I disagree with all of that probably.
If I wanted a 'radio-tuning' game I would have rather bought an old radio.
- Thread starter Spline
- Start date
- Status
I disagree with all of that probably.
![[Diplomacy] Carnegie](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/123/123809.jpg?1553527149){kind=avatar}
*starts salivating*
C&P was introduced purely because of the forums? Was it? Got the meeting minutes where this was discussed? Engineers too?
I couldn't possibly be that Frontier might also have wanted to make these changes, might not have been less-than-thrilled about a particular feature, wanted to improve upon it, but were bound up by their own time constraints?
This sort of thing really does happen in the complex world of development, and it happens all the time. If you already know what I'm about to share, great, this isn't for you - it's for those who don't or don't quite get it:
Let's look at Project A, a massive, multi-teamed project to produce a world-class software package. This package is being developed by a team, and that team is split up into different groups.
Group 1 is in charge of designing, developing and implementing the user interface.
Group 2 is in charge of designing, developing and implementing Feature A
Group 3 is in charge of designing, developing and implementing Feature B
Group 4 is in charge of designing, developing and implementing Feature C
Or, to put it in less abstract terms, but Elite terms:
Group 1 is the Menus Team
Group 2 is the Missions Team
Group 3 is Ship Design Team
Group 4 is the Exploration Team
These teams all have deadlines handed down to them by those above them. Periodically these teams have to give some sort of status report on the parts of the project they are responsible.
Group 1 says: Menus are done, tested, working as intended.
Group 2 says: We're about 70% complete, should be at 100% by the end of the week.
Group 3 says: We've finished with everything except the damage models, we've only gotten so far as getting them to work for the Anaconda.
Group 4 says: We've got the entire framework down, just trying to come up with the right tools.
Fast forward to a short time before this project phase is done. Group 1 has their work all complete. Group 2 has finished their work as well. Group 3 says "We've got one that works exactly the way we want, but it's taken us so long we're just not going to be able to do the same for all the rest in the time remaining." A management decision is made that says this is acceptable at this point, as it showcases what they want to do, and does not adversely affect the ability to proceed. They proceed.
Group 4 says "We've gotten everything done, but we're really not that thrilled with what we've come up with for tools. They work, but they could be so much better." These are reviewed, and a management decision is made - the tools are sufficient for now, and the team can refine them at a later point in time.
Because this sort of thing is exactly what happens, regularly, in the software industry. Deadlines are given, and best efforts are what make it into production, even when those best efforts are not really in keeping with the final vision. Those teams are, once that release is made, often tasked with other, new tasks, to advance the next phase, and the next phase, and the next phase, even when they bring up in the meetings "Hey, you remember that thing we did, that we weren't so thrilled with? When will we get a chance to revise it? Oh, Soon™? Ok, just wanted to make sure it didn't slip through the cracks."
Or, as a less theoretical model, and one based directly on what I actually do on a daily basis:
My project team is building a brand new datacenter. The servers have arrived, the racks have arrived, the climate control systems are in place, the customer's deadline for the project is approaching quickly, so the server teams get the servers set up, in the racks, and connected to the routers and switches. The cable teams have cables run to all the places they need to go. We're on schedule, but things do not have the neat, clean and polished look we want. Only half cables are labeled, the switches and routers are not mounted, and all that cable can still go into raceways and be organized much better. But tomorrow is "Go Live" day, so we sit down with our client and tell them "Yes, we can absolutely throw the switch and go live right now. But we'd still like to get this, that and these things done." So we schedule follow-up time to make sure everything has that final spit-and-polished look we want, and the datacenter goes live right on schedule. It might take us a couple of weeks to schedule the resources to come finalize everything, and that's fine, since it doesn't affect operations or delay the startup of the new datacenter.
Four years is a dreadfully long time for a particular feature to be updated, and yes, people, myself included, continued to inquire about it - in various ways. What none of us can say though, is what took so long. Did it take the team responsible for the exploration tools that long to come up with something that was what they wanted? Maybe. Were they tasked and retasked with other responsibilities that kept them from devoting time to finding that "ideal toolset"? Maybe. Odds are we'll never know.
Asking for the stable door to be closed after the horse has bolted never bought it back.
Yes it did, it just took more effort than before the horse bolted. The stable door did not need to be left open and this was pointed out before the horse bolted Bran Tse Mallory. That the horse escaped does not make leaving the stable door open any less of an oversight, nor does it make the issue of the horse having bolted any less in need of being dealt with.
There is a need for a horse in the stable, it doesn't have to be the original one, but it does need to be able to perform all the roles the old horse performed.
Last edited:
Just trying to interpret what Riverside was trying to point out. Remember, I like the FSS as is.
Unless, of course, the horse bolted from said stable because said stable was on fire, in which case, what manner of monster are you for wanting to return that horse, or put a new horse in a burning stable?
If the stable is on fire you still don't want the horse to bolt, you want the movement of the horse to be managed such that you still have a horse.
The horse knows what the horse needs better than the stable hand.
Are you implying that the game writes itself?
There was no need for the horse to escape, mistakes were made that left the owner without a horse and that needs to be corrected. It doesn't have to be the same horse, it just needs to be able to do all the things the ex-horse owner could do with the old horse. That it can do different things is great, but it needs to be able to do what the owner bought the horse for.
Simple
Are you implying that the game writes itself?
There was no need for the horse to escape, mistakes were made that left the owner without a horse and that needs to be corrected. It doesn't have to be the same horse, it just needs to be able to do all the things the ex-horse owner could do with the old horse. That it can do different things is great, but it needs to be able to do what the owner bought the horse for.
Simple
There is a certain point at which any complex system does begin to manifest certain attributes that do emulate "the game writing itself", insofar as the complexity of the full and final product limits what can be added, changed or removed without the need for what amounts to a full-blown rewrite from the ground up. To that end, yes, there is a certain point where the code will dictate what more can be done with it.
But I will adamantly state that you are wrong with your claim that this change was somehow a mistake. I will guarantee it was not a mistake.
In addition to all the things any horse can do, there is something the old horse could do that no new horse will ever be able to do - and that's be the old horse.
No new horse will ever be the old horse again. Ever hear the expression: "Can't put the genie back in the bottle"? The genie is out.
Whatever anyone says about you, nobody can fault your ability to tell it like it is.
Jeezus, this post is awesome.
You've got to love it.
"I think people are just stupid-heads who can't come to terms with new things"
Followed by...
"I dunno why people keep on responding to this thread"
Yeah, it's a total mystery. [rolleyes]
Know what's wrong with the fss? Lol.
Once you get over the novelty, while travelling you don't perceive anything at all apart from the scooping and jumping anymore.
Im just finishing up a guardian round trip of 62 jumps, and i honestly don't care.. at all.. about the systems im passing by anymore to even bother honking.
Not sure if its a positive or negative yet as its too soon.. but i bet so many people on their distant worlds too have gotten over even bothering to trigger the fss and are just jumping from waypoint to waypoint.
Seem odd that someone would want me to experience this though.
- I don't care about the stellar forge anymore in this game mode.
- The spectrum bars aren't worth it after a sequence of no hits.
- I feel like i got there quicker i guess....
Once you get over the novelty, while travelling you don't perceive anything at all apart from the scooping and jumping anymore.
Im just finishing up a guardian round trip of 62 jumps, and i honestly don't care.. at all.. about the systems im passing by anymore to even bother honking.
Not sure if its a positive or negative yet as its too soon.. but i bet so many people on their distant worlds too have gotten over even bothering to trigger the fss and are just jumping from waypoint to waypoint.
Seem odd that someone would want me to experience this though.
- I don't care about the stellar forge anymore in this game mode.
- The spectrum bars aren't worth it after a sequence of no hits.
- I feel like i got there quicker i guess....
Last edited:
I decided to try again with the FSS over the weekend.
I still found it still utterly tedious. Systems are reduced to that stupid blob hunt.
Spent more time in that cruddy 2d view (still with oh-so-annoying cascade affect..) than flying the ship.
I’ve put the hours in, I’ve set up all the controls. It isn't confusing, or needs to be learnt or takes skill - it’s just that the FSS is absolute rubbish.
It killed exploration. Replaced it with a crappy telescope with highly annoying, needless twiddling. Utter, utter game-ruining rubbish. Shame on you FD - you must know it’s as rubbish as I do.
I still found it still utterly tedious. Systems are reduced to that stupid blob hunt.
Spent more time in that cruddy 2d view (still with oh-so-annoying cascade affect..) than flying the ship.
I’ve put the hours in, I’ve set up all the controls. It isn't confusing, or needs to be learnt or takes skill - it’s just that the FSS is absolute rubbish.
It killed exploration. Replaced it with a crappy telescope with highly annoying, needless twiddling. Utter, utter game-ruining rubbish. Shame on you FD - you must know it’s as rubbish as I do.
Last edited:
Nice story.
Personally I don't use the FSS to explore. I use it to discovery what there is to explore. And no it isn't rubbish. You just don't like it.
Essentially I like the new system, it does add interest but is visually tiring in VR, especially the cascading waterfall effect, (which for some I expect is also potentially headache inducing) !
Its nice the scan picks up the orbital plane, and would be even nicer to initially view the system map, populated with just blank planets. For viewing potentially interesting system layouts first. After which one can decide to fill in the blanks if so desired. ....After all, the scanner locates the planets via the blue blobs, and where they lay on the orbital plane already. So, how much harm could it do to see the layout initially?
Seems a more logical way for the discovery process, rather than twiddling every body in the system first in order to view the layout last.
....I’m experiencing problems with excessive twiddling. It’s just not in my nature.
Flimley
Its nice the scan picks up the orbital plane, and would be even nicer to initially view the system map, populated with just blank planets. For viewing potentially interesting system layouts first. After which one can decide to fill in the blanks if so desired. ....After all, the scanner locates the planets via the blue blobs, and where they lay on the orbital plane already. So, how much harm could it do to see the layout initially?
Seems a more logical way for the discovery process, rather than twiddling every body in the system first in order to view the layout last.
....I’m experiencing problems with excessive twiddling. It’s just not in my nature.
Flimley
Last edited:
- Status