So, do you think carriers would have been delayed regardless, or is it down to the open letter?
- Thread starter CMDR Fnool
- Start date
I chose my words carefully so that a post like yours would be completely invalid. Do try again tho.
Of course carriers would have been delayed regardless, that's pretty obvious, pretty sure FD wouldn't wait until a month and a half from the FC release to suddenly have a change of heart and decide to postpone the release and do just bugfixes instead for half a year. It's not exactly the first (or second, or third) time something is delayed or cut or re-prioritized.
Anyway, it wasn't gonna be ready in time, not the first time something like this happened, not going to be the last. Disappointing, but no cause for riot. And maybe they actually do fix some bugs in the meantime.
Anyway, it wasn't gonna be ready in time, not the first time something like this happened, not going to be the last. Disappointing, but no cause for riot. And maybe they actually do fix some bugs in the meantime.
And yet, there it is, fully accepted by the forum. I'd try again, but it's not worth the trouble.
I wouldnt want to stop you having a large carrier BTW but i think weight should factor jump range, including loaded ships. A large carrier would be more combat oriented.
Edit: thing is, imo carriers should really carry fighters not ships. Ok an anaconda gets two fighters but a carrier could get 8 or 16 or more. Exploration should probably be a different kind of capital ship.
Edit: thing is, imo carriers should really carry fighters not ships. Ok an anaconda gets two fighters but a carrier could get 8 or 16 or more. Exploration should probably be a different kind of capital ship.
Last edited:
I don’t know but I suspect that they realized they were about to release more features with no gameplay. Fixing bugs is a better move.
Why? Carriers don't engage anything. They just occupy an instance. They can't be destroyed, so there's no point in being 'combat oriented'. Sure, someone looking to engage in combat, or a group looking to engage in combat, might be larger, or need more ship options, but that doesn't make a carrier a "combat carrier", it's still just a mobile hanger. And it's still not going to matter until mid-next-year anyways.
If FC would have been in a deployable state, they would have pushed it to live - we are talking of several months of delay, not something that could have been fixed in a few weeks after. No open letter involved in this case, I am sure. My best guess is, that with FC they finally realized that they needed to update/rewrite the networking code/model, which is a rather complex task.
I'm sure TJ has already been blamed, so i won't go there.
I will say that regardless of whether the open letter was a factor, it certainly provided FD with a convenient reason for delaying FCs and focusing on bugs.
Personally, i don't believe, in the long term there will be a net positive result from this. Sure, we mighrt get half a year or more of improved bug fixing, then they will release FCs or space legs or whatever, and there will be a whole new boatload of bugs with those features, and at the same time it will break half a dozen things completely unrelated to the contents of the patch.
Maybe i've just become too used to the cycle of bugs and bug fixes with ED's patches, and i just don't expect it will ever change.
I'd be happy if FD could improve the quality of releases, and that when FCs and Space Legs (or whatever) are released, they are smooth releases.
But if that doesn't happen, i'm going to be wishing that they never bothered and just pushed FCs out with the usual accompaniment of bugs.
I will say that regardless of whether the open letter was a factor, it certainly provided FD with a convenient reason for delaying FCs and focusing on bugs.
Personally, i don't believe, in the long term there will be a net positive result from this. Sure, we mighrt get half a year or more of improved bug fixing, then they will release FCs or space legs or whatever, and there will be a whole new boatload of bugs with those features, and at the same time it will break half a dozen things completely unrelated to the contents of the patch.
Maybe i've just become too used to the cycle of bugs and bug fixes with ED's patches, and i just don't expect it will ever change.
I'd be happy if FD could improve the quality of releases, and that when FCs and Space Legs (or whatever) are released, they are smooth releases.
But if that doesn't happen, i'm going to be wishing that they never bothered and just pushed FCs out with the usual accompaniment of bugs.
I couldn't quite give you a like for your comment - if it had been as edited above, definitelyThe more i think about it the better it feels fixing bugs and making the game work properly before introducing more stuff. But i agree with most of you they deserve no credit whatsoever.Not till the ADS comes back im afraid.
Just as an aside - I discovered my first Carbon star recently, and you were right, they are very pretty! (It was a long time ago I had a short conversation with you over them!)
if it had been as edited above, definitely
See ol burke isnt that mean after all
Edit: gratz on the star btw.
Last edited:
The question is a bit missleading... I would ask it like this: "If the September patch had gone smoothly, would Fleet Carriers still been delayed?"
Speculation:
I believe FD had a big "What the h*ll happened here?" moment after the initial patch went live and broke, pretty much, the whole game. They then went on for a couple of weeks to patch, patch and patch and during this time they found something that they feel have to be fixed before anything new is added to the live game. They make an estimate on how long it will take to fix that one or two things they found, and realized it was a good idea to invest that time to also fix as many reported bugs they can.
I believe that the petition from Content Creators certanly helped FD to re-evaluate the need for public betas, but I also think that the number of individual CMDRs who also posted in threads on this forum that public betas would be a good thing to have, had their weight in FDs re-evaluation as well.
Speculation:
I believe FD had a big "What the h*ll happened here?" moment after the initial patch went live and broke, pretty much, the whole game. They then went on for a couple of weeks to patch, patch and patch and during this time they found something that they feel have to be fixed before anything new is added to the live game. They make an estimate on how long it will take to fix that one or two things they found, and realized it was a good idea to invest that time to also fix as many reported bugs they can.
I believe that the petition from Content Creators certanly helped FD to re-evaluate the need for public betas, but I also think that the number of individual CMDRs who also posted in threads on this forum that public betas would be a good thing to have, had their weight in FDs re-evaluation as well.
Nah! You're alright...See ol burke isnt that mean after all
Yeah I had a project manager that quite literally said to my face: "I don't care if it's broken, roll it out, once it's live it's a support issue, not ours."
As for the news, i'd guess they realised they screwed the pooch, and the band-aids over the September patches need properly fixing. Pushing Fleet Carriers out would be too risky, and the realism (from the developers?) overcame management's reluctance to veer from the project plan, and after much shouting and heated meetings, someone found the balls to change direction.
Sadly i'm also guessing they haven't got more resources (from other teams / experienced ED devs working on 2020) so the only solution is to delay things, and hope team B can fix things and get Fleet Carriers out with the new timetable.
If things had gone smoothly in Sept, then one would hope Fleet Carriers would have been on track, although a 6 month delay is massive: if they were on track, and the extra time is purely bug fixes (with extra time to setup beta test environments and support structures etc) then the codebase must be properly buggered.
It's sad the more positive conclusion is Fleet Carriers weren't on time, the code isn't so bad but some months are need to fix Arx properly, and then a bit more for carriers.
The other possibility i can think of is that the 2020 update is whatever new features, but a branch of the core game's code, and it's been worked on for a year plus just refactoring, redesign and tidying the codebase.
So take the core of the 2020 code which relates to live Elite Dangerous, all new and tidy, remove/disable new features and pull in current features (which might not be in the 2020 branch). A faff sure, but you end up much tidier code, done by the A team, while also essentially testing the 2020 code early and effort is less-redundant as you don't have working on completely obsolete code.
This is in the realms of conspiracy theory though
IMO Fleet Carriers would have been delayed regardless but the "Open Letter" gave FDev the perfect opportunity to announce delays. o7