Otherwise known as 'discussing'.
Petition to bring back the DDF/DDA and get back on track.
- Thread starter Sanderson
- Start date
Otherwise known as 'discussing'.
How about you add the dates in there Tinman?
You know as well as I do that the DDF/DDA became less and less relevant as time went on, even changed the name, to the point where it was just crickets and wondering.
Ask the people in the DDF if it was just for fun or a wish list FD never intended to implement.
- - - Updated - - -
You're not discussing the topic, your discussing your opinion of myself, wether it's my flawed logic or what will make me happy. Knock it off, stay on topic or move on.
Last edited:
Some people get very grumpy and aggressive when others don't agree with their opinions. Discussions aren't always welcome. Sometimes you get attempts to put-down others to get them to go away.
Some do it more than others too.
Last edited:
Switch tracks?
The path?
It never was a path of the kind like you seem to think, like a single minded one track railroad from A to B to C to D etc.
I feel that you are too impatient. This project is so huge that it is hard to imagine.
You will see more of the stuff that is in the DDF appear eventually, but a project like this is huge and there are a million decisions to be made of which we as players know nothing.
I think we should just let FD do their job the way they see fit and not try to walk in their shoes.
I think they have proven themselves. Of course there are bugs in the game, but it is under development and new additions will cause new bugs, or old ones to reappear. That is how it is. These are fallible human beings building a huge space sim universe of incredible quality.
We should give feedback in a polite non-whining manner and then just let them do what they do. They are the creators/builders and it is only them who can make the ultimate decisions that have to be made.
There is nothing we can do to change that..
A warning shot? For what?
The game definitely needed a way to give an identity to all these numerous faceless systems. It brings the galaxy to life and gives direction to players who want that.
PowerPlay is a more than excellent way of doing that. The game needed a political layer like PowerPlay is providing.
On top of that it adds a new way for players to engage in PvP if they are so inclined.
And the best thing is PP is implemented in such a way that nobody is forced to take part in it.
But... PP is not perfect!
It definitely needs to be polished and refined and I have no doubt FD will do so.
I am convinced that what we have now is only a foundation to build upon.
But as a whole I think PP is very good at what it does. I would not want to go back to pre-PP times.
For me PP has completely changed the way I perceive the Elite universe. It has given it more meaning and made it more dynamic.
Last edited:
Another example of the same old people trying to defend FD for everything by derailing a thread and attacking the OP.
Knock yourselves out.
- - - Updated - - -
Making it more dynamic I can agree with, as before PP there wasn't anything dynamic, at all.
It's changed the wa a lot people percieve the galaxy, because it's looks nothing like it was supposed to.
My only other question for Sanderson is this...
What happens next? It is unlikely FDev will pay any attention to this exercise, since they can claim to be following the DDF. People do not like the implementation of the DDF as it has occured because they disagree with FDevs vision of the game. This, at it's most basic, correlates with the Open vs. discussion. People disagree with the devs idea of how the game should be made and how it works. That does not change the devs minds to change it. What do you hope to accomplish?
What happens next? It is unlikely FDev will pay any attention to this exercise, since they can claim to be following the DDF. People do not like the implementation of the DDF as it has occured because they disagree with FDevs vision of the game. This, at it's most basic, correlates with the Open vs. discussion. People disagree with the devs idea of how the game should be made and how it works. That does not change the devs minds to change it. What do you hope to accomplish?
What happens next? IMO, F2P, by next summer.
What do I hope to accomplish?
I hope to accomplish this: get the devs to stick to the DDA.
If you want the dates you can easily get them by pressing the blue arrow to the right of the name, but I don't see what they have to do with anything.
The original OP stated:
Those quotes shows that they ARE using the proposals even if certain specific parts might be dropped while other things might be added due to things changing during development.
So the original claim in the OP that they have dropped the DDA proposals isn't accurate.
However, I do agree that it would be nice if they involved the DDF again in the process. I'm somewhat suspicious that the reason they aren't doing that anymore might be due to "another game" in development. Giving away their cards like that of what they have planned might not be such a good idea.
just home and got a treat of a reply. thanks for that
anyways, here we go. this is going to be a bit lengthy as not to loose the context and as this very clearly spells out in plain english what FDEV plans are (over a long term period). going to
this as not to accidentally kill by wall of text ^^
tldr - FDEV have clearly stated since 2013 that ED will be based on a "little by little" development plan aided by known major expansions.
ps. i am not saying that they have always been forthright and on "best practice" with all their coms, but that is another agrument ^^ and has little to do with the current thread
source FDEV annual report 2013
"This clearly demonstrates the viability of the Elite: Dangerous
project. We had previously been running the project in order
todevelop the key innovative technologies necessary to deliver
the game’s vision, and this additional funding has allowed us to
put it into full production. We continue to successfully communicate
with the large customer/stakeholder community that has provided
this funding, and this close dialogue and engagement will
continue to the initial launch of the game and beyond."
1) the ks was always a financial "proof of concept" nothing more, which was always consistently communicated. so the backers are only a part (1/5 afaik) of the launch cost.
2) cobra engine development for ED as famous skunk works
2) communication with backers/stakeholders key before, during and after launch
"Frontier is in transition as our publishing activity with
Eliteangerous and the associated new services ramp up.
Although the opportunities and scope for Elite: Dangerous
togrow and develop are very substantial and the potential
financial rewards significant, particularly given how fast our
markets grow and change, it is very difficult for the Board
toknow exactly how quickly it will be taken up. For example,
some PC online games (Elite: Dangerous is a PC online game)
that have caught the public’s imagination, such as Minecraft
andWorld of Tanks, have reached estimated revenues of
over£100 million per annum over a small number of years.
Others have not grown quite so quickly, but on the additional
platforms the levels of success could be higher still.
We expect Elite: Dangerous revenues to grow gradually in a similar
way to other PC online games, but also that it will hit a quality
resonance at which point revenues would increase significantly,
as it did for those other titles"
1) change of business model (3rd party dev to publisher)
2) dangling the minecraft carrot but also taking it the minecraft way serious as THE way to publish for an indie
3) cobra engine again, facilitating growth via additional platforms like Xbox One
4) ED to grow gradually (You must understand it gradually, my Dear, a little at a time) until it hits the even more famous "quality resonance". this last sentence is critical as it means growing gradually both in revenue & content until a point where hopefully the game is "complete/good" enough to justify revenues of multi mio annually
now this for added clarity is from the annual report 2014
"We have continued to actively engage
with our player community to a very high degree since the end
of the ‘Alpha’ – in particular the super-cruise feature of the game
was defined with substantial valuable assistance from the
community. Such close dialogue and engagement will
continue to the initial launch of the game and beyond."
"We are planning to launch Elite: Dangerous in the fourth calendar
quarter of 2014. The current feedback to the game is such that
we expect to continue with a planned development roadmap for
further expansions to incrementally add major new features
such as landing on planets and player-character based gameplay
within and outside spaceships."
"This clearly demonstrates the viability of the Elite: Dangerous
project. We had previously been running the project in order
todevelop the key innovative technologies necessary to deliver
the game’s vision, and this additional funding has allowed us to
put it into full production. We continue to successfully communicate
with the large customer/stakeholder community that has provided
this funding, and this close dialogue and engagement will
continue to the initial launch of the game and beyond."
1) the ks was always a financial "proof of concept" nothing more, which was always consistently communicated. so the backers are only a part (1/5 afaik) of the launch cost.
2) cobra engine development for ED as famous skunk works
2) communication with backers/stakeholders key before, during and after launch
"Frontier is in transition as our publishing activity with
Elite
angerous and the associated new services ramp up.Although the opportunities and scope for Elite: Dangerous
togrow and develop are very substantial and the potential
financial rewards significant, particularly given how fast our
markets grow and change, it is very difficult for the Board
toknow exactly how quickly it will be taken up. For example,
some PC online games (Elite: Dangerous is a PC online game)
that have caught the public’s imagination, such as Minecraft
andWorld of Tanks, have reached estimated revenues of
over£100 million per annum over a small number of years.
Others have not grown quite so quickly, but on the additional
platforms the levels of success could be higher still.
We expect Elite: Dangerous revenues to grow gradually in a similar
way to other PC online games, but also that it will hit a quality
resonance at which point revenues would increase significantly,
as it did for those other titles"
1) change of business model (3rd party dev to publisher)
2) dangling the minecraft carrot but also taking it the minecraft way serious as THE way to publish for an indie
3) cobra engine again, facilitating growth via additional platforms like Xbox One
4) ED to grow gradually (You must understand it gradually, my Dear, a little at a time) until it hits the even more famous "quality resonance". this last sentence is critical as it means growing gradually both in revenue & content until a point where hopefully the game is "complete/good" enough to justify revenues of multi mio annually
now this for added clarity is from the annual report 2014
"We have continued to actively engage
with our player community to a very high degree since the end
of the ‘Alpha’ – in particular the super-cruise feature of the game
was defined with substantial valuable assistance from the
community. Such close dialogue and engagement will
continue to the initial launch of the game and beyond."
"We are planning to launch Elite: Dangerous in the fourth calendar
quarter of 2014. The current feedback to the game is such that
we expect to continue with a planned development roadmap for
further expansions to incrementally add major new features
such as landing on planets and player-character based gameplay
within and outside spaceships."
ps. i am not saying that they have always been forthright and on "best practice" with all their coms, but that is another agrument ^^ and has little to do with the current thread
You guys are nuts if you think FD are going to bring back the DDF.
Why do I think that? Well first it is probably cheaper for them if they do not follow it and secoundly the following:
Words from them, not mine (maybe not exact quote, but what I remember): We are trying to make the game we want to play and if you do not like it you can go and make your own game. We have a vision.
Why do I think that? Well first it is probably cheaper for them if they do not follow it and secoundly the following:
Words from them, not mine (maybe not exact quote, but what I remember): We are trying to make the game we want to play and if you do not like it you can go and make your own game. We have a vision.
<grins wryly> Yeah...
I think we're just saying they need new glasses.
I absolutely support Sanderson in his efforts to point out deviations from what he - and me, too - perceived as the direction described in the DDA/DDF.
The quotes Tinman brought up are nice, but Micheal was extremely vague and didn't confirm or deny any of those mentioned features.
Don't get me wrong, I totally understand that FD doesn't want to give out a strict timetable. But we didn't even get Michaels tried and tested "it's on the list" when asking him about Tier 2 characters. Yes, he said "more continuity is something we want". But, again, that's as vague as it gets and might have already been about the Powerplay features of different regions of space changing ownership continually.
I don't expect Michael Brookes or anyone else to give me specific dates about when some of this stuff will be coming, but I want to know if it's still planned at all or not (e.g. "on the list").
Persistent NPCs were one of the things that convinced me ED would be worth supporting, so it would be nice to know if I can still expect that or not. No harm if they abandoned the plan, since ED got my money and me stopping playing won't hurt them, but it would be nice to tell us anyway so I know if I should stick around or not.
Last edited:
I do not disagree that more needs to be done in that department. But the game is far from finished as we all know.
I really do not get what you mean by that.
What was it supposed to look then on the 24th of june 2015?
FD really cannot deliver everything at once and now.
Is that not the true core of your complaints?
You want what you want and you want it now, or even yesterday.
You want to make the decisions for them and you want to decide how they should develop this game.
Even if they did that there would be another Sanderson, or a thousand of them who complained that they did not get what they wanted and when they wanted it.
What you are complaining about simply is a fact of life.
FD can only do so much in the time they have got. And they can only follow their schedule, because it is them who are the developers, not you, not us.
Last edited:
I understand, and I guess we'd all want to hear that. But topics like this solely exist because at one point they did discuss it. They gain nothing from this, so why bother? If they said they were still planning this people would start topics like this next week again anyway.
I know more about it than you do but for what it is worth, Frontier really wanted the DDF to work out.
They are! You win!
well they are still saying the opposite, that the ddf has a role to play. but it is the "of sorts" and "soon" type of role
last post by FDEV to that effect was 16/06/15 - the replies to that friendly post were universally derisive. i sadly sunk to those type levels, too. no wonder FDEV is not going to try and engage & manage such a grumpy outside source