You devs, always making excuses
Elite Dangerous: FSD Reward Issues [reModifications & Experimentals] Follow Up.
- Thread starter sallymorganmoore
- Start date
- Status
It is Frontiers decision to do this and mine to spend time and money on a game. I wouldn't have spent any time on the CG if the expectation from Frontier wouldn't have been created to receive 3 double engineered FSDs that can receive an experimental effect, as before. I assume now you don't want to deliver I can't give you an account number and hourly rate to refund my time? This is really low and I am surprised that there is not more uproar from the players, the people who pay your salaries.
You should maybe think a moment what exactly you are doing here. Why would anyone invest time in the future if the experience sais that whatever rewards are promised might just dissappear somehow. With an error message, and later statement that's intended behavior. Unbelievable behavior. I think that needed to be said in-between the soft washed massages of understanding and acceptance. I don't.
You should maybe think a moment what exactly you are doing here. Why would anyone invest time in the future if the experience sais that whatever rewards are promised might just dissappear somehow. With an error message, and later statement that's intended behavior. Unbelievable behavior. I think that needed to be said in-between the soft washed massages of understanding and acceptance. I don't.
Hmmmm … maybe we’re looking at this wrong … FDev are GENIUSES … previously, a LOT of people who missed the CG finishing were ****** off but now that the rewards aren’t as good as everyone expected those people are glad they didn’t bother and it’s only the people who did participate (a lower number) who are annoyed?
So … actually this is something of a monumental PR coup … from a certain point of view …
So … actually this is something of a monumental PR coup … from a certain point of view …
Welcome in our world (HRZN/console/VR)The sad outcome of that story a bunch of commanders in ED communities around me are talking about to leave the game. It's not because of the "bug" or extra +3% to FSD jump range. It seems they realized now how this game is actually managed and developed and keeping in mind the Odyssey frustration since May their hope for improvement is lost completely. That is what really makes me sad and disappointed.
agreed with you.
Hey Sally,
Long time since I've spoken up here. Not allowing experimentals on the 3A, 4A, and 6A FSD is a mistake. It is something that was, and shall remain possible, on the 5A FSDv1. This isn't something that costs Frontier Developments money, aside from the development costs, if the playerbase wants to continue to be able to add experimentals to their double engineered modules. If the developers need information on how to make experimentals work on the 3A, 4A, and 6A modules they can simply work with what they have from the 5A. I would understand if they are running into a bug that is preventing resolution of this Problem Report (PR), but there is no reason to not do it.
We have a galaxy that is not even 1% explored and one of the ways to encourage your playerbase to continue to grow in, and explore that galaxy would be to follow the precedent the company has already set by allowing double engineered modules, specifically the FSDs, to continue to have an experimental set. There is no lore reason to stop the experimental effect from being applied. This won't cost Frontier Developments money aside from the standard overhead because players can simply modify a community goal reward rather than buying a non-specialized FSD, this isn't something where real money is being impacted. The only thing being impacted is the player satisfaction. It will go a long way to smooth things over and increase faith in the company to simply follow the precedent and allow experimentals.
I also understand that you're the Community Manager and not the developer responsible for this task. It is something you need to take internally and sit down with the actual development team and their product managers and find out if they truly intended this or they simply couldn't figure out how to make it work so they said they intended it. I have faith in Zac, Arthur, Bruce, yourself, and the other Frontier Development Community Managers to be telling us exactly what you're being told to tell us, however I think you're being lied to by your internal development team hoping we'll buy their story. I don't think you were telling us anything with ill intent, but I know from professional experience that what the player base was expecting is actually possible in this game engine and that it is far more likely that the dev team was put under a time crunch and were unable to figure out the PR in time for release.
How do we move forward? Talk with the dev team. Get them to be honest with you and get their product owner to tell you a realistic timeframe to figure this out without it causing any other bugs and letting it be thoroughly tested. How to handle it on the lore front? Get your Galnet team to write up an article stating that the current FSD engineers are baffled by the technology that the Pilots Federation released and they have been making attempts to figure out how to work with the new Frame Shift Drives. Once the dev team is confident they have a solid fix that is thoroughly tested you can then release another community goal along with Galnet articles stating that the engineers have made a breakthrough. Have them require some random technology commodity and make a delivery CG for both Colonia and The Bubble so folks in both major player bubbles have a chance to participate, and it coincides with the lore locations of the engineers. As a reward for those same CGs Tier 1 will unlock experimentals for the Grade 3A, 4a, and 6A FSDv1. Tier 3, 4, and 5 will reward the top 75% of commanders a 3A, 4A, and 6A FSDv1. Upon completion of the CG, the following Friday afternoon the modules will be awarded along with the engineers opening their doors for their ability to add the experimental effect to FSDs from this past CG and the one that was just completed as part of unlocking the ability.
That is how I would resolve this from a Public Relations, Technical, and Lore perspective all while instilling confidence in the company from the player base by the company admitting they have a bug they need time to resolve and being transparent about it, while also rolling this Problem Report into the lore of the game. No one who works as a professional software engineer would blame your developers for running up against a bug and needing time to fix it. The problem here is that they weren't transparent about it and tried to sell the Community Managers a story that the player base saw right through.
I appreciate what you guys do as CMs and I know you take the brunt of the negativity since you're the outward facing members of the company. I'm sorry your internal team set you up for this which caused quite the kerfluffle for you to deal with and likely added a lot of stress to your life. You're welcome to reach out to me privately if you have any questions or want to follow up on this matter. I hope you have a wonderful day.
V/r
Payperheirplain
And what does this mean for the next CGs with nice promissed rewards? Will anyone do it?Hmmmm … maybe we’re looking at this wrong … FDev are GENIUSES … previously, a LOT of people who missed the CG finishing were ****** off but now that the rewards aren’t as good as everyone expected those people are glad they didn’t bother and it’s only the people who did participate (a lower number) who are annoyed?
So … actually this is something of a monumental PR coup … from a certain point of view …
This is what it looks likeThis is my head canon:
- Game designer creates game design document specifying that these modules cannot be engineered.
- Everyone on the team seems to have missed that. UI and backend teams didn't enforce this limit anywhere.
- Game designer never actually tests any of these features so didn't notice either.
- Past CGs finish and everyone engineers their module rewards. No one notices.
- New developer writes code for the recent CG, notices the constraint in the game design document, and implements the restrictions on the backend only.
- Players start seeing backend errors when trying to engineer the new CG reward.
- Game designer: "You've never been able to engineer CG rewards"
- Sally: "They're saying they have, all of them"
- Game designer: looks at dev team
- Dev team:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threa...lication-of-experimentals.593774/post-9611053
You do realize that not every ship is the same... as per the ideology behind Elite dangerous 2.*
That said, why not allow secondary effects. the engineering rework of 3.* was to make things better. This is a step backwards.
I say this, if you want no secondaries on double engineered, then remove them from ALL such modules. OR, allow us to be different.
You do realize that not every ship is the same... as per the ideology behind Elite dangerous 2.*
That said, why not allow secondary effects. the engineering rework of 3.* was to make things better. This is a step backwards.
I say this, if you want no secondaries on double engineered, then remove them from ALL such modules. OR, allow us to be different.
That is my take on their understanding of how the G5 FSD was supposed to work, double engineering but no experimental so you did get a boost in jump range but nothing game changing...
If they wanted to do that … just have it drop WITH Mass Manager already … job done.
I’m not buying this as anything other than a up that they’re trying to get out of by saying “no no … it was always supposed to be this way … even when it wasn’t”
Last edited by a moderator:
Lessons learned from this mess:
1. Frontier employees either don't play the game, or they are not listening to ones that do.
2. PR department (or just the person responsible) doesn't see the issue tracker (and during dev stream carefully avoids 157 vote issue), trying to be smarter than their customers (which is NEVER a good idea)
3. After deciding to react it chooses the worst way to do so acting surprised that it is possible (point 1).
4. Still after releasing Odyssey in terrible shape to get the sales revenue for the yearly report and repeating all the mistakes from old engineering (limited space etc), making it even grindier that Horizons forgets that the... Game is made to make players happy so they have fun.
So in my humble opinion, you should listen to the people and make the FSD to be able to give them experimental. Introduce the possibility of buying them later after some CG (but at a really high cost).
1. Frontier employees either don't play the game, or they are not listening to ones that do.
2. PR department (or just the person responsible) doesn't see the issue tracker (and during dev stream carefully avoids 157 vote issue), trying to be smarter than their customers (which is NEVER a good idea)
3. After deciding to react it chooses the worst way to do so acting surprised that it is possible (point 1).
4. Still after releasing Odyssey in terrible shape to get the sales revenue for the yearly report and repeating all the mistakes from old engineering (limited space etc), making it even grindier that Horizons forgets that the... Game is made to make players happy so they have fun.
So in my humble opinion, you should listen to the people and make the FSD to be able to give them experimental. Introduce the possibility of buying them later after some CG (but at a really high cost).
Yep, mass manager on the G6 and deep charge on the G3 and G4 and everyone is a happy CMDR bouncing around the galaxy in search of shenanigans...
Following the recent Fdev MO, they will forget the Bris Decker in SOL can add experimentals to G5 FSD modules even though she can't go past G3.
I really have to wonder about the Devs, and I really feel for these poor reps on these forums that have to be stuck between us and them.
I mean, I haven't read the 13 pages before this and don't have the time unfortunately, so this has probably already been said... but:
Not going to lie, if I've got a choice between having double engineering on something, vs applying the chosen experimental, it's going to have to be pretty dam tastey double engineering. Often the advice to folks just getting into Engineering is to make sure they get at least G1 Engineering + Experimental on as much kit as they can, specfically because of how impactful the Experimentals can be.
I'm among those with S5 FSDs that have Double Engineering + Experimental, and the combination of all of this is exactly what made them so desirable.
If the "fix" is now that any future purchased S5 FSDs (or other sizes) can no longer have Experimental's applied, well yeah I'll put the materials to better use / won't bother with any related CGs unless there's a very tastey combination of double engineering to make up for the loss of Experimental.
Honestly Sally I'd say this one falls under bite the bullet and "leave it as is" intended or not. Anything else is going to feel like a downgrade to the general player base.
Not going to lie, if I've got a choice between having double engineering on something, vs applying the chosen experimental, it's going to have to be pretty dam tastey double engineering. Often the advice to folks just getting into Engineering is to make sure they get at least G1 Engineering + Experimental on as much kit as they can, specfically because of how impactful the Experimentals can be.
I'm among those with S5 FSDs that have Double Engineering + Experimental, and the combination of all of this is exactly what made them so desirable.
If the "fix" is now that any future purchased S5 FSDs (or other sizes) can no longer have Experimental's applied, well yeah I'll put the materials to better use / won't bother with any related CGs unless there's a very tastey combination of double engineering to make up for the loss of Experimental.
Honestly Sally I'd say this one falls under bite the bullet and "leave it as is" intended or not. Anything else is going to feel like a downgrade to the general player base.
In what might be record setting fashion, everyone came together to get the Community Goal for the preengineered 2A, 3A, and 6A FSDs. These were described like the preengineered 5A FSDs that allowed an experimental effect to be applied. Now, Frontier has prevented anyone from modding their 2A, 3A, and 6A FSDs with experimentals.
Frontier, the reason we are all upset is because of the bait and switch. We prioritized gameplay for certain expectations and rewards and you delivered something similar, but not the same, as expected. To all of us who are angry--just read how your players feel on the forums, Facebook Groups, and Reddit--that is because we met our part of the bargain, then you changed the deal.
Oh, to be sure, you can point to the fact that you never said that they would be treated identically. But that detail really changes nothing. People, lots of people, are upset and rightfully so. Telling them to just stop being upset and that the bug they want to be corrected is actually a new and exciting change to the game has created fury.
To be clear, I did get the new FSDs with the intent to mod them. But I have not had the chance to try yet.
I love ED and want it to succeed but this is not the way to do it. No matter what goals (power creep, etc.) you are planning to address with this move, the wrath of the many people who love this game is not worth it.
Frontier, the reason we are all upset is because of the bait and switch. We prioritized gameplay for certain expectations and rewards and you delivered something similar, but not the same, as expected. To all of us who are angry--just read how your players feel on the forums, Facebook Groups, and Reddit--that is because we met our part of the bargain, then you changed the deal.
Oh, to be sure, you can point to the fact that you never said that they would be treated identically. But that detail really changes nothing. People, lots of people, are upset and rightfully so. Telling them to just stop being upset and that the bug they want to be corrected is actually a new and exciting change to the game has created fury.
To be clear, I did get the new FSDs with the intent to mod them. But I have not had the chance to try yet.
I love ED and want it to succeed but this is not the way to do it. No matter what goals (power creep, etc.) you are planning to address with this move, the wrath of the many people who love this game is not worth it.
Thanks for clarification. Unfortunately a bit late for me, just spent quite a bit of time to collect some mats for "Mass Manager" and flew back and forth a bit. When I wanted to apply it, it didn't work and I found this thread...
No big deal, but I really dislike that the class 5 double engineered FSD could get an experimental and the new ones doen't. What is the reasoning for that?
No big deal, but I really dislike that the class 5 double engineered FSD could get an experimental and the new ones doen't. What is the reasoning for that?
The offical reason is they didnt know we've been doing that this whole time.
Neither do I. Together with the ignorance in yesterday's stream concerning that bug, it was the little too much that makes me leave the game. Not because ED is inherently terrible, but because the publishing company is.
Well no, they could suck it up, admit they made a mistake, and resolve this issue in our favor. Its a huge galaxy, and with Carriers having the 500LY range, the Having a Jumpaconda get a bigger boost, isn't the end of the world. If not, I forsee this being another lightning rod issue in a time when they dont need those.
I think you may of misunderstood my intent there?
By "Leave as is" I meant don't "fix" it to work as intended, leave it "broken" so we CAN do Experimentals on Double Engineered kit.- Status