MULTICREW: Adam Woods describing MC during the Horizons' launch stream.

[Tataboj]

No, this is not what we are doing. You are exaggerating our position dishonestly as an attempt to invalidate us. But in general people is not asking to an absolute fulfillment of FD's goal, and we are not talking about promises made 15 years ago, but to an announcement done around one year ago, of a product that was sold at the moment of its announcement. And most of us we are only asking for a sensible solution to the current problem with multicrew. And please, don't poison an effort that might benefit you too in the future, if we have any success. If there is any change to MC in the future, and if you take advantage of any those possible changes, then you should be thankful to the critical voices that pressed Frontier to react in such way.


You are right on the first part, because as opposed to the whiners and the ignorants, the majority is criticizing Frontier with some degree of factual basis (I understand you can mix them up, as you disagree with them all). Some of those in the majority are upset, that is visible, but their reaction is not arbitrary. You on the other hand, you are a clear reference to all the adjectives you displayed on your post. I dont recall KING5TON using ad hominem arguments, but you clearly are. I wonder if you are blind to it or not, the contradiction that your own behavior pose to your claims.

I was talking about the community in general, you don't need to take everything personally. I fail to understand how taking a "no promises" statement as a promise benefits anyone. Maybe you haven't noticed, but if there is something here we have more than we need, it's criticism.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Personally I am patient, and am invested in ED for the long haul. I do not mind if delays happen.... I do not mind if features are DELAYED due to issues.

Where I personally feel FD need to be clearer on however are areas where, OK, these features were a little tougher than expected to implement, so wont be coming out in the 1st iteration, but bear with us..... vs areas where FD looked at it and said "nope!!!!....... this is too hard to do, and not enjoyable enough to bother, so we are cutting, and whilst may still be on the list but so far down that it is probably not going to happen!".

these missing features are on a scale... some of them have not been mentioned for the last 3 years or so (npc crew)

where as others were mentioned in the Horizons reveal.... and more so, one of the features, and its a BIG one... is even shown in the official trailer which is being rolled out now....

That 1st pot, whilst it is important to me personally, more than any other feature FD could ever do, I would say FD covering would be more of a "solid" to do for the community,

the 2nd pot however....... For instance FD really do owe it to us to explain why multicrew with the SRV is definitively shown as a feature in the trailer, and give us some assurance that it IS coming at some point for owners of horizons. if not then imp the trailer needs either pulling or a warning that certain features shown in the trailer do not exist in the game.

I am not being salty or whining......... just matter of fact how I see it. We are all presumably invested in Elite and therefore biased, but someone who is neutral i think would be right to feel that features shown in a trailer should be possible in game... Trailers often over egg how "good" certian features are but they do not usually add stuff not possible in there, at least not good or honest trailers.

take to an extreme. how you people feel if the new trailer showed a ship landing on an earthlike and avatars getting out of their ship? would that be fair?. I know FD have not gone that far down the rabbit hole, but still its an extreme of the same issue imo.

I am not being obtuse here (imo feel free to differ) but multicrew on a surface, with a player in an SRV would right now be the best feature of multicrew for a lot of players - well this player anyway - and that is not possible.

 

[lysan]

Hi everyone,

Development is a complex process. We tested and discussed some of the features that Adam mentioned and they either weren’t good from a gameplay perspective, or we simply weren't able to integrate them for technical and time reasons. I'm sure you understand that there was never any intention to deceive, only to do what’s best for the game. We did caveat it on the stream itself, too... unfortunately things change.

We like being as transparent as we possibly can be at FD. We like talking to you and telling you about the exciting things that we're working on! Sometimes that means that information changes, or you hear about things that then can't be implemented. I'll say it again, we like seeing the community get hyped, and thanks to your respect, excitement and understanding we're able to continue doing it!

Well, lesson learned, it's better to say no comment and then surprise. On the other hand the DDF was a cold bucket of water so just announced the feature you actually can deliver.

 

[Franc Kaos]

...
Announce details of MC->a year of silence->Announce details of cut down MC close to release.
There was nothing from FD on any issues.
There was nothing from FD that the scope of MC had changed.
That's not keeping us informed. That's keeping it quiet till the last possible minute.

Well, to be fair the loss of offline play was also kept quiet until the last minute so this isn't new behaviour. :x

Pew, Pew, Multi McCrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grubb. :O

Just watched the trailer with the so called misleading MC - see, there were two ships, one with multicrew, the other with a solo pilot and it was him who landed and took the SRV out (if they'd allowed sad solo players <me> to fill their empty seats with holo-crews this kind of incorrect assumption would never have happened - maybe). [alien]

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Just watched the trailer with the so called misleading MC - see, there were two ships, one with multicrew, the other with a solo pilot and it was him who landed and took the SRV out (if they'd allowed sad solo players <me> to fill their empty seats with holo-crews this kind of incorrect assumption would never have happened - maybe). [alien]

I just went back and i thought you had me!.... and was about to concede the trailer was possibly just woefully missleading rather than out and out impossible.. but no.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEQTj8dTOC0#t=26s

(2 SRVs)

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

I just went back and i thought you had me!.... and was about to concede the trailer was possibly just woefully missleading rather than out and out impossible.. but no.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEQTj8dTOC0#t=26s

(2 SRVs)

I don't really see anything missleading about that either. There maybe another ship out of camera that we can't see which would explain it. Infact you see one ship landing from the position of an already landed ship.

You can also see two ships here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEQTj8dTOC0#t=31s.

Nothing missleading about it.

I don't understand why multicrew cannot use SRV's, and two SRV's if you have 2 available. Why do the ship fighters have a telepresence emitter in them and the SRV's don't.

So many inconsistancies that I just don't understand where this game is heading. Nothing is making any sense and it looks like the game is turning into a load of disjointed mini games with no context.

To me that makes the worst kind of game. I really hope FDev step up a bit and start changing things so they make more sense.

 

[Chrysophylax]

So I watched the stream, and I listened carefully. I appreciate the transparency, and I value it as a sincere attempt and a perfect response to the request for more communication. But what was said in regard to this thread was fairly upsetting. So dear FD:

1. Don't use as a defense that you share things because you like sharing. You also share things because you are selling a product. There is no innocence there, advertising is pretty much a zero sum game. And yes, the live streams count as promotion and advertising. This is an ad misericordiam, appealing to pity as a defense, why not address directly to the points being objected instead?
   
2. No, we are not accusing you of lying. Things can be misleading for a variety of reasons, most of them don't involve lying. In this case, it was a matter of bad timing for talking about your cool plans for the product that you were selling. The bad timing is because you barely started the work on all the things you said at the time you announced we will be getting them. Although you don't lie in the live streams, you are not honest in the trailers either. Should we have mercy on that too? When I said in the OP that things were misleading, I said it in order to call for a change in the strategy, and in order to explain why people came to expect more from MC. Not to accuse you of tricking us. However, it is expectable for customers to feel tricked when this happens.
   
3. You said that things change, and I agree; everyone agrees. But repeating that doesn't work as a defense of anything, since this is not the point of our disagreement. What is being objected is MC being in its bare bones, and its future relying on the reception of an incomplete feature. I can accept the bare bones, what I don't accept is its uncertain future. If Elite is open to its future as Sandro emphasized, then why not making plans for MC right now? Why not assuring that it will be expanded in the light of the current demand?
   
4. You said that you are going to see how MC is received. Are the forums not clear enough?
   
5. You address to the argument as if it was disrespectful and unrealistic. I might be wrong though, since you were more careful in this point, but please, don't poison the well by pairing the argument with the disrespectful interventions of some people in the forum. The fact that the criticism come sometimes with disrespect doesn't invalidate the argument at its core. Some of us make valid points with clarity, care and respect. But the defenses mostly focus conveniently on the other ones.
   
6. If you suggest that we are unreasonable for expecting too much based on statements made by Frontier at an extremely early stage in the development of MC, then you shouldn't have done those statements at such an early stage. If you were going to announce MC as you did during a live stream at the moment of releasing and selling Season 2, only to discover later that they wont work out in terms of gameplay, then you should have put more thought before announcing them. Don't blame us, blame yourself.
   
7. We didn't put you in a scary position, you put yourself in there when you offered things that you didn't have, when you sold more than you could provide. Don't play the victim.

Evidently I have irreconcilable perceptions of this with FD. And I can absolutely anticipate what I am going to be told from some; that it is time to move on. And it is. It seems they cant admit the mistakes they have done; their view matched perfectly the ones from the fanboys. I wonder if the fanboys had as much power on them as the trolls did. Ones scared them, the others legitimated them. With such reiteration of the same attitude, it is clear there is nothing else I can expect from them. Sadly, there is nothing else I can do, besides the silliness of a negative review on Steam, and not buying anything else from them. This thread is over for me.

I wasn't with you at all until you posted this. Well reasoned and put.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I don't really see anything missleading about that either. There maybe another ship out of camera that we can't see which would explain it. Infact you see one ship landing from the position of an already landed ship.

You can also see two ships here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEQTj8dTOC0#t=31s.

Nothing missleading about it..

imo there is.
there are 2 ships a cobra and an......... asp i think

the cobra is in multicrew, this as we know no CANT do SRVs
the asp we have no idea about so fine, that can do one.

now if you want to argue that after the 1st shot the crew in the cobra disbanded and then the SRV launched, or your point that there is another ship somewhere.... well these are (weak imo) possibilites, but, that STILL makes the trailer missleading.

the reality is the trailer shows 2 human ships and an alien.

1 ship at least is a multicrew vessel, and yet there are 2 SRVs..... this is not possible in the current build. unless thargoids control SRVs

 

[SaliVader]

I just went back and i thought you had me!.... and was about to concede the trailer was possibly just woefully missleading rather than out and out impossible.. but no.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEQTj8dTOC0#t=26s

(2 SRVs)

Lately their trailers have felt almost like promocional material for new cosmetics... I hope they change this trend.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

imo there is.
there are 2 ships a cobra and an......... asp i think

the cobra is in multicrew, this as we know no CANT do SRVs
the asp we have no idea about so fine, that can do one.

now if you want to argue that after the 1st shot the crew in the cobra disbanded and then the SRV launched, or your point that there is another ship somewhere.... well these are (weak imo) possibilites, but, that STILL makes the trailer missleading.

the reality is the trailer shows 2 human ships and an alien.

1 ship at least is a multicrew vessel, and yet there are 2 SRVs..... this is not possible in the current build. unless thargoids control SRVs

Nope. 2 Ships and 2 SRV's, it is clearly shown. I agree that they would have had to disband the multicrew to have those 2 SRV's, but we knew that before that trailer hit.

My main issue is that there is zero depth with the multicrew addon, why have multicrew when going down to that planet in the trailer anyway, which is a shame, and can see it going down the same route as CQC. That is the main issue why it will fail. The only reason to use it is for some quick pew pew like CQC, and in reality that is only a small part of the game.

Multicrew should have been a whole lot more then just an excuse to shoot some stuff, and that is the real issue.

 

[Jex =TE=]

They'll clearly keep plenty of customers. Feel welcome to not be one of them if you so wish.

There's no way of you knowing that so why are you stating it like it's a fact. Do you mean like they clearly kept plenty of forums users here because this place is becoming a ghost town. I'm going to assume that the less they deliver, the less sales they'll make in the future. There's already people here who defended ED to the hilt that are saying they won't be buying season 3 or it's certainly making them think. We've had the same complaint since day one "where's the content" and brilliant sales strategy "there's the door" lol. I won't be basing my future purchases on you I'm afraid, I'll wait to see what content is delivered before handing over my cash which it seems a lot of other people are going to do as well.

 

[Jex =TE=]

So I watched the stream, and I listened carefully. I appreciate the transparency, and I value it as a sincere attempt and a perfect response to the request for more communication. But what was said in regard to this thread was fairly upsetting. So dear FD:

1. Don't use as a defense that you share things because you like sharing. You also share things because you are selling a product. There is no innocence there, advertising is pretty much a zero sum game. And yes, the live streams count as promotion and advertising. This is an ad misericordiam, appealing to pity as a defense, why not address directly to the points being objected instead?
   
2. No, we are not accusing you of lying. Things can be misleading for a variety of reasons, most of them don't involve lying. In this case, it was a matter of bad timing for talking about your cool plans for the product that you were selling. The bad timing is because you barely started the work on all the things you said at the time you announced we will be getting them. Although you don't lie in the live streams, you are not honest in the trailers either. Should we have mercy on that too? When I said in the OP that things were misleading, I said it in order to call for a change in the strategy, and in order to explain why people came to expect more from MC. Not to accuse you of tricking us. However, it is expectable for customers to feel tricked when this happens.
   
3. You said that things change, and I agree; everyone agrees. But repeating that doesn't work as a defense of anything, since this is not the point of our disagreement. What is being objected is MC being in its bare bones, and its future relying on the reception of an incomplete feature. I can accept the bare bones, what I don't accept is its uncertain future. If Elite is open to its future as Sandro emphasized, then why not making plans for MC right now? Why not assuring that it will be expanded in the light of the current demand?
   
4. You said that you are going to see how MC is received. Are the forums not clear enough?
   
5. You address to the argument as if it was disrespectful and unrealistic. I might be wrong though, since you were more careful in this point, but please, don't poison the well by pairing the argument with the disrespectful interventions of some people in the forum. The fact that the criticism come sometimes with disrespect doesn't invalidate the argument at its core. Some of us make valid points with clarity, care and respect. But the defenses mostly focus conveniently on the other ones.
   
6. If you suggest that we are unreasonable for expecting too much based on statements made by Frontier at an extremely early stage in the development of MC, then you shouldn't have done those statements at such an early stage. If you were going to announce MC as you did during a live stream at the moment of releasing and selling Season 2, only to discover later that they wont work out in terms of gameplay, then you should have put more thought before announcing them. Don't blame us, blame yourself.
   
7. We didn't put you in a scary position, you put yourself in there when you offered things that you didn't have, when you sold more than you could provide. Don't play the victim.

Evidently I have irreconcilable perceptions of this with FD. And I can absolutely anticipate what I am going to be told from some; that it is time to move on. And it is. It seems they cant admit the mistakes they have done; their view matched perfectly the ones from the fanboys. I wonder if the fanboys had as much power on them as the trolls did. Ones scared them, the others legitimated them. With such reiteration of the same attitude, it is clear there is nothing else I can expect from them. Sadly, there is nothing else I can do, besides the silliness of a negative review on Steam, and not buying anything else from them. This thread is over for me.

Repped.

 

[Jex =TE=]

imo there is.
there are 2 ships a cobra and an......... asp i think

the cobra is in multicrew, this as we know no CANT do SRVs
the asp we have no idea about so fine, that can do one.

now if you want to argue that after the 1st shot the crew in the cobra disbanded and then the SRV launched, or your point that there is another ship somewhere.... well these are (weak imo) possibilites, but, that STILL makes the trailer missleading.

the reality is the trailer shows 2 human ships and an alien.

1 ship at least is a multicrew vessel, and yet there are 2 SRVs..... this is not possible in the current build. unless thargoids control SRVs

I'm a little confused here. There are clearly 2 ships, so is your point that one of those ships can't hold an SRV?

 

[dannysquid]

Should we have mercy on that too?

Yes. It's people doing their best to make a game for people to enjoy.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I'm a little confused here. There are clearly 2 ships, so is your point that one of those ships can't hold an SRV?

the cobra is clearly shown as a multicrew ship.

SRVs do NOT work in multicrew. My opinion is that trailer is showing / accidentally making out that - delete as deemed appropriate that SRVs are a supported feature of multicrew (would not be an issue aside from the fact that multicrew SRVs would be fantastic and a well used feature.. however this is not the case, you cant use SRVs if in multicrew.

So the only way that trailer works is if the crew which are shown at the start disbanded, OR that someone else has a ship hidden out of shot.. but either way

I suggest that trailer is advertising a feature not supported in the game and is missleading. Others disagree and think it is fine.

 

[Ian Skippy]

There's no way of you knowing that so why are you stating it like it's a fact. Do you mean like they clearly kept plenty of forums users here because this place is becoming a ghost town. I'm going to assume that the less they deliver, the less sales they'll make in the future. There's already people here who defended ED to the hilt that are saying they won't be buying season 3 or it's certainly making them think. We've had the same complaint since day one "where's the content" and brilliant sales strategy "there's the door" lol. I won't be basing my future purchases on you I'm afraid, I'll wait to see what content is delivered before handing over my cash which it seems a lot of other people are going to do as well.

Exactly. We've had these whiny discussions and dooms day prophecies since day one, and sales have been consistently good. Feel free to check their trade reports, they're public. Next up is a Ps4 release. Again, feel welcome to make up your own mind, its your right, but the 'sales will really drop this time for real... any day now... almost gonna stop... this time I'll be right' rhetoric is comical at best.

- - - Updated - - -

the cobra is clearly shown as a multicrew ship.

SRVs do NOT work in multicrew. My opinion is that trailer is showing / accidentally making out that - delete as deemed appropriate that SRVs are a supported feature of multicrew.. however this is not the case, you cant use SRVs if in multicrew.

So the only way that trailer works is if the crew which are shown at the start disbanded, OR that someone else has a ship hidden out of shot.. but either way

I suggest that trailer is advertising a feature not supported in the game and is missleading. Others disagree and think it is fine.

Its misleading if you ask me. The cobra technically works in MC. I made a all-turret MK4 in beta. It works against small ships, so low-res. Beyond that its absolutely pointless in every way.

 

[Jex =TE=]

the cobra is clearly shown as a multicrew ship.

SRVs do NOT work in multicrew. My opinion is that trailer is showing / accidentally making out that - delete as deemed appropriate that SRVs are a supported feature of multicrew.. however this is not the case, you cant use SRVs if in multicrew.

So the only way that trailer works is if the crew which are shown at the start disbanded, OR that someone else has a ship hidden out of shot.. but either way

I suggest that trailer is advertising a feature not supported in the game and is missleading. Others disagree and think it is fine.

OK so we only see 2 ships so for this to work, they'd both need to be in the same instance and on top of that, someone from the cobra would need to get into the SRV to drive it around from the Cobra which is impossible due to the way the game works. If that's the case then the trailer is misleading.

- - - Updated - - -

Exactly. We've had these whiny discussions and dooms day prophecies since day one, and sales have been consistently good. Feel free to check their trade reports, they're public. Next up is a Ps4 release. Again, feel welcome to make up your own mind, its your right, but the 'sales will really drop this time for real... any day now... almost gonna stop... this time I'll be right' rhetoric is comical at best.

- - - Updated - - -



Its misleading if you ask me. The cobra technically works in MC. I made a all-turret MK4 in beta. It works against small ships, so low-res. Beyond that its absolutely pointless in every way.

No, how do you know "trade has been good" for "ED" - they make other games you know. Let's say the sales of ED v1 was 1.5 million and the sale of Horizons was .3 million..... then you'd betetr hope the sales of whatever comes next isn't going to drop further.

 

[CmdrChorusLindarr]

Fair comment and you're quite right, FD don't have to display any level of openness as was the way during the KS, but just because they don't have to it doesn't mean they shouldn't. The KS backers can be viewed as investors. Some people threw a tremendous amount of money at this project and while there's nothing stopping FD from saying "well, you got what you paid for but now you're out of the loop" it's a pretty crappy way to treat your most devoted customers.

Cannot agree more. Well said.

My main issue is that there is zero depth with the multicrew addon, why have multicrew when going down to that planet in the trailer anyway, which is a shame, and can see it going down the same route as CQC. That is the main issue why it will fail. The only reason to use it is for some quick pew pew like CQC, and in reality that is only a small part of the game.

Multicrew should have been a whole lot more then just an excuse to shoot some stuff, and that is the real issue.

Preach! I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Bobbydylan]

[video=youtube;PEQTj8dTOC0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEQTj8dTOC0[/video]

Sadly, all the tension in this trailer is drained away when you realise that those "ships" are probably empty and the pilot and gunner are telepresencing from across the galaxy. What appears to be a life-or-death situation is just some bully threatening to break someones toys.

 

[zimms]

Maybe the crew member of the Cobra CMDR left as he realized there's nothing to do for him.
Then the Cobra CMDR could use his SRV.