For your interpretation to work the implication probably should have been 'We don't know whether we can deliver it or not' rather than 'it's running late' then.
Elite Dangerous: Odyssey Update 5
- Thread starter sallymorganmoore
- Start date
- Status
For your interpretation to work the implication probably should have been 'We don't know whether we can deliver it or not' rather than 'it's running late' then.
It means they currently do not know or do not wish to say whether they will or will not do it. It's not "my interpretation", it's what it means. You have info on the short term (not gonna happen) and no info on the longer term. Anyone pretending it means they will or won't do it in the long term is just guessing based on literally no info whatsoever.
It's meaning was open to interpretation, and some clarification was later provided.
You said you struggled to understand, several contributors have tried to help you. Do you understand now?
No, I still dont quite get why you got it wrong and needed it to be explained when the basic three word statement already said it. Mind you, I think it's good that they are willing to spell it out for people who struggled with the original three word, three syllable statement. But it's still a bit baffling, and makes me wonder how simple a statement has to be before we all get it immediately. To be clear, just because you misunderstand something doesn't mean it's open for interpretation. Although it would have been a fun take on English exams back in highschool.
Then again, today the question seems to be "what exactly does harassment mean?" so maybe I should lower my expectations a bit...
Because it was an ambiguous statement. Quibbling over semantics isn't going to solve an ambiguous statement, only clarification (from the person that wrote it or organisation that authorised it) will.
Which we've now had. That people interpreted a statement different from you & you state you cannot understand how that can happen is only a reflection on you, not those that interpreted it differently & requested clarification.
It is common practice to request clarification of ambiguous statements, whether deliberate or accidental.
I appreciate English is not your first language, I hope this is now clear.
Not at launch means it will not be in on launch day, strongly implying it will be added after launch. If they knew that LandLegs was never going to be part of Odyssey, why not just say that?
It's a lie of omission* used to intimate** the possibility that it may be added so buy Odyssey and some more ARX!
No chicken in the main course is a straightforward statement. There will be no chicken in the main course. There may be chicken in the starter or dessert but there's no implication that there will be. You would ask the waiter and he would reply yes or no to those possibilities.
* Lying by omission is when a person leaves out important information or fails to correct a pre-existing misconception in order to hide the truth from others.
** Probably a better word but I can't think of it.
Edit: Super Ninja'd by Riverside
Last edited:
Can you explain why that is strongly implied? It is a simple factual statement making one specific claim about one point in time...
"It will not rain in the morning." doesn't "strongly imply" anything about the afternoon either...
I don't think pointing out I am not a native speaker is quite the flex you think it is, given you were the one struggling with a three syllable statement.
In any case, everyone understands it now, so all is well. If you encounter another "ambiguous" statement let me know, I'll gladly explain it again so you won't have to constantly wait for FD to clear up all these confusing words.
Can you explain why that is strongly implied? It is a simple factual statement making one specific claim about one point in time...
"It will not rain in the morning." doesn't "strongly imply" anything about the afternoon either...
I don't think pointing out I am not a native speaker is quite the flex you think it is, given you were the one struggling with a three syllable statement.
In any case, everyone understands it now, so all is well. If you encounter another "ambiguous" statement let me know, I'll gladly explain it again so you won't have to constantly wait for FD to clear up all these confusing words.
Actually ... by using the path "Not a native English speaker" he was giving you the benefit of doubt, instead of questioning your motives for defending the actions of people who sold a product on direct or implied promises they could not deliver.
"The game will run on the same hardware Horizons run on" before opening the pre-launch sales.
"Here's the system requirements for the alpha, the release will be optimized" when posting system requirements that were a lot higher than Horizons.
"The current projection on screen as a placeholder for VR will still be there at launch, because we will not focus our development resources on VR before the launch has happened" which turned out to be "there are no plans for VR for the Odyssey specific content"
"There will not be ship interiors at launch" turned into "There are no plans for ship interiors as we cannot imagine how this will add anything to gameplay"
The sad truth is that I think Arf's team has been badly used by someone higher up the food chain from them. I don't think any of the community managers have been lying to us on purpose. I don't think they are bad people. Let me be crystal clear on that. And I think they have even better reasons than the playerbase to feel bitter towards the people in management that have used them, and caused them to mislead the playerbase. And it saddens me that they are the ones being slowroasted on forum flame posts, when they are as much victims of this as we are.
I have given no opinion on my personal interpretation, I don't use VR (and am unconcerned about ship interiors).
I am not defending FD or EDO's launch, I am talking about one specific statement.
That was indeed misleading. And given we are not well over a month post-launch I am inclined to believe it was intentionally misleading, or at least senior devs should have known it.
Same.
Can you source me this quote, because I haven't seen this one. Its a lot more insinuating than 'not at launch', which is just a cold and cagey statement. This is what they publicly posted, when people still had months and months of time to cancel their preorder:
This doesn't at all sound to me like "we are just busy with launch but we'll get right on it afterwards." Insteads, they say they understand people may be disappointed but they cant offer an experience that is good enough in their view. They broke the negative news way ahead for anyone to cancel if VR was the #1 thing for them, and made no promises it would come (soon) after launch. I am a VR player, I specifically bought the VR set for ED. Yes, I was bummed. But I switched to pancake and didn't for a second assumed they would just add it (soon) after launch.
Way back in 2012 FD already said that if they would get around to legs they would want to split it into at least two DLC; one with bases and stations, one with ship interiors. I have no idea why anyone would think they were going to be in EDO as the few times they spoke of it they said the opposite. As for the 'gameplay' comment, that is (IIRC) just the personal opinion of a community manager.
I absolutely agree. As I said earlier this week, it should be Braben or another senior manager who explains on a stream, what happened, for which reasons, and when they realistically expect to have it all sorted out. And, as I said back then, offer blanket refunds to everyone because too many currently cant (properly) play it.
However, none of that makes the sentence "not at launch" a 'lie' or 'misleading'. I absolutely agree its important to be critical of the plethora of dubious things that surround the EDO launch. Besides, we should always be critical of what a corporation does. Its a corporation, not a friend. But its also clear to keep a clear distinction between actually misleading or wrong info, and stuff that is mostly just disappointing.
I will not be explaining to you why you are wrong on a semantic and linguistic level right now.
Last edited:
IMHO all the efforts of the developer are thrown into games that are profitable and when investors are happy. And an elite dangerous odyssey - like a briefcase without a handle - is unnecessary, and it is a pity to throw it away.
I came to this conclusion due to the actions of the developers in relation to the game. There are many mistakes and they are not fixed, just drink coffee and nothing in particular.
I do not feel sorry for my money and I am ready to pay even more. BUT what is happening with the game now is an indicator of HOW the developers relate to the game and the gaming community.
I came to this conclusion due to the actions of the developers in relation to the game. There are many mistakes and they are not fixed, just drink coffee and nothing in particular.
I do not feel sorry for my money and I am ready to pay even more. BUT what is happening with the game now is an indicator of HOW the developers relate to the game and the gaming community.
Why not to make module buying window like it was in Horizon? Two buttons - buy with and without selling old module. Convinient and obvious. "Brand new" toggle button is source of discomfort, confuses and issues.
I found one on Pyramio FN-A b5-1 B 8
Taupe cobra
Taupe cobra
Taupe cobra
TAUPE COBRA!! For 4 days now, every time I jump somewhere or super cruise im then met with Taupe cobra until it decides to let me in again hours later to happen once I hit that FSD again, this is "beyond" an "Odyssey" at this stage and being told over and over by Fdev its my router and closing the ticket is ridiculous, I'm a network Administrator by trade, I have checked my router settings including ports and blocked ips etc. and nothing is wrong with it.....seriously......
Taupe cobra
Taupe cobra
TAUPE COBRA!! For 4 days now, every time I jump somewhere or super cruise im then met with Taupe cobra until it decides to let me in again hours later to happen once I hit that FSD again, this is "beyond" an "Odyssey" at this stage and being told over and over by Fdev its my router and closing the ticket is ridiculous, I'm a network Administrator by trade, I have checked my router settings including ports and blocked ips etc. and nothing is wrong with it.....seriously......
Went to a comp nab beacon in EDH with a load of graphics options on max. Same location in EDO with slightly reduced options. EDO jiggered and stuttered a lot despite most of the graphics comprising of empty, black space.
Hmm. Makes me wonder why.
Hmm. Makes me wonder why.
- Can't complete Assassinate X Faction Members, Type: Researcher
Reason - all Researchers listed on terminals are actually Scientists when passive-scanned and therefore do not count. In fact there are no 'Researchers' anywhere.
- Can't complete Assassinate X Faction Members, Type: Faction Member
Reason - The only base owned by the given faction in the given system was powered down.
- Previously, my frame rate was fine, but update 4 introduced some lag in certain rooms in settlements, and update 5 has caused something to happen in settlements that causes my game to become a slideshow for an amount of time up to 30 seconds, and runs fine all the rest of the time. It is easy to see this is not related to graphics, so somewhere there is a coding flaw using up too many resources every minute or so. I suspect it is related to AI because it tends to happen when I've spooked some AIs but without setting off the alarms and I am leaving a base.
Reason - all Researchers listed on terminals are actually Scientists when passive-scanned and therefore do not count. In fact there are no 'Researchers' anywhere.
- Can't complete Assassinate X Faction Members, Type: Faction Member
Reason - The only base owned by the given faction in the given system was powered down.
- Previously, my frame rate was fine, but update 4 introduced some lag in certain rooms in settlements, and update 5 has caused something to happen in settlements that causes my game to become a slideshow for an amount of time up to 30 seconds, and runs fine all the rest of the time. It is easy to see this is not related to graphics, so somewhere there is a coding flaw using up too many resources every minute or so. I suspect it is related to AI because it tends to happen when I've spooked some AIs but without setting off the alarms and I am leaving a base.
@sallymorganmoore kindly share an update with us for when the Development Roadmap will be updated as we're well past Update 5.
sallymorganmoore
Senior Community Manager : Elite Dangerous
Already replied to the other room you asked the same question in, so if you pop over there you'll see it
I don't want to get all 'Spammy Sally', haha.- Status