Statistically speaking, those 700+ votes should represent a significant part of the player population - the fact that most issues posted on the issue tracker rarely gets more than 100 votes (top 12 most voted issues bottomed at 100 votes) should only put emphasis on this
Statistically speaking, those 700+ votes should represent a significant part of the player population - the fact that most issues posted on the issue tracker rarely gets more than 100 votes (top 12 most voted issues bottomed at 100 votes) should only put emphasis on this
Well, the calculation I used was the average monthly players as given by Frontier, rather than a 'magic number plucked from thin air' which I assume is relevant.
Frontier, by their own statement, do not consider the issue to be significant enough to spend resources on, which is the comment that draws ire from the few, it only bothers a tiny percentage of the player base, else the issue tracker (which is publicised enough by CMs consistently) would surely have many thousands more confirmations.
Players of the game have 2 options regarding playing, don't they?
I'm not arguing, didn't you notice? Just stating the obvious.
I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys how anyone else plays...
You do seem a little obsessed about the term "argue" when no such event had occured, are you OK?
people on this forum begged Fdev to support the issue tracker and improve it. Now that the results of it go against what some people want, it is considered harmful to the game. I knew people on the forums were fickle, but not this fickle. If people aren't happy with the issues listed then try harder in getting people to support the issues that you want fixed, cause obviously they aren't doing a good enough job convincing people to vote for it.
It probably will.Actually your quote makes it sound as if the split will now remain forever.
Odyssey = PC Elite dangerous.
Horizons = PC/Consol Elite Dangerous
Isn't this an indicator that perhaps, if an issue isn't getting the support desired by any person or group, that it isn't considered to be sufficient an issue to bother supporting it?
Sorry for the logical approach, but I save emotional responses for things that aren't a game.
No numbers have been "plucked from thin air". I suggest you probably read the our conversation in the thread to get some context around this as you are clearly missing it. You are also assuming that just because someone doesn't vote for an issue, it means they don't want to see it fixed. There are many more variables such as they don't use the tracker, or they didn't have enough votes or they don't know about the issue, etc.
Its not that they don't consider the issue to be significant. Anyone can see this is significant. It doesn't require too much effort reading between the lines to see that this was done because the resources are not there to fix this issue. The problem is too large and too costly to fix. Doesn't mean the issue isn't significant.
No vote ≠ Not bothered. By that logic, only a tiny percentage of players are bothered about ALL bugs and issues reported as all reported bugs have a cumulative vote total of a tiny minority (roughly 1-2% as of November 2021) of the monthly player count (and that's even considering you can have multiple votes). So lets just not fix any bugs as apparently 98% monthly players aren't interested in fixing them.
The non-landables are placeholders in a sense. Depends on how you use the term.
All that happens with them is that a flat bitmap image is created which is then wrapped onto the surface of a sphere.
When any of those non-landables are made landable, they’ll be generated in a different way and they’re almost certainly going to differ from the bitmap version.
So the current bitmap depictions can be considered as placeholders. But again it depends exactly what is being meant by placeholder.
Fair enough. But the point here was just really about the proposal that planet gen is handled by the SF. The SF doesn’t do landable surfaces, so making it do it would just be replicating a planet generation system in a different part of the code. Unless you’re talking more about the ‘when’ of it all, and saying that the full planet generation should be done as part of the SF proc generation in hyperspace?
I think it’s effectively both. It’s using templates but at a more granular level than previously.
What that means is that in some circumstances, the templates become noticeable at the scale of a single planet, whereas previously it was only noticeable when looking at lots of planets of the same type.
Like most things there’s upsides and downsides to both the old approach and the new approach.
Fair enough, and the principle of what you’re saying is quite right - just because FD made a decision doesn’t mean it was the best decision. Ultimately ED’s always been a speculative endeavour and they were never ever going to get everything right.
I’ve got to disagree with this part:
AFAIK, that is just the forum / social media rumour mill up to it’s usual distortion of things. All that happened was Arf gave his personal view on what some of the downsides would be on walking to and from the cockpit. It was never posited as the reason, and it was never posited as anything other than Arf’s own view. Unless there was another statement that I missed of course, but this stuff all seems to originate from what Arf said.
Really? I’d say a lot of the principles behind the planet gen system rework are absolutely spot on. Has that resulted in a perfect flawless new planet gen system? No. It was never ever going to anyway though. Neither would any other thing they could have done.
If we’re talking about the current decision to close off the issue? Well that’s a trickier one. Personally I’m not seeing any realistic alternatives being proposed though. They can’t throw resource at it forever. And in the apparent current financial climate, they’re not going to invest a shedload of time money and resource in binning this planet gen approach and trying to develop a whole new one, which will just come with it’s own set of flaws and complaints anyway. So what else can they realistically do, they’ve got to close it off at some point, and it’s just a case of whether they should have done it now or whether it would have been better to do it sooner or to do it later.
That's possible. But I don't see how this is relevant as the tiling issue is the most popular issue to get fixed according to the tracker (i.e the most accurate method of gauging public demand on bug fixes in the game)
Id say the tracker reports were an improvement. Shame it didn't last.
It didn’t work that well when they’ve done it in the past. The bad news parts of the Odyssey announcement massively took a lot of excitement out of the announcement. (Speaking personally, and based on the reactions of others.)
Plus they’d just be accused of trying to bury the bad news with good news.
Maybe they’ve decided just to get all the bad news out of the way first.
"What now?" is exactly the question we are asking for the future of the game as I suspect this won't be the last of the cuts. I go back to my first reply that started this whole conversation.
Worrying times ahead indeed ...
With the current seemingly reduced funding / resources available to ED, i'd expect most of the issues on the issue tracker to remain as they are, as in: un-fixed
Lets not forget that the really nasty bug - the agro bug (hostile ships not being maked as such on the radar/targeting system) introduced in U9 took them more than a month to fix
Also, the current bug with large gimbaled frags not deploying in PC Horizons is going strong for a full month already.
So yea, i'm expecting things to evolve at a very slow pace, at least for a while.
Doesn’t it say something that (leaving the tiling at number 1 for the purposes of this), the third most popular issue to be fixed doesn’t even effect playing the game in the slightest, and the fourth and fifth aren’t even issues?
I’m not trying to belittle the issue (it garnered more than twice as many votes as the next highest issue at last count) but from the four Issue Report threads it had 640 votes in August, 678 votes in September, 691 votes in October, 728 votes in November - 88 extra votes over 3 (and a bit) months.
I’d say your estimate of over a thousand votes is a bit generous.
Sorry for that. I've removed every iteration of the term "argue"
IMO (and possibly offtopic), the whole voting on bugs is inane.. A bug or issue tracker is obviously necessary, and confirming bugs is also good functionality as it might save the devs much time tracking down some individual's issue that could possibly be due to broken hardware, a broken software install, etc. But to vote on bugs...!
IMO once bugs are reported and confirmed a company should evaluate them and come to the conclusion that yes this is an issue and will be fixed, this is not an issue and we won't do anything, or yes this is somewhat of an issue but won't be fixed as we can't spend so much development effort on a minor detail.
For instance the last few nights I've been visiting barnacle sites, and figured out that doing relogski at a barnacle forest has quite a good chance to spawn a Thargoid come to feed. The problem is that it will CTD if you are too close to the barnacles. How many votes will this issue get when it gets reported on the issue tracker..? Should it be fixed? I'd say yes as a CTD is really a bad bug, but on the other hand how many people go to do relogski at a barnacle site, and how many of them want to get out on foot and stand really close to admire the entire event..
IMO once bugs are reported and confirmed a company should evaluate them and come to the conclusion that yes this is an issue and will be fixed, this is not an issue and we won't do anything, or yes this is somewhat of an issue but won't be fixed as we can't spend so much development effort on a minor detail.
For instance the last few nights I've been visiting barnacle sites, and figured out that doing relogski at a barnacle forest has quite a good chance to spawn a Thargoid come to feed. The problem is that it will CTD if you are too close to the barnacles. How many votes will this issue get when it gets reported on the issue tracker..? Should it be fixed? I'd say yes as a CTD is really a bad bug, but on the other hand how many people go to do relogski at a barnacle site, and how many of them want to get out on foot and stand really close to admire the entire event..
Yes, sadly I think I have to agree with that evaluation!
Probably near 800-850 votes rn. Considering those that don't have enough votes, and apparently "nobody uses the issue tracker" according to some in this thread, 1000 is fairly reasonable. The exact number isn't the point though. The point is that this is at least a measurable amount of players compared to people just blindly claiming that "most players" don't care about this issue or "99.9% of players" are fine with planet terrain variation and somehow trying to equate their personal opinions with that of 1000+ people.
Better save my breath from saying that I am worried about the future of this game? As I recall, that is all that I have really stated regarding the OP. All the rest has been conversation with others that blindly claim that nobody cares about this issue and are trying to downplay the problem because they are either whiteknighting or just don't care about planet generation/exploration. Also discussion about the issue tracker and how representative it is of the playerbase.
If you want in on this conversation, please do try and keep up and understand the context because I'm not going to be doing extra explanation of past replies just because you decided not to catch-up to speed.