The 2020 Dev Run: As Big As The Launch Run (?)

[Viajero]

There is evidence to support either view...

Well, not exactly. The evidence actually suggests FDEV do what they say more often than not (refer to the original OP), with a few specific exceptions sprinkled here or there, such as FC.

Now, if you like you can go into personal interpretation of the same and discuss how critical or important those exceptions are for you etc.

 

[Riverside]

Well, not exactly.

"Not exaclty" = "some" Viajero. You are quibbling over semantics rather than seeing the common ground.

 

[Viajero]

"Not exaclty" = "some" Viajero. You are quibbling over semantics rather than seeing the common ground.

I do not think so, no. I am actually stating a previous statement about habits is wrong based on existing evidence. Now if you want to discuss how critical the exceptions are to you then that is fine but we would enter personal opinion and subjective territory.

 

[Riverside]

I do not think so, no. I am actually stating a previous statement is wrong based on actual evidence.

Viajero, there is SOME evidence... yadda yadda. It works either way you look at it & the only relevance it has is whether the number on one extreme is significantly more or less than the other.

Based on the same evidence you have access to, I have a low degree of confidence in... whatever. You are not concerned. The evidence is the same, our reactions to that is the only difference. How someone reacts is not something they are wrong about, you just formed a different view from them.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

Here's the thing, until the day comes that Frontier says "Ok, that's it, we're done with this, no more updates, no more patches, nor more balancing, it's over." they have not failed to deliver on anything - semantics have nothing to do with anything here - that's just how it is. On that day, then we can look back and say "Well they said X, and we don't have X, thus they failed to deliver on X."

Until then, they have until that time to deliver - whatever your personal "X" might be.

 

[[VR] optimal_909]

"Not exaclty" = "some" Viajero. You are quibbling over semantics rather than seeing the common ground.

Haha, I was going to write the same in my own context... semantics indeed.

 

[Viajero]

Viajero, there is SOME evidence... yadda yadda. It works either way you look at it & the only relevance it has is whether the number on one extreme is significantly more or less than the other.

Based on the same evidence you have access to, I have a low degree of confidence in... whatever. You are not concerned. The evidence is the same, our reactions to that is the only difference. How someone reacts is not something they are wrong about, you just formed a different view from them.

I think you may prolly be getting a bit lost in your own opinion here . Let´s rewind and go back to the original statement, it was quite straight forward. And categorical:

"FDev have a habit of saying stuff and then not doing what they say"

Now, the existing evidence on the contrary shows that FDEV has not made a habit of that at all, since they actually do more often than not what they say.

I am happy to discuss common grounds about the exceptions that break that rule so far or about our opinions on the quality of those deliveries, but the habit statement in the OP is simply and factually wrong I am afraid.

 

[Riverside]

Here's the thing, until the day comes that Frontier says "Ok, that's it, we're done with this, no more updates, no more patches, nor more balancing, it's over." they have not failed to deliver on anything - semantics have nothing to do with anything here - that's just how it is. On that day, then we can look back and say "Well they said X, and we don't have X, thus they failed to deliver on X."

Until then, they have until that time to deliver - whatever your personal "X" might be.

But we can form the opinion that they are not going to deliver 'enough'.

 

[zimms]

[...]
Now, the existing evidence on the contrary shows that FDEV has not made a habit of that at all, since they actually do more often than not what they say.
[...]

That sounds like a backhanded compliment.

Or a relatively low bar.

 

[Riverside]

I think you may prolly be getting a bit lost in your own opinion here . Let´s rewind and go back to the original statement, it was quite straight forward. And categorical:

"FDev have a habit of saying stuff and then not doing what they say"

Now, the existing evidence on the contrary shows that FDEV has not made a habit of that at all, since they actually do more often than not what they say.

I am happy to discuss common grounds about the exceptions that break that rule so far or about our opinions on the quality of those deliveries, but the habit statement in the OP is simply and factually wrong I am afraid.

You are quibbling over semantics Viajero. You just don't think it's a big deal, and other do think it's a big deal. You disagree, that's all.

 

[IndigoWyrd]

But we can for the opinion that they are not going to deliver 'enough'.

We certainly CAN postulate an opinion that they may under-deliver. That is not unfounded, but it IS still an opinion, not a fact.

We can support that opinion with statements of fact, such as: "Mluticrew has not had any significant updates, thus remains under-delivered at this time." or "Horizons was under-delivered, as it introduced planetary landings on airless worlds, while atmospheric landings have not yet been delivered." But these things do not mean nor imply that these things will not be delivered in the future, only demonstrate a track record of incomplete or under-delivered features at release.

And it seems, at least to me, that this track record has been recognized, and efforts are being made to shore this up, based on the delay of Fleet Carriers and the proposition for more feature open beta testing, the delay itself, and the pledge to "ensure the state of the game is in a better position to introduce Fleet Carriers, that will provide Commanders even more opportunities to interact with the Milky Way. We understand that this delay will be disappointing for some players, but do know that this decision is one that we do not take lightly, and is made with the best interests of the community and game at heart. " (source: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/community-update-22-10.527123/ )

Only the passage of time will reveal if this holds true or not, opinions and past instances notwithstanding.

 

[Viajero]

That sounds like a backhanded compliment.

It is just a counter to the original categorical remark, clarifying that it was factually wrong. I have not expressed any opinions on the matter I am afraid.

 

[babelfisch]

Maybe, but we've had 4-5yrs of 100 people working on the title... So it's not entirely unfair to use that as a baseline, for the same 100 people working for another 2yrs IMHO. ie: If we have a company building a row of houses, could we not judge the potential quality of the next 2 houses, based on the past 5 they've built already?

Now, it's entirely possible they've had staff changes at Frontier, but I'd say unless they've had a significant change in designers, or management have significantly changed their approach, I don't see why we can't have a gut feeling for how next year might pan out based on the past 4-5yrs. Hence me not being very optimistic. But I hope we might still get something as technically impressive and bar raising as planetary surfaces.

Ultimately, fingers crossed but not hopeful.

True. On the other hand the game actually did improve a lot over the last years, unless you just focus on CQC, PP and Multicrew, which is definitely wasted work and potential in my opinion. Horizons had the issue of way too many different features which all ended up half baked, so if they manage to concentrate on fewer things but with higher quality the 2020 update might not turn into a mess. As you say, fingers crossed.
By the way, even a failed feature like MC might be beneficial to the new era stuff. If it's really about space legs the work on having multiple CMDRs in the same place could be helpful. If they manage to sort out the bugs, issues and shortcomings. So it's possibly not completely wasted dev time...

 

[Stealthie]

Here's the thing, until the day comes that Frontier says "Ok, that's it, we're done with this, no more updates, no more patches, nor more balancing, it's over." they have not failed to deliver on anything - semantics have nothing to do with anything here - that's just how it is. On that day, then we can look back and say "Well they said X, and we don't have X, thus they failed to deliver on X."

We certainly CAN postulate an opinion that they may under-deliver. That is not unfounded, but it IS still an opinion, not a fact.

That's not entirely true.

As well as delivery of an item there's also the issue of the quality of the item and the time it takes to deliver it.

Both of those other things are a legitimate means of objectively quantifying the quality of the transaction overall.

If all those things happen exactly as intended, there's no cause for complaint.
If any of those things fail to meet their originally stated goals then we get into the subjective issue of how much flexibility is acceptable.

Basically, if I lend somebody £100 and they pay it all back when they said they would, I'm likely to be happy to lend that person more money.
If I lend them £100 and then they pay me back £50 on time and then pay me back £10 every month thereafter I'm going to think twice about lending them more money.
If I lend them £100 and they pay me back £20 in Ugandan Shillings, six months late, and then promise me they're going to pay back the rest some time next year, I'm unlikely to lend them more money ever again.

Right now FDev has - objectively - failed to deliver quality products in a timely manner on several occasions so I, personally, feel like FDev is well into category 2 and their performance over the last few months sees them heading toward the third category.
You're perfectly entitled to feel differently but it'd be silly to insist they are still in category 1, where they're delivering everything they say they will, when they say they will.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Maybe, but we've had 4-5yrs of 100 people working on the title... So it's not entirely unfair to use that as a baseline, for the same 100 people working for another 2yrs IMHO. ie: If we have a company building a row of houses, could we not judge the potential quality of the next 2 houses, based on the past 5 they've built already?

You're assuming 100 people were working on all of the content released in that time when we know that's not true because they've had teams doing work on other as yet unpublished areas of the game for some time, whether it be art or general pre-oroduction. A number of those people might be art related, producing interiors for bases, fleshing out ship interiors etc. There was a quote not so long ago from someone in the audio team saying the team had been working on some things they were looking forward to seeing in game. A quote from DB after planetary landings were released :

“We have ongoing work on planets, including atmospheres, planetary life, walking about and lots of other very exciting things for the future.

Perhaps if you think 100 (likely less) people haven't produced enough content, then you can state what features they should have added in the same amount of time?

Now, it's entirely possible they've had staff changes at Frontier, but I'd say unless they've had a significant change in designers, or management have significantly changed their approach, I don't see why we can't have a gut feeling for how next year might pan out based on the past 4-5yrs.

It's not possible they've had staff changes, it's a fact. People got new jobs inside and outside the company, people are sick, take time off for deaths, births and marriages etc. It all takes its toll especially when you have to introduce new/replacement staff to stacks of code they've not seen before. Especially more complicated with Elite as I'd imagine the code written in one part of the game touches many more parts than many other games do. Changes to Cobra? More staff and more time needed, especially as you don't want (or can't) be doing significant development work at the same time.

Hence me not being very optimistic. But I hope we might still get something as technically impressive and bar raising as planetary surfaces.

Ultimately, fingers crossed but not hopeful.

One thing I'd never accuse you of is optimism! [/quote]

 

[Barking_Mad]

True. On the other hand the game actually did improve a lot over the last years, unless you just focus on CQC, PP and Multicrew, which is definitely wasted work and potential in my opinion. Horizons had the issue of way too many different features which all ended up half baked, so if they manage to concentrate on fewer things but with higher quality the 2020 update might not turn into a mess. As you say, fingers crossed.
By the way, even a failed feature like MC might be beneficial to the new era stuff. If it's really about space legs the work on having multiple CMDRs in the same place could be helpful. If they manage to sort out the bugs, issues and shortcomings. So it's possibly not completely wasted dev time...

A physical in station place to go play CQC and meet other commanders might be nice, especially if it brought about improvements to the feature like bots, or a spectator mode. Indeed none of them are wasted development time if they are improved on. I'd be surprised if one or more of them weren't. But hey, we'll see!

 

[Ralph Vargr]

A physical in station place to go play CQC and meet other commanders might be nice, especially if it brought about improvements to the feature like bots, or a spectator mode. Indeed none of them are wasted development time if they are improved on. I'd be surprised if one or more of them weren't. But hey, we'll see!

Marketing will commit seppaku, before it allows AI's to replace imaginary sales.

 

[IPFreely]

What is the big deal about "space legs" ?
- Enabling a 1st person view as you walk around would be kinda simple.
You can already see outside your ship in "mouse" view.
Just extend the range of the camera.
With limits like a Dungeon Crawler.
- or -
Are we talking about a 3rd person view?
To see yourself on an empty planet? -
-or -
Are we focusing on walking around a station and interactions? -
If so, then that is a completely different scenario.
That is a game inside a game.
1st you have to craft the inside of stations, outposts, etc.
The same with planetary explorations.
You have to craft those also.
So you can get out of the SRV and pick up that barrel of BioWaste.

Then decide on how to get from one game to the other.
A load screen ala SRV?
Before you can start on "space legs".

 

[myothershipisacobraiv]

Just read this and relax..

https://archive.org/details/popular-computing-weekly-1982-04-23

Yes ED was in "skunkworks" mode prior to kickstarter.

Not familiar with agile development?

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3ALwKeSEYs

 

[VR Golgot]

Or are we focusing on walking around a station and interactions -
If so, then that is a completely different scenario.
That is a game inside a game.
1st you have to craft the inside of stations, outposts, etc.
The same with planetary explorations.
You have to craft those also.
Then decide on how to get from one game to the other.
A load screen ala SRV?
Before you can start on "space legs".
A completely different environments game.

Hello. Not quite sure how this thread inspired this response, but yes, FDev’s old proposals were for gameplay in ship interiors, station interiors, and EVA outside ships + on planetary surfaces. Originally envisioned as at least 2 separate DLCs.

Have an info dump

Spoiler

Newsletter 32: 'To Launch, and Beyond with the Lifetime Expansion Pass'

We also plan to allow you to get up out of your seat and walk around your ship. You can see the level of attention and thought that has already been given to the ship interiors from these ship cockpit views in this video:

Of course walking round your ship will be nice, but it is the just springboard for a very significant expansion of gameplay – you will be able to experience the inside of starports and interact with other players and AI characters, and even board other people’s ships in space and take them by force, as shown in this concept piece.

Of course this will be further expanded to include walking around on the surfaces of planets too.

Alpha and Premium Beta customers, and those who have already bought the £35 Lifetime Expansion Pass alongside either Beta or the full game, will have access to all these features and updates for as long as we create them at no further cost.

Elite: Dangerous Development Plan (hosted on Kickstarter page - Dec 2014)

You will be able to walk around the spaceport, you will be able to see gold being loaded into someone else's ship, you will be able to sneak in and hide in amongst the cargo. All of those things are phenomenal game play opportunities where that ship might actually be the ship of another player, so just think where that all ends.

Elite Dangerous Expansion Pass Store Page - [IE the point of sale] (circa July 2014):

We intend to continue expanding the game both with new content and new features. A good example of this is planetary landings. We have an ambitious goal for landings to include new gameplay and a rich variety of worlds to explore. To achieve our goal we want the planets to come to life. We also want to add leaving the ships so you can explore space stations or board enemy vessels or even just to look around your own. We intend to release small, free updates after launch, but major expansions including rich new features will be charged for, unless you have bought the expansion pass

Newsletter 29: Lifetime Expansion Pass - to be withdrawn from sale

For example, our current roadmap is to add (in no particular order):

• Landing/ driving / prospecting on airless rocky planets, moons & asteroids
• Walking around interiors and combative boarding of other ships
• Combat and other interactions with other players and AIs in the internal areas of star ports
• Accessing richly detailed planetary surfaces
• Availability of giant ‘executive control’ ships to players

Alpha and Premium Beta customers, and those who have already bought the £35 expansion pass alongside either Beta or the full game, will have access to all these features and updates for as long as we create them at no further cost.

---

Throw in things like periodic suggestions by FDev that it's still their intent...

• 'The team and I all see Space Legs as the feature we will love to add and are at the top of our specification, but it's something that will not happen in the Beyond season. We will talk more about it later.' (Translated Sandro - Jan 2018)
• 'The future for Elite Dangerous is very exciting, including a whole raft of incredible features, yes including 'space legs' but so many more things too.' (David Braben - April 2017)
• 'All of the things, and there are lots of other things as well, that we want to do are a way away, because to do them well... Doing an animated character is only part of the problem, you've got to have things to do with it, it's got to be rich, and a great experience. So don't hold your breath, but when it comes it'll be great.' (David Braben - Dec 2016)

FDev are still tight-lipped about the subject matter of the DLC, but there are some reasonable reasons to think ‘Legs’ are the target:

Spoiler

• The ‘leak’ has hit all its predictions to date. It says Legs. (FPS, Thargs in the flesh etc)
• There was bonus ‘leakage’ from the new ARX site which aligned with the above. (New weapon and building categories).
• The files have showed signs of Legs work
• The old plan was for the second PDLC to feature legs