The point is more to understand wether they lied or not in the last public announcement.
The 2020 Dev Run: As Big As The Launch Run (?)
- Thread starter VR Golgot
- Start date
OK... Apologies... What do you think they might have not been truthful/factual on?
Your reply would have had a lot more credibility if you'd actually offered an alternative conclusion, instead of just (wrongly) stating what you think my motivations are.
Weird that you didn't suggest an alternative conclusion.
It's a little disingenuous to talk about whether FDev "lied" about stuff.
The word "lying" has specific implications with regard to deliberately misleading people and I don't think that's important.
Pretty sure that's a deliberate straw-man being used by some people and it's probably best avoided if we intend to have an honest discussion.
The only thing that matters is that FDev have a habit of saying stuff and then not doing what they say.
They also have a habit of screwing up the stuff they actually do.
I try to form an opinion based on evidence rather than by ascribing motives to that evidence.
From their statements I understood that Fleet Carriers was most probably in the final approach to the release, but the community open letter made them realise that it is now more important to fix bugs and issues.
Now we have the 2 cases I reported above:
- If Fleet Carriers are delayed by 2/3 months I do believe them (open beta end of February).
- Instead if these are delayed by 6 months (so a beta/release in June) I really believe that they already had accumulated delays in the development so they used the excuse of the open letter to delay it furthermore.
I think ED has been in a muddle in terms of its development since before its launch.
This is just the latest iteration of the confusion surrounding their development plans. FD have themselves accepted that they made mistakes during the first couple of years, hence the elongated release schedule for Horizons and the subsequent need for a year of Beyond which was to address the issues since launch.
We are now going through the same process less than a year after Beyond to address the cliff face of bugs that have been left to fester as a consequence of their development process.
IMO they have never really got on top of developing ED as a title, scheduling, release dates, quality control, content, bug fixing...it's all been a rather chaotic, puzzling and seemingly illogical series of events since launch.
That is not to say the game isn't good or they have failed...far from it, the core of the game is excellent and has held my attention on and off for 5 years. However any project that needs to derail itself every few months for a major course correction signifies that the original plans were flawed.
Considering that the 'New Era', whatever that ends up being is something of a 'hail mary - all or nothing' release, that is a very high risk strategy that has already needed to be revised after 9 months.
I'm hoping that they will learn from this but history suggests that won't be the case...we will see.
This is just the latest iteration of the confusion surrounding their development plans. FD have themselves accepted that they made mistakes during the first couple of years, hence the elongated release schedule for Horizons and the subsequent need for a year of Beyond which was to address the issues since launch.
We are now going through the same process less than a year after Beyond to address the cliff face of bugs that have been left to fester as a consequence of their development process.
IMO they have never really got on top of developing ED as a title, scheduling, release dates, quality control, content, bug fixing...it's all been a rather chaotic, puzzling and seemingly illogical series of events since launch.
That is not to say the game isn't good or they have failed...far from it, the core of the game is excellent and has held my attention on and off for 5 years. However any project that needs to derail itself every few months for a major course correction signifies that the original plans were flawed.
Considering that the 'New Era', whatever that ends up being is something of a 'hail mary - all or nothing' release, that is a very high risk strategy that has already needed to be revised after 9 months.
I'm hoping that they will learn from this but history suggests that won't be the case...we will see.
Yeah I get it, I really do
. But I'm suggesting that that the event you desire has happened, IE that "management have significantly changed their approach".I think the launch title genuinely might be a better template for the PDLC than Horizons. (And way better than Beyond / this year, drab as they are thanks to resources piling into the new approach).
Caveats still remain in abundance. (The key ones for me are: They're building on a right old spaghetti mess, and they're still trying to design fun gameplay in a proc gen environment for the most part).
But I reckon you liked the launch game, for all its own flaws
. That's where the hope lies 
The FC forum was like a scatter gun of ideas, but among those ideas was a lot of sensible discussion about "what-ifs" and gameplay that I doubt anyone had thought about before, including FD. It became apparent as the discussion progressed that FCs were likely to be game changing and the features offered by FCs would have to be refined to fit the edge cases and exceptions that were identified. Don't ask me to give examples, I'd have to re-read the threads again, but I'm sure FD took away a lot of good ideas for "refining" the carriers and how they best interact with the game.
I think it's the other way around, but the rest is very accurate!
I hope you're right... If next year's big released ultimately turns out to basically be another monstrous Multicrew, that will be bad!Yeah I get it, I really do
I think the launch title genuinely might be a better template for the PDLC than Horizons. (And way better than Beyond / this year, drab as they are thanks to resources piling into the new approach).
Caveats still remain in abundance. (The key ones for me are: They're building on a right old spaghetti mess, and they're still trying to design fun gameplay in a proc gen environment for the most part).
But I reckon you liked the launch game, for all its own flaws
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
The evidence actually suggests the opposite is true with a few specific exceptions sprinkled here or there, such as FC.
Although if we posted that evidence we would probably have to go into personal interpretation of the same, or how critical or important those exceptions are for us etc.
Last edited:
The "opposite"?
The opposite of unreliable is reliable.
Are you really going to try and claim that FDev are reliable, either in word or deed?
By all means, assert that you're happy with the level of unreliability that FDev have displayed but that's a subjective issue.
To claim that FDev are the "opposite" of unreliable is patently absurd, though.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
I did not mentioned the terms "reliable" or "unreliable" in my note. As far as I remember you did not use them either in the note I responded to.
Last edited:
No.
I was the one claiming FDev are unreliable.
You claimed the "opposite" of what I said is true.
Ergo, you are claiming they are reliable.
Which is silly.
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
You didnt mention the terms reliable or unreliable in the note I responded to. You said:
To which I simply responded:
"The evidence actually suggests the opposite is true with a few specific exceptions sprinkled here or there, such as FC."
Bringing the terms "reliable" or "unreliable" to this equation adds an additional level of personal opinion and subjectivity to the discussion that seems to be a bit at odds with your own statement there that:
![[VR] optimal_909](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/109/109067.jpg?1553781733){kind=avatar}
No I didn't.
First you say "FDev is at war with the fanbase" and now you think I said FDev ignore the fanbase?
'It really is no wonder that FDev refuse to provide long-term roadmap details, and as much as I find it frustrating that New Era is publicly a mystery, I am slowly becoming agreeable to their policy. '
And at this point, really, what else do they have to communicate?
Again, great work on how to ignore the key points of the post!
Viajero
Volunteer Moderator
Geez, I'm sorry if I confused you by attempting to precis what I previously wrote.
That is fine. Your precision introduces a subjective and personal element that is a bit in contradiction with your original statement about actual evidence though.
There is evidence to support either view, and nothing to suggest concerns are unfounded other than blind faith at the moment.