[Video] Open letter from community to Elite Dangerous
- Thread starter Yamiks
- Start date
Ah, but i'm making my point from solo, and therefore immune to your responses in open.
Checkmate!
I have given up on frontier a long time ago.
You clearly have not seen me fly in my "god" ship.
Its irrelevant to the point. I fit higher grade sensors for either integrity or range. Now, maybe you don't, and that's fine, your choice. Don't try and tell me that i'm not fitting higher rated sensors for no reason, when i have reasons for doing so.
It doesn't matter if i'm god mode or not. What matters is i can see further with higher grade sensors, which is the functional reason for fitting them in most circumstances, PvP or PvE.
Sounds like you are ready to embrance Epic games!
I admit that I don't spend a lot of time on these forums, but with a lot of people claiming to speak for "the community" lately (and from different angles, not just the group that drafted this letter), I wanted to speak up for myself as part of the community and provide my own analysis, as I see it, of the open letter "Community Requests, To Frontier Developments for Elite: Dangerous"
Before beginning, in no way do I doubt the sincerity of the people involved and their desire for a better game. I don't even disagree on all points in the letter (as will be seen). Also, I do not claim to speak for any other players or player groups. These thoughts and opinions (however well or poorly constructed) are my own. Any grammatical or spelling errors, however, are the fault of my public education and/or culture (or lack thereof).
tl;dr - I'm all for F-Dev improving their QA/Testing processes, but I think this open letter has some issues in its approach as well as claiming to speak for the community as a whole. Oh, and apologies for the wall of text, but I'm actually trying to analyse the whole thing...
---------------------------
--Who exactly were invited to this conference? Was it a hand-picked list of people the organizers knew would generally agree with their points or was it a more general invitation posted somewhere for any to participate in? This can make a huge difference in the discussion and outcome. And if it was a more limited invitation list, can this really speak for the community as a whole?--
--I won't argue that F-Dev needs to look at their overall testing and QA process to see where the gaps are and close them. While a larger number of individuals testing can find more bugs, not all volunteer testers will properly document their process which could seriously bog down the testing and bug fix process. I'd much rather see F-Dev figure out the gaps in their own internal QA (whether it is in the actual QA department, unit testing by developers, or somewhere else).--
--And yet there are so many complaining about the lack of new content. How many complaints have we heard that the established players aren't getting anything major until the 2020 update? Or that the Thargoid story isn't progressing fast enough? Also, in my opinion, the statement saying you don't want a major shift in development is contradicted by asking for betas on every minor release and a permanent test server. At a minimum, the PTS is definitely a major shift in development practices and the allocation of resources.--
--I reiterate my question asking who was invited to contribute to this letter to speak for the overall community.--
--And again, who is "the community?"--
--To be fair, I can't argue that there are on-going issues that need resolution, and my point here is not to say the frustration that generated this open letter and petition isn't real. I just think the way this is being presented is counter-productive and has points that are contradictory (though I don't think intentionally).--
--Without those balance issues being spelled out, there's no way I could ever sign the petition.--
--As stated before, I agree the Testing/QA process needs to be examined and fixed, but I don't believe that beta testing every single minor release is the answer.--
--Surprise, here I actually agree with the spirit of this section, but have the following comments.
--Isn't this pretty much the definition of PR? The Public Relations Society of America defines PR as "a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics." As far as whether the CMs represent the community's concerns to the company, I have no idea. I'm not behind the closed doors at F-Dev and couldn't really say.--
--Is there any method to be sure that people aren't signing the names of other Commanders to this petition without their consent? Sorry, but I live in a cynical world when it comes to these things.--
--I am curious, were there any Commanders invited to this conference that didn't sign the open letter and/or provided any dissenting opinions? Do we have any transcripts or chat logs of the conversations to know how these points were agreed to and if there were any points brought up that were not included due to lack of consensus? I ask because since this letter is being presented as the will of the community, a community I am a part of, I'm wondering if my voice (either through my own participation or that of any kind of representative) was given a chance to be heard.--
------------------------
So thanks for everyone who actually read all of that. I don't claim to be all right or have all the answers, but wanted to add my thoughts to the conversation.
Edits to remove
. PSA - always preview the post...
Before beginning, in no way do I doubt the sincerity of the people involved and their desire for a better game. I don't even disagree on all points in the letter (as will be seen). Also, I do not claim to speak for any other players or player groups. These thoughts and opinions (however well or poorly constructed) are my own. Any grammatical or spelling errors, however, are the fault of my public education and/or culture (or lack thereof).
tl;dr - I'm all for F-Dev improving their QA/Testing processes, but I think this open letter has some issues in its approach as well as claiming to speak for the community as a whole. Oh, and apologies for the wall of text, but I'm actually trying to analyse the whole thing...
---------------------------
--Who exactly were invited to this conference? Was it a hand-picked list of people the organizers knew would generally agree with their points or was it a more general invitation posted somewhere for any to participate in? This can make a huge difference in the discussion and outcome. And if it was a more limited invitation list, can this really speak for the community as a whole?--
--I won't argue that F-Dev needs to look at their overall testing and QA process to see where the gaps are and close them. While a larger number of individuals testing can find more bugs, not all volunteer testers will properly document their process which could seriously bog down the testing and bug fix process. I'd much rather see F-Dev figure out the gaps in their own internal QA (whether it is in the actual QA department, unit testing by developers, or somewhere else).--
--And yet there are so many complaining about the lack of new content. How many complaints have we heard that the established players aren't getting anything major until the 2020 update? Or that the Thargoid story isn't progressing fast enough? Also, in my opinion, the statement saying you don't want a major shift in development is contradicted by asking for betas on every minor release and a permanent test server. At a minimum, the PTS is definitely a major shift in development practices and the allocation of resources.--
--I reiterate my question asking who was invited to contribute to this letter to speak for the overall community.--
--And again, who is "the community?"--
--To be fair, I can't argue that there are on-going issues that need resolution, and my point here is not to say the frustration that generated this open letter and petition isn't real. I just think the way this is being presented is counter-productive and has points that are contradictory (though I don't think intentionally).--
--Without those balance issues being spelled out, there's no way I could ever sign the petition.--
--As stated before, I agree the Testing/QA process needs to be examined and fixed, but I don't believe that beta testing every single minor release is the answer.--
--Surprise, here I actually agree with the spirit of this section, but have the following comments.
- Differentiation between live and PTS bug reports: Since I don't think a PTS is the way to go, this is obviously a moot point for me.
- Ability to ask for more info: I'm all for it, but with the caveat that players not expect direct responses in the ticket system.
- Quota of 10+ issues: I don't think that's realistic. What if 5 of the top 10 are fixed and ready to go? Do you want F-Dev to delay pushing those fixes out if the other 5 are more problematic to fix?
- Detailed changelog: I'm not against this in spirit, but I think expectations would need to be balanced with the possibility that some things might reveal new content that is supposed to be 'discovered' by players. And if one of these points is suddenly more vague than the others, would that not prompt players to quickly rush to find out what nugget is being hidden in that point? This could derail the organic nature of discoveries in the game.
--Isn't this pretty much the definition of PR? The Public Relations Society of America defines PR as "a strategic communication process that builds mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their publics." As far as whether the CMs represent the community's concerns to the company, I have no idea. I'm not behind the closed doors at F-Dev and couldn't really say.--
--Is there any method to be sure that people aren't signing the names of other Commanders to this petition without their consent? Sorry, but I live in a cynical world when it comes to these things.--
--I am curious, were there any Commanders invited to this conference that didn't sign the open letter and/or provided any dissenting opinions? Do we have any transcripts or chat logs of the conversations to know how these points were agreed to and if there were any points brought up that were not included due to lack of consensus? I ask because since this letter is being presented as the will of the community, a community I am a part of, I'm wondering if my voice (either through my own participation or that of any kind of representative) was given a chance to be heard.--
------------------------
So thanks for everyone who actually read all of that. I don't claim to be all right or have all the answers, but wanted to add my thoughts to the conversation.
Edits to remove
. PSA - always preview the post...
Speed build courier, modes irrelevant the only danger is pilot error.
Although it will fall on deaf ears, but there is no point, because MRPs make up any integrity, phasing does not do module damage etc. The layers of engineering and other modules interacting with internals makes many choices irrelevant, especially if you run before your shields drop. Fit them if you like, but its just waste and inefficient beyond A or D-most choices offer an illusion of effectiveness and to many that rings hollow. Its why they want more granular choices to fill in the gaps. Ironically better sensors would mean something if stealth and heat mechanics were a thing again. But guess what happened?
Haha no, perhaps hello games.
Bought Borderlands 3 last week. Awesome game!
Boonnnng!
What's going on here then lol, I've missed the past few days of forum drama being off the grid....I see a massive outcry of pure noise from the same old names who suffer from classic grandiosity, so I think I'll just ignore it any further and drift on by. They do love a fluff don't they though
Exactly.
I believe the point is that it can't be summarised because 'FDEV, fix the long standing issues of the game' happens to be something that nobody can agree on. Some of the initiators don't like Solo / PG and others don't like the FSS. If you want to make a petition for something, the very least you should do is to define your demands.
Last edited:
He is right though. The nerfed missiles are a long standing issue of the game. I just made that a fact. Everyone who signed the petition agrees with me.
Now that was easy. I'll give you small seismic charges next.
Ohh, that's getting a bit of bad press with people calling it Borderlands 2.5. My son is enjoying it though, so that's all that matters.
I bet there'll bet a beta for fleet carriers. And I'll also bet (a vegan pizza) that there would've been one anyway, petition or not.
And i stand by that point. They used to be great for PvE. Not overpowered but decent. Limited ammo offset their power nicely. It was a trade off, best reserved for assasination missons and not for things like RES or CZ.
But no thanks to Mr itchy body parts and those like him, we got a really nice PvE mechanic nerfed into the ground.
Incorrect.
The OP/Petition is detailed in both it's criticisms and proposed solutions so a regurgitation of those points for people in this thread simply giving in to trolls who want to avoid the points that were clearly made to them.
I never mentioned phasing. I never talked about MRPs. You can't get the same range on lower grade sensors than A rated.
I see you are more focused on integrity, so ok, i was making a build (done it twice actually, once with a CM4, once with a Beluga) where everything was engineered for integrity and B rated. So i fitted B rated sensors as well.
You might disagree with the need or the value of it, but i did it, because i wanted to do it, and B rated have decent range as well, almost as good as A, but a lot less power requirements.
You're thinking too much like a PvPer in this side topic. Try to think more like a PvEer, someone who makes builds just because they can and want, not because of some stupid meta.
Please, Viper Mk3 for speed builds.