OA and Dj truthsayer discuss update news

What? You don't realize who you're talking to??? StuartGT is one of the "Fabulous Fifteen" handpicked personalities to spread the word to us plebs that all was not only well in ED development land but positively crack-a-lackin! You and the rest of us don't need to manage our own expectations, we've got him to help do it for us:)
AFAIK CMDRs really liked Beyond 3.3, bar the large amount of bugs (unknown to us visitors; we said we didn't playtest) and salt from the small minority that didn't like the changes.

What exactly did we do wrong?
 
What? You don't realize who you're talking to??? StuartGT is one of the "Fabulous Fifteen" handpicked personalities to spread the word to us plebs that all was not only well in ED development land but positively crack-a-lackin! You and the rest of us don't need to manage our own expectations, we've got him to help do it for us:)
When they went to Frontier lots of people claimed that development has been stopped, that there will be no further updates and that only 5 people are working on the game, one of them being the janitor. The very same people now claim 'they always said so', whatever that means.
It's awesome how quickly the forums forget the nonsense they sometimes produce.
 
AFAIK CMDRs really liked Beyond 3.3, bar the large amount of bugs (unknown to us visitors; we said we didn't playtest) and salt from the small minority that didn't like the changes.

What exactly did we do wrong?
You were selected to go, that makes you persona non grata for the envious.
 
Yes.

FDev: "We'll be supplementing Squadrons with Fleet Carriers that have this limited functionality"
Players: "OMG, such barebones, so very like Powerplay, CQC, and Multicrew! Here are things we want from them"
FDev: "Okay, let's delay Carriers to allow time to add some of the functionality players want"
Players: "OMG, you delayed Carriers, you never listen to us!"
The problem with FD is that they do monolithic updates to features rather than incrementally improve them with each update.

Powerplay should have had extra functionality (Collapse, Consolidation etc) in 1.4, with the Powerplay missions and other features seen in the glossy promo video in Horizons.

Instead FD go back and wholesale change huge features- CP 1 and 2, Engineers 1 and 2, Exploration and mining etc, all in one giant lump. Powerplay got forgotten almost as soon as it was launched.

So, its not bad launching barebones, its how you handle life afterwards that matters. If there is a clear future people won't mind rough edges to begin with.
 
The problem with FD is that they do monolithic updates to features rather than incrementally improve them with each update.

Powerplay should have had extra functionality (Collapse, Consolidation etc) in 1.4, with the Powerplay missions and other features seen in the glossy promo video in Horizons.

Instead FD go back and wholesale change huge features- CP 1 and 2, Engineers 1 and 2, Exploration and mining etc, all in one giant lump. Powerplay got forgotten almost as soon as it was launched.

So, its not bad launching barebones, its how you handle life afterwards that matters. If there is a clear future people won't mind rough edges to begin with.
C&P 2, engineers 2, mining 2 and exploration 2 were all massive improvements though, I'm not sure how doing it in smaller bits would have been possible or improved anything.
 
C&P 2, engineers 2, mining 2 and exploration 2 were all massive improvements though, I'm not sure how doing it in smaller bits would have been possible or improved anything.
Yeah, I don't think that's exactly fair either. New 'mechanics' kind of have to be monolithic, by definition when they're replacing existing bareboned ones.
 
Yeah, I don't think that's exactly fair either. New 'mechanics' kind of have to be monolithic, by definition when they're replacing existing bareboned ones.
True, but its after thats the issue, especially for things like Powerplay. Big stuff comes in, and is left to collate resentment from issues that don't get rectified until another giant update x years down the road. Perhaps Powerplay in this case is unusual as it being a social feature really needed the substantial incremental updates more.
 
If there is a clear future people won't mind rough edges to begin with.
Ay, there's the rub.

the game is full of unfinished business.

there is a whole list of stuff that needs meat on the bones.

My personal bugbears are the military career path and permit locks that are meaningless.

The infuriating aspect is the tantalising promise that is offered up only to lead to nothing.
 
Ay, there's the rub.

the game is full of unfinished business.

there is a whole list of stuff that needs meat on the bones.

My personal bugbears are the military career path and permit locks that are meaningless.

The infuriating aspect is the tantalising promise that is offered up only to lead to nothing.
So how do we balance that against the people who scream 'new content and features!!!' all the time?
 
I like your confidence! Bet you £10 that Fleet Carriers upon arrival will have more functionality than FDev originally said in the Focused Feedback Forum :D
That's not a very good bet, since all that was revealed in the Focused Feedback post was:
- Fleet Carriers can make jumps
- Fleet Carriers can be upgraded in unspecified ways

If you count the Frontier Expo recap announcement you can also add
- Fleet Carriers allow refuel
- Fleet Carriers allow restock
- Fleet Carriers allow respawn

And as I recall from elsewhere, but can't source right now
- Fleet Carriers will need to be brought fuel to jump
- Fleet Carriers will be able to jump "live" rather than on server tick

Even a minimal implementation would presumably have something not mentioned there like "your Squadron interface will show the current location of your Carrier".
 
So how do we balance that against the people who scream 'new content and features!!!' all the time?
not add anymore half baked features till the meat is on the bones.

flesh out what we have over the next couple of years and I will be happy.

The last thing the game needs is another CQC, Multicrew et al.

If we get to the "next big thing" and more half finished stuff is released to add to the list of unfinished features it will be a real shame.

I hope that this wont be the case but development so far does not fill me with hope.
 
not add anymore half baked features till the meat is on the bones.

flesh out what we have over the next couple of years and I will be happy.

The last thing the game needs is another CQC, Multicrew et al.

If we get to the "next big thing" and more half finished stuff is released to add to the list of unfinished features it will be a real shame.

I hope that this wont be the case but development so far does not fill me with hope.
That doesn't address my point at all.
 
So how do we balance that against the people who scream 'new content and features!!!' all the time?
Maybe have one entirely new feature, and then do a 1.x on the other previous headline features at the same time. So when we had Powerplay 1.0, Wings would have a 1.1 and be treated as an update as well. Currently FD unevenly fix problems but not really add new features to old headliners.
 
Maybe have one entirely new feature, and then do a 1.x on the other previous headline features at the same time. So when we had Powerplay 1.0, Wings would have a 1.1 and be treated as an update as well. Currently FD unevenly fix problems but not really add new features to old headliners.
That's what they did with Beyond and the next 4-5 updates will probably be more focused on the core game rather than adding new big features as well.
 
That's what they did with Beyond and the next 4-5 updates will probably be more focused on the core game rather than adding new big features as well.
But I mean do (or should have done) it more chronologically. Each new feature has a 1.1 update for the last feature, not waiting for ages like Powerplay so while interest in that feature is a maximum it gets fixed at the right time.
 
But I mean do (or should have done) it more chronologically. Each new feature has a 1.1 update for the last feature, not waiting for ages like Powerplay so while interest in that feature is a maximum it gets fixed at the right time.
I wonder if you would see it differently if Power Play wasn't your pet peeve. ;)

What you are describing happened to most features of the game. Mining wasn't just improved with 3.3, they improved it all the time. They added various new minerals, made ice mining useful, added collector and prospector limpets, improved the refinery, etc.

I agree that Power Play (and CQC by the way) has not seen enough improvements though.
 
Last edited:
That doesn't address my point at all.
It's a dumb point, though. At any given time, there are groups of people screaming for every imaginable thing. People demand fixes to old features just as much as anyone demanding "new content" The way you "balance" this is not by listening to every single demand and trying to meet each one a tiny bit (which makes everyone upset). You pick and choose and then you do a good thorough job with whatever you picked rather than shoving it out the door and calling it a done deal. Frontier does the former, though.
 
What you are describing happened to most features of the game.
I think there's a distinction between "core" features and the "headline" features of the expansions here. "Core" features - mining, exploration, combat, trading, missions - get regular updates of various sizes, and it's those updates that I think generally do the most to make the game now better than the game in 1.0.

The "headline" features are a *lot* more variable in this.
  • CGs: a few QoL patches to make them easier to sign up to, a couple of bugfixes, and some decal integration but basically they're still the same as in 1.1. Dangerous Games and Colonia Expansion Initiative should both be counted as interesting later *uses* of the CG mechanism to generate content, though.
  • Wings: wing missions, core instancing improvements have made them more useful in general
  • Powerplay: a few low-profile fixes, a slight tweak to introduce consolidation, and the addition of Yuri Grom after the Dangerous Games.
  • CQC: an extra ship in 1.5 and a little bit of rebalancing and bugfixes since, but no major changes.
  • Horizons: planetary landings is effectively an addition to all the core features, so it's hard to look at in the same way - and it was used as a platform for engineers, guardians, thargoids, etc. as well.
  • Engineers: major adjustment in 2.1.05, new engineers in 2.2, rebalance of combat engineering in 2.2.03, major redevelopment in 3.0, new engineers in 3.2
  • Passengers: basically untouched since release. A bit of integration with the Thargoid evacuation content.
  • Multicrew: minor adjustments, some slight extra integration with core features
  • Thargoids: no substantial changes since 2.4, other than the Thargoids and the AX weapons both getting bigger - though 3.3's BGS update has allowed more dynamic handling of the process of fighting them.
  • Squadrons: the only real new "headline" feature of Beyond - Carriers would obviously be a significant update to this when they arrive, but there's plenty of room for smaller QoL improvements and features before then. We'll see...
With the very obvious exception of Engineers, most of the headline features of the expansions are basically "as at release, but with some QoL/bug fixes" - and that applies both to the basic game mechanics of the feature, but also the content delivered using that feature. So what might we see in future, if Frontier went "back" to one of the headline features, developed it further, and used it to drive content?

  • CGs: I'm waiting to see what the events in Will's recent announcement turn out to be. :) Dangerous Games and Colonia Expansion Initiative showed that competitive CGs where there's something considered important by players to compete over also get a lot of take-up, so perhaps this can be tied into squadrons and we can have things like per-squadron CG rewards (decent ones, too, like an extra station or even colonisation of a new edge-of-bubble system by the squadron's associated faction!) for the squadron which puts the most points towards a CG.
  • Wings: There are certainly possibilities for wing missions that are more than "a normal mission, but bigger". There's also some little bits of DDF-era wings features we never got - things like being able to designate targets as "attack this" or "defend this", for example - for which the HUD elements are there (and used in CQC capture the flag, the tutorials, and some installation-related activities)
  • Powerplay: Obviously there are mechanical issues which need an Engineers-style series of iterative fixes. But beyond that, there's plenty of options for content: once the mechanics are tuned up, maybe the fate of Powerplay powers could determine how well their leaders do in Galnet. There's Hudson's vote of confidence coming up in early June (if they don't forget) - if only Powerplay was mature enough that Hudson v Winters could be a reflection of their relative performance in Powerplay rather than having to be determined solely out of game...
  • CQC: Taipan would be nice ;) And plenty of larger improvements to make queueing and finding matches easier have been repeatedly suggested. On the content side, new maps, or that old CQC tournament idea?
  • Passengers: more mission types could be added based around passengers who want more than to go from A to B (or B to A) - what about a military passenger who wants to observe a CZ (basically, you get to be the "correspondent" ship - you don't need to get kills yourself, but you do need to stay alive as a priority target without getting so far from the action that the passenger can't observe) - or a medical passenger who wants you to take them to an outbreak system (any outbreak system!) and resolve X distress calls - or a criminal passenger who needs you to land at a specific planetary location where they disembark, and then creates a follow-up mission to pick them up again a couple of days later.

    There's also potential for custom short-lived passenger missions around Galnet stories - for example, there was a recent story about some stolen Utopian nanotech: what if this generated highly-paid passenger missions from Utopia control systems to the system where the medical research lab is (they wouldn't even necessarily need to directly affect the story outcome). (Non-passenger missions similarly, of course - again, watching to see what happens with the CG successors)
 
Top Bottom