How to spot an Agile PO. They start each sentence with "As a <Job Title>"
Last edited:
Save the DDA!
- Thread starter [VR] Mad Mike
- Start date
Thanks for the thoughts so far. It saddens me to see what a minority I am in, if things like npc crew and wingmates as well as more persistant npcs are unworkable due to tech changes or simply no longer wanted by the active player base and what not then i really am truly off the pulse.
note i am talking about the Design Decsions not the Design Discussions which iirc were slightly different (ie the discussion came 1st then it was signed off)
I DO fully accept that plans change once things get underway, but IME as a software tester as part of my job, IF Features which are getting worked on have to change then it normally also comes with at least a paragraph from the developers as to the fact that X is no longer workable so we will try Y instead.
I Am NOT talking about it being a promise either...... I know it was never a promise but it was a goal and if the goals change then communication is key imo.
Well, when it's gone everyone can claim FD never said that, very convenient, eh ?
Also, at the time nobody talked about it like a "wish list".
When you read the DDA and note the phrases and wording used, at the very least the perception that these things were actually planned was certainly not discouraged.
But nobody wants to hear that today, m8.
Let it go, let 'em have it, because "that" game has been abandoned a long time ago.
I agree with you. We can argue how binding the DDA can be (specially with the +300 pounds backers), legally, ethically (my opinion), but, in any case, try to delet and forget the DDAs would be an admission of bad doing (not legally, but ethically) from Frontier.
So thanks BrettC, +1 rep in your post's thread, and thank you very much, as ever ^^
We care about this game, enough to not let down them
Last edited:
Well said. If they kill it off they can make ED even less of the game we thought we were backing than it is now. Diablo in a cockpit anyone?
Space games have always been niche and always will be. FDev have sacrificed the soul of this game on the altar of mass appeal and fast bucks.
WOW I was not aware of this despite being in the forums since I bought it before launch in 2014!!
I must find some time to browse through it!
I would keep it for historical purposes only no point in referencing to it as it was non binding but for those who really love the whole history of ED, not just the game it has historical value.
If it was not for the same thinking historical inefficient machines would have been destroyed where it not for museums to keep some of them protected.
I must find some time to browse through it!
I would keep it for historical purposes only no point in referencing to it as it was non binding but for those who really love the whole history of ED, not just the game it has historical value.
If it was not for the same thinking historical inefficient machines would have been destroyed where it not for museums to keep some of them protected.
Keep it.
As mentioned in the forum revamp thread, DDF members may need to refer to it when the "near god-like" powers of the DDF members are finally realised.
As mentioned in the forum revamp thread, DDF members may need to refer to it when the "near god-like" powers of the DDF members are finally realised.
The only real reason I think we should bury it at a crossroads with a stake through its heart is that some people can get confused between all the theorycrafting (good and bad) and reality. They dig up the moldering remains and then parade them through the village spreading disease and leaving gobbets of rotting flesh behind them which is generally an unpleasant thng.
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
if that is code for.... players use it to prove a point that the game they backed was not meant to have multiplayer only features and was meant to have npc equivalents for things like wingmates and crew.... then sure.
but that is some proper over egging going on right there i nyour post, and to be honest is far more likely to spread toxicity than anything I believe I have asked for.
Also the fact that you are changing the DDF to pure theory crafting is dishonest too........
at the end when something was signed off it was not theory crafting, that is an internally approved design decision... Which isnt a promise either btw.
Last edited:
if that is code for.... players use it to prove a point that the game they backed was not meant to have multiplayer only features and was meant to have npc equivalents for things like wingmates and crew.... then sure.
but that is some proper over egging going on right there i nyour post, and to be honest is far more likely to spread toxicity than anything I believe I have asked for.
Also the fact that you are changing the DDF to pure theory crafting is dishonest too........
at the end when something was signed off it was not theory crafting, that is an internally approved design decision... Which isnt a promise either btw.
I think Stigbob confuses that the original idea (DDFs+god like powers) was not really good, or very feasible, that it did not exist in the first place. Because defend that the DDF level backers were doing theorycrafting when they were officially approved and supported even after release...has no sense. We can speak, that we can understand why that was changed for Frontier, but has no sense try to denied the history.
Last edited:
if that is code for.... players use it to prove a point that the game they backed was not meant to have multiplayer only features and was meant to have npc equivalents for things like wingmates and crew.... then sure.
but that is some proper over egging going on right there i nyour post, and to be honest is far more likely to spread toxicity than anything I believe I have asked for.
Also the fact that you are changing the DDF to pure theory crafting is dishonest too........
at the end when something was signed off it was not theory crafting, that is an internally approved design decision... Which isnt a promise either btw.
Nope, you know what the DDF was we've discussed it before.
Some other posters do misunderstand it (or pretend to) then try to use it as a stick to beat FDEV with. So I think it does more harm than good now, and as I've never really gone for theorycrafting nothing is lost from my perspective.
Why shouldn't it? Would be weird to keep a forum section for a platform that's no longer supported.
I think it's time to demise the DDA/DDF (whichever).
Its time has passed, and we have 'Suggestions & Feature Requests' area for ideas now. It makes sense to have all the ideas in one place, and easy to find for all forum users.
As an aside, what would be nice is to have a voting mechanic built in to this area. Very often ideas get a lot of +1's, but little feedback, meaning they drop out of view seemingly without much, or any, support.
Its time has passed, and we have 'Suggestions & Feature Requests' area for ideas now. It makes sense to have all the ideas in one place, and easy to find for all forum users.
As an aside, what would be nice is to have a voting mechanic built in to this area. Very often ideas get a lot of +1's, but little feedback, meaning they drop out of view seemingly without much, or any, support.
Last edited:
It's a part of the history of ED and has as much right to be saved as the other defunct fora. Useful as a reminder of how fragile Frontier's support can be.
Unfortunately, black hole gravitational field will attract also PP, BGS, CqC and MC...
Last edited:
Thanks for the thoughts so far. It saddens me to see what a minority I am in, if things like npc crew and wingmates as well as more persistant npcs are unworkable due to tech changes or simply no longer wanted by the active player base and what not then i really am truly off the pulse.
note i am talking about the Design Decsions not the Design Discussions which iirc were slightly different (ie the discussion came 1st then it was signed off)
I DO fully accept that plans change once things get underway, but IME as a software tester as part of my job, IF Features which are getting worked on have to change then it normally also comes with at least a paragraph from the developers as to the fact that X is no longer workable so we will try Y instead.
I Am NOT talking about it being a promise either...... I know it was never a promise but it was a goal and if the goals change then communication is key imo.
It's fascination reading to see where FD were suggesting they were going to raise the bar upto... and where instead it is now. But TBH, 4-5yrs on, it's clear it's just a list of things we'll probably never get, so may as well kiss it goodbye...
ps: First I've heard about the burning of this forum - Thanks! I better start planning on backing up/copying some of my posts/threads!
Last edited: