. Announce content and then delay most of it for several years. ;)

On a more serious note.
Ideally, things would be released with less bugs, then we wouldn't need the "We focus on bugfixing instead of new content" development cycles. Now we are already in the dump, we don't have much of a choice, do we.

Also a nice spin to announce it in a way to say "The community wants that we focus on bugfixing, so we do it." I have seen that before. The community wants that we focus on the core gameplay elements. The community wants this, or that. If it doesn't work out, blame the community, it was their idea!!
Another (and more honest way) would be to take the responsibility onto yourself and say:
"Sorry, we messed up. As a consequence we have to delay the next updates by 6 months. We are looking to make changes in our development process that these things don't happen in the future."
 
As someone who is often labelled a fanboy (by salty haters - since we are throwing around labels :D) i'm not happy with the delay.
Nobody is happy with the delay. It shouldn't have been necessary and it was caused by gross incompetence.

However, we are where we are, at the bottom of a hole that was dug ever deeper by continually releaseing new content without fully addressing the bugs that were introduced. The first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging. It is time to put the shovel down and step away from the JCB. That means not introducing more content. It means delay.

It is worth noting that when the dust clears we will be in the same place we would have been in if they had fixed the bugs as they went along. Fixing bugs and creating content require pretty much the same resources in whatever order you do them. So we might not have had Arx and the new tutorials until after Christmas and the carriers would still not be here until Q2 next year.

The difference would be that we would have clear and un-moving deadlines, cleaner releases, a bug-free game, and much better public relations.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to pick you up on this, I feel you are being disingenuous all the way through. You keep saying 6 months and I feel, that is wrong.

Carriers in any form have been tooted since Aug 2018? Whether they were squadron or personal, they are still carriers.

I'd like clarification. Are you claiming that the new iteration of carriers (personal) are in whole a complete new code base? Or (more likely) they are a branch or extension for what was already in play for the squadron based carriers?

Let's say you are claiming personal carriers are a new code base, then yes, that would mean they shelved the squadron code and started afresh, and like you say, they are only delayed 6 months, but also means, FD haven't the foggiest clue about what they are doing. No company unless they are completely bonkers, designs one thing, shelves it and then design and recodes a new thing almost the same.

Let's say you are claiming that personal carriers are an extension/rethink of the existing squadron carriers. Then that means FD are wholly late to the party and incompetent.

Well since 2017 actually but that was just Frontier mentioning a carrier concept, shall we say 2 years of broken promsies and lying then? Space Legs and Sitting in a Space Bar is going to be getting on for 8 years of lies! Or is that you being disingenuous, me putting things into historical context is not the definition of disingenuous. It is quite clear why Squadron Fleet Carriers were postponed in 2018. It didn't even make it past the scoping for pre-production development. Sounds like dev mockup only to me. Right? Whether that flegling code was re-used in 2019 is neither here nor there if it had not got very far, we didnt even have a feature list! The success of Beyond Q4 meant everyone accepted the reason for shelving Ice Planets and Squadron carriers from the Beyond season.

The success of Beyond Q4 shows that Frontier called the right card right? Right? So we have a real business justification for delay 1.


And just to go back to the 'oh! It's free' thing being tooted about... It's another bit of off-the-wall-falseness.

Pointing out something is free because it is a free addition is "off-the-wall-falseness" is it? Right. So the whole point of emphasising that is that a lot of the spam on here is moralising product launch dates and "promises". Product launches and feature sets are actually the perogative of the company, it becomes a moral (not always a legal one) issue only when customers have specifically handed over money, ie an actual investment. Only the lifetime pass owners have a real right for concern as 2018 had originally featured premium DLC that has been delayed indefinitely and now likely to be rolled after "New Era".


Horizons was also way overdue and after it,

Horizons was way overdue was it? It took two years to finish the season but each of the advertised releases were all on time. Who is being disingenuous by trying to paint a picture that everything in Elite Dangerous with advertised release dates is delayed?

we were told beyond would be a period of bug fixing. QoL improvements blah blah.

Errr no, no one ever said that Beyond would be a period of bug fixing. Every single update contain some bug fixes, do you not read the release nots? There has never been a quarterly update dev time solely focussing on bugs fixing though. Again who is being disingenuous now with actual false statements? Beyond season was focussing on core gameplay mechanics and QoL improvements because it was felt there was wider feature creep of half-baked mechanics after Horizons. Are you saying there were no improved core gameplay mechanics and QoL improvements in Beyond?

The reason it was free was (opinionated) because of the previous delays by frontier, and the mounting bug list.

It was free (why is that an opinion?!) because there was a reassesement on how they were going to release premium DLC in future, people prefer to pay for upfront completed content, so this is when New Era was born. An entire years worth of updates for free, I guess somehow in your world that should not be lauded. No idea what these "previous delays" are you keep spouting with little detail, sounds like fake news sloganeering.

Let's also add in, that every single release these guys have made has been beset by server issues and bugs. It's only in the gaming world that a company like this would be allowed to exist. In a commercial world they'd have sunk years ago. They have bad disjointed design, they have bad roadmaps, they have little or no testing and zero quality control.

Lol yes computer games, tell me about them, but sure go back to playing your Word Processor if you feel more comfortable to perceived stability. I myself have never seen a single bug in production outside of computer games. Never.

And they consistently miss their own deadlines.

Yeah you keep saying that. But you havent listed anything. Is it a case of sling enough mud and it sticks? Ulterior motives?

And finally, again someone else mentioned it, they added the new vote for your favourite bug. Who does this? What commercial organisation makes their consumer base vote for their favourite bugs and then only those voted for get attention. In a commercial world that would be what's known as commercial suicide. But these guys are let away with it because they're a gaming company. Anyone buying their stocks needs their head examined.

Yep they are a gaming company. I guess in your alternate world of productivity software and operating systems with their captive markets and huge stock prices that can sometimes buy most of the planet, are completely bug free and never have bugs that hang around for years. Wet behind the ears are you?
 
Last edited:
Are you working for FD? :)

No just hate shrillness and hysterics over something someone made up in their own head.
I love concise lists, historical context and cause and effect analysis.
Oh and I love predicting the future, living the present and not moralising things that have nothing to do with me.
 
I wonder if they'll give us the odd ship to fill the line up while we wait?
The Type 8
The medium Imperial(s)
The small fed and alliance ships.

Doubt it. But it would be nice.

There are other things they could do in the meantime I suppose:
Make material trader exchange rates better for the player.
Improve the game play around the material gathering loop.

Suppose I'll find out end of next year. I'm not going to have much time for the next four years anyway: Uni beckons.
 
Judging by that analysis Elite is on sale for what 9.99. I should just expect garbage should I ?

I'd reply to this with context if after I extract all your juvenile uneducated attacks and sarcastic manure, there was something worthwhile left to respond to. As I doubt there is, and I refuse to use the snowflake report option, or pander to stupidity, I'll just ignore you from now on. You can do the same to me.

Pot Kettle Black
 
Nobody is happy with the delay. It shouldn't have been necessary and it was caused by gross incompetence.

However, we are where we are, at the bottom of a hole that was dug ever deeper by continually releaseing new content without fully addressing the bugs that were introduced. The first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging. It is time to put the shovel down and step away from the JCB. That means not introducing more content. It means delay.

It is worth noting that when the dust clears we will be in the same place we would have been in if they had fixed the bugs as they went along. Fixing bugs and creating content require pretty much the same resources in whatever order you do them. So we might not have had Arx and the new tutorials until after Christmas and the carriers would still not be here until Q2 next year.

The difference would be that we would have clear and un-moving deadlines, cleaner releases, a bug-free game, and much better public relations.

Then let me clarify.

I think FD should have forged ahead with FCs regardless, because i don't believe for a second that in the long run it will make any changes to the quality of patches. I think we will get 6 months of fixes, along with new bugs, and then they will release FCs with a whole boatload of new bugs, and we will be back at square one.
 
I imagine that the bug fixing announcement is just to blow smoke up players’ posteriors and that the delay is simply down to FD not being able to meet their own deadline. For whatever reason.

Or more likely scope creep or some fundamental issue uncovered with the carriers development? Old bug fixes is to have something to release in December otherwise it would be the first quarter without a release.
 
Last edited:
Status
Thread Closed: Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom