If someone from Fdev streams themselves unlocking all the Guardian tech. I will eat my eye patch.

[Taimaru]

Playing devil's advocate here, but the stream would have to be a very long one that took days if not weeks, if FDev enjoy playing ED the way I and many others like to play which is to frequently change activities instead of doing the same thing over and over in one session, which burns you out.

Playing this way in a stream or realistically a series of streams would consist of flying to a couple of guardian sites to get some blueprint fragments, fly back to the bubble and do some bounty hunting in a res, change ship and do some trading, outfit for mining and do some mining, return to the Guardian sites and get some more blueprint fragments, head over to the Thargoid bases and do some science, partake in a CG, engineer an FSD, do a quick trip to Colonia and back, do some more bounty hunting, get some more blueprint fragments, etc. etc...

Doing a stream that way could take the developer away from working on the game for weeks which would have an effect on any project plans and delay any updates. Do you really want that? Just saying.

 

[Tikanderoga]

Doing a stream that way could take the developer away from working on the game for weeks which would have an effect on any project plans and delay any updates. Do you really want that? Just saying.

What the community wants is for the Devs to test and try their game before releasing it to the public.
It's like a chef cooking a meal - if you, as the customer, thing the meal is oversalted or overcooked, then the chef should be able to sample the food and deem it edible himself, rather than just assuming it's tasty after applying 200 gram of salt into a 200ml soup.

 

[Stigbob]

What the community wants is for the Devs to test and try their game before releasing it to the public.
It's like a chef cooking a meal - if you, as the customer, thing the meal is oversalted or overcooked, then the chef should be able to sample the food and deem it edible himself, rather than just assuming it's tasty after applying 200 gram of salt into a 200ml soup.

Don't confuse the silent majority with people being silent and especially not being in the majority. FDEV can see the metrics, they know what works and what doesn't and what people do in the game.

 

[crushdepth]

Playing devil's advocate here, but the stream would have to be a very long one that took days if not weeks, if FDev enjoy playing ED the way I and many others like to play which is to frequently change activities instead of doing the same thing over and over in one session, which burns you out.

Playing this way in a stream or realistically a series of streams would consist of flying to a couple of guardian sites to get some blueprint fragments, fly back to the bubble and do some bounty hunting in a res, change ship and do some trading, outfit for mining and do some mining, return to the Guardian sites and get some more blueprint fragments, head over to the Thargoid bases and do some science, partake in a CG, engineer an FSD, do a quick trip to Colonia and back, do some more bounty hunting, get some more blueprint fragments, etc. etc...

Doing a stream that way could take the developer away from working on the game for weeks which would have an effect on any project plans and delay any updates. Do you really want that? Just saying.

Their design team could do it in shifts. And yes, I do, anything to get the message across.

 

[Stigbob]

Their design team could do it in shifts. And yes, I do, anything to get the message across.

It's not important enough for the dev team to reply to it, let alone start doing rolling overtime on it.

You need to keep it realistic.

 

[lokvette]

It's not important enough for the dev team to reply to it, let alone start doing rolling overtime on it.

You need to keep it realistic.

We dont need them to do overtime, as they all play the game we could have live streams from thier homes, whats wrong with that

 

[Enderby]

Dear FD, if you don’t want to do it why do you think players would?

 

[Stigbob]

We dont need them to do overtime, as they all play the game we could have live streams from thier homes, whats wrong with that

Lol, you've done it now. The next suggestion will be to chain them to their desks whilst Sandro beats a drum at the back of the office to time their keystrokes.

 

[punkerich]

Lol, you've done it now. The next suggestion will be to chain them to their desks whilst Sandro beats a drum at the back of the office to time their keystrokes.

Well. That's how it works here in germany. Can't see anything wrong with it...

 

[zimms]

Why is Sandro spending so much time in Germany?

 

[sgurr]

Don't confuse the silent majority with people being silent and especially not being in the majority. FDEV can see the metrics, they know what works and what doesn't and what people do in the game.

Don't mean to pick on you stigbob but wanted to comment on metrics.

Metrics are great and really not great at the same time. They don't tell you why people do or don't do things and what their experience is whilst doing/not doing it.

As an example I'm exploration Elite, despite never having been further out than the Palin unlock (those early passenger sightseeing missions were very lucrative)

How would FDev's metrics interpret that? That I'm elite and therefore like and do exploration? Except I cannot stand the current jump/honk/point ship mechanics and will not go on a trip until that's given a gameplay loop with some depth. If they did it could be my main activity.
I also think cqc is great fun but don't play it because it's too hard to get a game, one strategy rules them all and it has no impact or integration into the game world. Their metrics will just see that I don't play it.
Oh, and I've never multi crewed because without SRV driving it holds no interest for me.

My impression is that FDev place too much emphasis on metrics without really understanding the why and the forums are not the place to get that understanding. I'd like them to send round a well thought out questionnaire to the player base (written by someone NOT familiar with the game). I suspect they'd get a far better understanding of the average player's mindset than any amount of metrics or forum reading.

 

[Jex =TE=]

Maybe after studying the metrics FDEV knew they needed content for the grinders, or far more realistically they know the majority of people don't treat it like a job so it's ok.
.

Maybe the grinders are the only ones left playing?

 

[Stigbob]

Don't mean to pick on you stigbob but wanted to comment on metrics.

Metrics are great and really not great at the same time. They don't tell you why people do or don't do things and what their experience is whilst doing/not doing it.

As an example I'm exploration Elite, despite never having been further out than the Palin unlock (those early passenger sightseeing missions were very lucrative)

How would FDev's metrics interpret that? That I'm elite and therefore like and do exploration? Except I cannot stand the current jump/honk/point ship mechanics and will not go on a trip until that's given a gameplay loop with some depth. If they did it could be my main activity.
I also think cqc is great fun but don't play it because it's too hard to get a game, one strategy rules them all and it has no impact or integration into the game world. Their metrics will just see that I don't play it.
Oh, and I've never multi crewed because without SRV driving it holds no interest for me.

My impression is that FDev place too much emphasis on metrics without really understanding the why and the forums are not the place to get that understanding. I'd like them to send round a well thought out questionnaire to the player base (written by someone NOT familiar with the game). I suspect they'd get a far better understanding of the average player's mindset than any amount of metrics or forum reading.

Having a conversation is never picking on someone.

I agree metrics can be really inaccurate, personally I'd judge how popular exploration is by the ongoing number of new discoveries across the whole playerbase. I'd also expect a huge dip right now due to explorers returning and engineering their FSD's.

The forum does present a skewed picture as well, because most players just happily play (or don't) and would not notice or respond to a questionnaire. The only players who definitely would respond are people with a personal bugbear (open only, RNG complainers, offline-gaters, grinders) so again the results would be massively off kilter with reality.

CQC needs bots IMO, or the facility to take our own ships into a rebuy free fight, it would probably raise the profile of and overall interest in PVP. The player killers would hate it though as without rebuy they'd not be able to harvest any salt.

 

[Stigbob]

Maybe the grinders are the only ones left playing?

I'm still playing and I don't grind. Maybe I'm patient zero and the metrics they study are just mine, doubtful though if they did that there would only be the FDL as a player ship.

 

[Jex =TE=]

I'm still playing and I don't grind. Maybe I'm patient zero and the metrics they study are just mine, doubtful though if they did that there would only be the FDL as a player ship.

There's always exceptions to the rule!

 

[sgurr]

Having a conversation is never picking on someone.

I picked you out of the rest though

I agree metrics can be really inaccurate, personally I'd judge how popular exploration is by the ongoing number of new discoveries across the whole playerbase. I'd also expect a huge dip right now due to explorers returning and engineering their FSD's.

I suspect that those metrics showing lots of new discoveries are the reason why there's been no improvement in exploration gameplay until this year, not realising that there are people like me who would love to explore but need a much better gameplay loop as part of it. But then who knows, maybe I'm a tiny minority.

The forum does present a skewed picture as well, because most players just happily play (or don't) and would not notice or respond to a questionnaire. The only players who definitely would respond are people with a personal bugbear (open only, RNG complainers, offline-gaters, grinders) so again the results would be massively off kilter with reality.

Definitely off kilter, surveys have their own engagement problems, but I'd argue that you'd get a more balanced response than you currently see on the forums where a loud minority outcry can get a change made that it later seems most of the playbase were against. (an example is introducing and then taking away showing the planetary surface after an ADS honk, I thought it was a great change and would've made me more likely to explore worlds)

CQC needs bots IMO, or the facility to take our own ships into a rebuy free fight, it would probably raise the profile of and overall interest in PVP. The player killers would hate it though as without rebuy they'd not be able to harvest any salt.

Completely agree ( I edited out a bots comment in my original post)
Without commenting on salt or otherwise I would be far more likely to engage in PvP if the engineering/meta bar was lowered. eg. standard engineered loadouts in a CZ. Engineering as a whole had a huge, and not that positive, impact on both consensual PvP and non.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

There's always exceptions to the rule!

I still play and don't grind for anything apart from once (mining engineer unlock).

 

[Stigbob]

I picked you out of the rest though

Sensible exchange of idea's and no name calling can be hard to find.

I suspect that those metrics showing lots of new discoveries are the reason why there's been no improvement in exploration gameplay until this year, not realising that there are people like me who would love to explore but need a much better gameplay loop as part of it. But then who knows, maybe I'm a tiny minority.

Yep I can't remember any massive brouhaha's by explorers beyond "I'd quite like some improvements" so they seem generally happy with what they have, whenever I do exploring (rare but I'm girding my loins for another massive expedition) the actual mechanics of it count for less than the feeling of being the first and alone and tiny in all that vastness.

Definitely off kilter, surveys have their own engagement problems, but I'd argue that you'd get a more balanced response than you currently see on the forums where a loud minority outcry can get a change made that it later seems most of the playbase were against. (an example is introducing and then taking away showing the planetary surface after an ADS honk, I thought it was a great change and would've made me more likely to explore worlds)

CQC is a perfect example of that FDEV gave the PVP'ers exactly what they were constantly asking for with loud outcries, structured PVP centric content with no way of opting out of PVP yet wouldn't hit your in game credit balance and as such was attractive (in theory) to more players.

Yet they claim to hate it.

FDEV's mistake was thinking their actual complaints had any merit, the real unspoken complaint was why isn't it EVE in a cockpit yet (and largely still is).

Completely agree ( I edited out a bots comment in my original post)
Without commenting on salt or otherwise I would be far more likely to engage in PvP if the engineering/meta bar was lowered. eg. standard engineered loadouts in a CZ. Engineering as a whole had a huge, and not that positive, impact on both consensual PvP and non.

No engineering in CQC different ship class matches or even any ship goes for the sidewinder ninja's and tailor your loadout however you like with any stock module at any rate provided you can power it. That would level the field a bit.

 

[sgurr]

Maybe the grinders are the only ones left playing?

I do grind, usually while asking myself why, and I still play although I do take breaks like now.

However, I do agree with a lot of the points you make.

 

[sgurr]

... the actual mechanics of it count for less than the feeling of being the first and alone and tiny in all that vastness.

I love that feeling of being alone in the vastness.

And then my short attention span gets the better of me and I need something more immediately engaging to do.

CQC is a perfect example of that FDEV gave the PVP'ers exactly what they were constantly asking for with loud outcries, structured PVP centric content with no way of opting out of PVP yet wouldn't hit your in game credit balance and as such was attractive (in theory) to more players.

Yet they claim to hate it.

FDEV's mistake was thinking their actual complaints had any merit, the real unspoken complaint was why isn't it EVE in a cockpit yet (and largely still is).

Not sure I agree with that. There's certainly some who want EVE in a cockpit, and I just don't understand the seal clubbers, but I would argue that the main mistake is making it so separate from the main game in impact and consequence and not having a mode with main game ships and the variety of those and loadouts that it brings.
Consequence gives meaning and if CQC could influence the game world such as combat CG's, either through flying carrier launched fighters or being able to take you own ship into a scenario, then you'd get far higher engagement.

No engineering in CQC different ship class matches or even any ship goes for the sidewinder ninja's and tailor your loadout however you like with any stock module at any rate provided you can power it. That would level the field a bit.

It would yes, but then it needs that integration into the main game.


Before a mod notices us getting too off topic, I do think the OP has a point about FDev not understanding the experience of engaging with something like the Guardian weapon unlocks.
Thing is, when 3.0 first launched I happened to be out trying the 1st Ram Tah mission and in the process took full advantage of the 'bug' that let me get lots of guardian blueprints as I had a feeling that FDev would do exactly what they did. I've hopefully got more Guardian blueprints than I'll ever need.