I feel like this is a very ambitious aim, but if your basic point is in fact that the suggestions forum doesn't provide anything useful in the vast majority of cases, so let's try something different, I can't argue.
Request for a "Player Council", Resurrected DDF, Streamer Representation to Dev track, Focused Feedback or Similar Directed Community Engagement
- Thread starter Hydrino
- Start date
Yes, more or less. And i want Frontier to feel confident in their product enough that they are willing to engage with the community again, like when this whole thing took off and we were all rooting for them. That could be a reality again, but it will require a bit of work and effort from the Dev side.
Again i would hold up Hello Games and No Man's Sky as the example, in so much as it was through engagement with their player base, a real two way dialogue over features and design aspects to consider adding to the game, and then executing it pretty well, that they (Hello Games) were able to turn around what has become one of the biggest initial disappointments in games history to pretty much being a lauded game by even the harshest of critics previously to their change and willingness to listen to their players a bit.
Now i hold up NMS with a caveat, as i was one of the rare players that liked the early game as it was released, and in specifically the case of NMS there is so much clutter and stuff added it feels a little bit 'Frankenstein' like, GUI issues and the familiar (to us Elite and ED fans) one step forwards+one step sideways or backwards dev path. It is not perfect, but Hello Games did achieve a remarkable turn-around in terms of popularity by actively engaging with their fans.
I think with some strong top down Sir David leadership (to ensure Elite and ED does not also 'Frankenstein' too much) based on all those core idea's we saw during the Kickstarter, help from the community (DDF resurrection for idea's references and 'brain-food' etc) and a more open and player engaged design process going forward, there is no reason ED can't regain it's zeitgeist?
Again i would hold up Hello Games and No Man's Sky as the example, in so much as it was through engagement with their player base, a real two way dialogue over features and design aspects to consider adding to the game, and then executing it pretty well, that they (Hello Games) were able to turn around what has become one of the biggest initial disappointments in games history to pretty much being a lauded game by even the harshest of critics previously to their change and willingness to listen to their players a bit.
Now i hold up NMS with a caveat, as i was one of the rare players that liked the early game as it was released, and in specifically the case of NMS there is so much clutter and stuff added it feels a little bit 'Frankenstein' like, GUI issues and the familiar (to us Elite and ED fans) one step forwards+one step sideways or backwards dev path. It is not perfect, but Hello Games did achieve a remarkable turn-around in terms of popularity by actively engaging with their fans.
I think with some strong top down Sir David leadership (to ensure Elite and ED does not also 'Frankenstein' too much) based on all those core idea's we saw during the Kickstarter, help from the community (DDF resurrection for idea's references and 'brain-food' etc) and a more open and player engaged design process going forward, there is no reason ED can't regain it's zeitgeist?
Looks to me like a 404 page not found error.Um what is this then?
Or is this too open/public?
Looks to me like it's been moved to another part of the forum we don't have access to. Maybe a moderator could confirm?
Streamers don't represent the player base, often have their fingers in other games and ALWAYS have their own interests first.
We have these forums to put forward ideas for Fdev to consider, that should be enough, let them get on with their own road map without interference from folks who are just in it for themselves.
O7
The Alpha Forums were deleted/restricted shortly after Odyssey launched. I had two good Threads in there - one about not being able to test any of the Manticore plasma weaponry and another about the absurd material requirements for upgrading and Engineering our gear - that I occasionally have referenced here and there.
I'd love to be able to see those Threads again.
They do actually do this (or have done it, to possibly be more accurate).
They’re called ‘Focussed Feedback’.
But, well…
The PowerPlay one is a good example to look at.
FD: “Surprise Focussed Feedback discussion: Powerplay. Here’s various thoughts. Let’s have yours. Open-Only PowerPlay is up for consideration and discussion. Open-Only BGS is absolutely not on the cards and is not up for discussion.”
Care to guess how long it was before the first demand for Open-Only BGS?
Other topics have gone better.
Others have probably gone even worse.
3.6 (I think it was) was introducing a change to the way FSS scans work to deal with a problem which meant scans to a very long time for some players. The community had asked for FD to focus on fixing stuff, and this was part of that. The community had also asked that every update had a Beta, so this one had a Beta.
There was a specific thread for the FSS fix. It explained exactly what the cause was, why it was something that couldn’t be ‘fixed’, and so how they were proposing to change things instead to improve the situation, and it asked for players to try it and give their feedback on 3 specific points…
I would say maybe 25% of people posting managed to contribute to it sensibly.
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
Yes - it's been archived but that link is still active for me, so it hasn't been lost.
Powerplay has always been hamstrung by power players never being able to agree, not to memtion the mode people, sadly.
The YT'ers presented, at the time this thread was started, have either stopped or are far less involved. Some council they would have been beyond organising a rebellion with their new found power... that would not have ended well.
Sometimes i just think FD should just push past extreme viewpoints, even if it upsets some.
Player feedback is important, but more often than not, things struggle to even get off the ground because of the constant arguing and poop / doom posting.
We are all empowered by posting on this forum but maybe we should look more for solutions than taking a negative outlook. And even being even slightly empowered, moreso than games that arrive without any player imput, we should always be responsible and keep a cool head.
The YT'ers presented, at the time this thread was started, have either stopped or are far less involved. Some council they would have been beyond organising a rebellion with their new found power... that would not have ended well.
Sometimes i just think FD should just push past extreme viewpoints, even if it upsets some.
Player feedback is important, but more often than not, things struggle to even get off the ground because of the constant arguing and poop / doom posting.
We are all empowered by posting on this forum but maybe we should look more for solutions than taking a negative outlook. And even being even slightly empowered, moreso than games that arrive without any player imput, we should always be responsible and keep a cool head.
Perhaps I'm wearing a pair of the old rose-tinted Aviators but a lot of the post-necro discussion about the shape of a potential new feedback structure already sounds very much like the old DDF.
I certainly recall the bulk of the feedback, as opposed to the more freeform discussion, being based on Initial Proposals from FD and often leading to Revised Proposals that incorporated many of the more popular suggestions. Design changes driven directly by player demand were virtually non-existent, the most obvious exception being the very strong negative community reaction to the in-system travel Proposal which led eventually to a Revised Proposal based around supercruise.
The idea that the DDF was a seething cauldron of continuous dissent absent any FD authority, or that its members somehow repeatedly steamrollered terrible ideas into the game's design, is something that's persisted almost since launch but bears little resemblance to how I remember things.
If anything it's almost the opposite: there were some terrific Proposals from FD that were embraced very strongly by the DDF and anticipated as eventual features, but which never saw the light of day in the actual game.
If another DDF-alike feedback system was to make an appearance, I for one would need to be very confident that FD intended to implement at least the core elements of the things the community was tasked with "shaping" before I'd spend too much effort on providing that feedback. Once bitten...
I certainly recall the bulk of the feedback, as opposed to the more freeform discussion, being based on Initial Proposals from FD and often leading to Revised Proposals that incorporated many of the more popular suggestions. Design changes driven directly by player demand were virtually non-existent, the most obvious exception being the very strong negative community reaction to the in-system travel Proposal which led eventually to a Revised Proposal based around supercruise.
The idea that the DDF was a seething cauldron of continuous dissent absent any FD authority, or that its members somehow repeatedly steamrollered terrible ideas into the game's design, is something that's persisted almost since launch but bears little resemblance to how I remember things.
If anything it's almost the opposite: there were some terrific Proposals from FD that were embraced very strongly by the DDF and anticipated as eventual features, but which never saw the light of day in the actual game.
If another DDF-alike feedback system was to make an appearance, I for one would need to be very confident that FD intended to implement at least the core elements of the things the community was tasked with "shaping" before I'd spend too much effort on providing that feedback. Once bitten...
On balance I prefer the current iteration of everybody screaming at once on the forum and subjecting themselves to the open mockery of their peers. It has about as much chance of getting anything meaningful done, whilst being significantly more entertaining.
Powerplay (and other parts) has been hamstrung by the inability of some to accept that you can't win the game by shooting everything personally. There are other aspects of the game that are just as valid.
Sarcasm is lost. But you just corroborated what I said.
True enough but at the same point, forcing open into a pacifist only scenario was never gonna work either. Double edged sword and all modes are equal after all.
It's always been about power, either to act unhindered or the right to farm noobs, the extremes..
This game should never be completely won by one player or a group. Small battles unless FD decree otherwise, as in set it up.
But some ppl want it all and faith, if previously targeted, is limited(not that i was). Bridges were burnt though by some and there is little trust..
It's a mess and maybe the game rules need to force the issue.
It will never be perfect protection but if you are helping a faction, they'll prolly respect it.
May i recommend some mammary painting, in times of great stress, and likely before coffee.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which particular issue?
.... as the rules relating to players affecting mode shared game features are quite clear, and have been for years - as has the opposition to those rules and Frontier's stance on the topic from a subset of the player-base.
Last edited:
The only big mistake was releasing it in a mess.
You admit to not playing it... I guess that whatever you don't like you consider everyone else doesn't either?
Why not just make it obvious to yourself and leave the remainder of the playerbase to make their own judgement?
EDO is a can of worms with bugs and performance, without doubt, but it did introduce content into a stale space game that was badly needed.