What exactly was wrong with the DDA?

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Do not agree. The scope of the proposals in the DDA is huge: there was no way they were ever going to get all that done before they published. That much was clear from early on. But they could have published a well rounded subset of the grand design, and move towards it. What they did was publish an ad-hoc collection of features that was not a well rounded subset, but just what happened to be ready by their arbitrary cut-off date. I will stress, however, that they got the most important stuff right: concentrate on the plumbing: flight model, the stellar forge, and so on (I'd like to be able to add networking there), and once that infrastructure is in place, then build the game out.

Doesn't sound like we would disagree on much, but that you are more disappointed than I am. Which I fully understand. I personally think work done in last 6 months have put good foundation for the game. As I said, I believe FD would gain more if they would have communicated this clearly. They have chosen to do silent treatment when there's touchy subject matter where they think they can't win. I suspect if they would have stronger and more experienced PR team, it would be less of the problem.

Disagree again. The DDF was two things: a nice big lump sum to help get over the kickstarter funding line, and a means of validating their plans with signed up players before it was too late. There are no additions from the DDF, just what FD designed, though they made changes, a few of which were significant, after pondering the feed back they did get. DDF members (just like beta testers) will say 'I told you so' and point to things that FD were told, and did not act upon. If those things are in fact bad, the fault for that is FDs (hence the "I told you so's").

So basically they mostly finalized designs on what they felt was direction they want to take the game. Why we have to assume then they have abandoned these ideas, especially as quite a lineup of them are actually in game? Yes, there's no oriery map (yet), yes, exploration - and I know this is big change - isn't so very detailed (yet, I assume) as we wanted it to be (and it can be discussed to no end but there's strong anonymous hints that Hyperspace discovery has been meant for dark objects...with PP elements like being enemy of faction this start to make a lot of sense, doesn't it?). There's still lot of things slowly, but surely soaking into ED fabric. Wings DDF topic has been actually implemented (although there's still ideas they can add there).

 

[AnnuverScotinExile]

Wings DDF topic has been actually implemented (although there's still ideas they can add there).

Most of it, yes. And well, I believe (I have still not winged up). But it will not be fully implemented until they have put in support for NPCs in your wing, especially to allow traders to 'rent' some security without having to go the whole cooperative route. And we don't have NPC support without the means to advertise for and recruit them, pay them, and so on. There was nice stuff there, including all reputation stuff and the probabilities of your wingman running when things got hot.

If I was a cynic, and was suggesting that they have abandoned playstyles other than pew-pew, I would point out that the bit of wings they put in is the bit that the pew-pew folks can use to gank. But, of course, I am not really that cynical, am I?

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Most of it, yes. And well, I believe (I have still not winged up). But it will not be fully implemented until they have put in support for NPCs in your wing, especially to allow traders to 'rent' some security without having to go the whole cooperative route. And we don't have NPC support without the means to advertise for and recruit them, pay them, and so on. There was nice stuff there, including all reputation stuff and the probabilities of your wingman running when things got hot.

If I was a cynic, and was suggesting that they have abandoned playstyles other than pew-pew, I would point out that the bit of wings they put in is the bit that the pew-pew folks can use to gank. But, of course, I am not really that cynical, am I?

You know what we can both really agree on? After reading all DDF, it's sure that we feel that FD trag it's feet with all those nice and tasy things we want to see in game. It's a torture. I want passenger transportation, NPC dialogs, having more fleshed out universe. But it takes time, and they have to keep ball rolling with all console releases to size momentum. They need good player base, 1 - 2M large to have some longevity for the game.

Also I am spending way too much time here. I should play the game. It is much more fun now with improved AIs. Probably I should disable this account for 1 - 2 months so I can regain some perspective.

 

[RexKraemer]

I bet they wish they could make it go away - but even if they tried to, for example, remove that part of the forum, enough has already escaped that the albatross will still be there.

I dont think so. It is good as it is, they are profesional enough to ignore those people who always complain about the half empty glass of water. When you ask people for their opinion you know beforehand that there will be some 10% who will complain about that you have ignored their important thoughts. FDEV knew what will happen, and they are strong enough to live with it in public.
What I want to make clear, is that you can not get everything. In real world there are constraints. One is time. Another one is limited computer ressources, network ressources,...
Wanting is easy, getting things done is hard! I thought the mean age here is high enough for this simple wisdom.

RexKraemer

 

[W4rSkuLL]

Features in the DDF forum can still be implemented. Sooner or later Frontier will have to look at it and include it in the game. Because there are to many good ideas there.
E3 beginning tomorrow. Its "Christmas" again

 

[Ulfar]

There are things still missing and all we can do is hope they get round to implementing them.

I have a feeling that the console players will get a very different game to us, I cannot see them being happy about getting the game we have currently. I forsee the console version being closer to the trailer version.

 

[deMangler]

If I was a cynic....

Also I am spending way too much time here. I should play the game. It is much more fun now with improved AIs. Probably I should disable this account for 1 - 2 months so I can regain some perspective.

Reading you guys' posts here reminds me of how good the DDF debates were, and the pre-DDF debates now that I think of it.
I was also thinking I might leave the forums alone for a while. In the past I felt there was a point in posting, in that there was a stated desire from FD to have the contribution of brainpower and ideas, and Sandro etc definitely gave the impression that what was said in the DDF would receive serious consideration.
Now it is just a waiting game at best to see what it all comes to. There is no way our voices can be heard above the general clamour of the forums even if we were to be willing to shout that loudly.
At the end of the day, I can enjoy the game playing solo, ignoring powerplay and making up my story. I might just do that for a while. And on the whole I am grateful to FD and the DDF for the fact I can do that. It is a result.

 

[Archvillain]

Further, once in production, I can make no feature change without it being requested by the user. I don't just get to make crap up and put in features because I feel like it. The only exception to this is security patches/fixes.

Game developers evidently just get to do whatever they feel like and abuse their customers with no accountability. It's insane, and honestly, I don't know how they continue to get away with it.

If you're curious, it's because making games the way you describe (the process for making corporate software) generally results in terrible games. The games industry path is infamous for being extremely problematic, yet it persists because it works less badly than known alternatives. For example, when you are making a product your way, you can take a feature, build it to spec, confirm that it works, the client can check that it works, and thus you both know that the feature does its function. In a game by contrast, we take a feature, build it to spec, confirm that it works... then find that that's meaningless because the metric that matters is fun, and if the feature isn't building into what it needs to at a larger psychological level, end users won't care that every part of the game is functioning perfectly to spec, they'll just go play another game and tell their friends to pass on this one. With the products that you develop, the function of your feature is (usually) its function, which makes specs and checks into more powerful tools for you than they are for us.

 

[Lobstris]

Never really seen the issue here really. As long as the two main factions aren't officially at war they can't really complain too much about freelance workers (us) doing work wherever we see fit. Keep in mind that we haven't really joined their military. We're just contractors.

Just skipping back to this point a 'mo. When the cold war was on, would the CIA have been potentially interested in an American freelance contractor who spent an awful lot of time making personal trips to Russia or China to do business there? Might that have seemed potentially suspicious? (It would be nice if the game offered you the chance to be a double agent).
.
Anyway, back on topic, as much as I may look like one of the '10%' who whinge all the time, I'll state that I've put more hours in to Elite than any other game in the past year, so it's certainly done *something* right. I always loved the core concept of trading and exploring amongst the stars, and I love mooching around in super-cruise - which it seems some people would rather rub glass in their eyes than do. So I'm not too upset, as no other game at present lets me do that - we got another Elite out of it. Now let's see if we can get another First Encounters. (no I don't mean the bugs, but rather the Thargoids... )

 

[Archvillain]

Just skipping back to this point a 'mo. When the cold war was on, would the CIA have been potentially interested in an American freelance contractor who spent an awful lot of time making personal trips to Russia or China to do business there? Might that have seemed potentially suspicious? (It would be nice if the game offered you the chance to be a double agent).

IIRC the CIA very much was interested in recruiting business people who did business with the USSR. 'Cos they can go where the CIA can't.

But speaking as someone allied to multiple factions, I'd like to add that the game does make this difficult. Many of the ways you increase your rep (not to mention make money) involve faction power struggles or conflict. All those roads to riches and glory are closed to players trying to build alliance with both sides (and it's not always perfectly clear ahead of time that, say, working a particular community goal will be looked on poorly by a faction you're allied with. Sometimes you have to be politically savvy or read between the lines, and sometimes you mess up)

 

[jabokai]

Turning a general commentary into an attempt at putting an individual down, rather than discussing the topic (as some have just done before your post Jeff) is exactly what I was talking about. Point proved.

General commentary? Describing your fellow ddfers as "childish, argumentative and egotistical" - yeah okay, that's a way to engender a reasonable discussion on the pros and cons of the DDF, particularly when it's complete and utter rubbish. There was very little of what you describe, as has been pointed out, and as is evidenced in the DDA. Some, perhaps, and most were probably guilty at times (including you) but it was hardly the defining feature and debasing it to that is childish in itself. Clearly you have a beef with some ddfers and felt the need to vent, but still, what you wrote, as a generalisation, is still a load of rubbish.

 

[JeffRyan]

General commentary? Describing your fellow ddfers as "childish, argumentative and egotistical" - yeah okay, that's a way to engender a reasonable discussion on the pros and cons of the DDF, particularly when it's complete and utter rubbish. There was very little of what you describe, as has been pointed out, and as is evidenced in the DDA. Some, perhaps, and most were probably guilty at times (including you) but it was hardly the defining feature and debasing it to that is childish in itself. Clearly you have a beef with some ddfers and felt the need to vent, but still, what you wrote, as a generalisation, is still a load of rubbish.

S'what I said. But nicer.

- - - Updated - - -

For the record I much prefered the thread where people said nice things about the DDF. That was a much nicer place.

 

[jabokai]

S'what I said. But nicer.

- - - Updated - - -

For the record I much prefered the thread where people said nice things about the DDF. That was a much nicer place.

The DDF was, by and large, pretty damned civilised. People occasionally rubbed each other the wrong way but it was never that big a deal, and nowhere near the defining feature Zplintz wants to make it seem.

Good discussion, many different views, and FD were free to pick and choose (and ignore) what they wanted. As has been said, the only really bad thing is how much of it is languishing untouched, while we get other features bolted on, without the refinement and depth of the vision offered in the DDA. Still, the sun hasn't set yet...

Edit: probably repeating myself, apologies, I've been to see Faith no More and had a few beers!

 

[Juniper]

FD have said time and again they are doing the game that they want to play.

They have been very open and explicit about that.

If that is good or bad, I am not sure yet. Time will tell.

If that is mainly MB and DB or developer as a whole I am not sure.

The game changed from what we were 'sold' the moment it went online only. That little bombshell (which happened after the DDF was effectively "finished", and no, none of us had any prior clue) basically took the game off in a direction that was "not as described", if you take the DDA as any kind of blueprint.

This is why we have no Ironman, no ship naming, indeed none of the richer elements of the DDA, and now we have Risk in Space.

We thought we were helping to design one game. Frontier had in mind another. Many of the nicer detail points of the DDA are therefore redundant & no longer relevant, and I doubt we will ever see them implemented.

Edit: Maybe they should consider changing the name from "Elite: Dangerous" to "Elite: A Bit Risky".

 

[Tar Stone]

"Elite: A Bit Risky".

It's lines like this one that I miss from the old original community. Ah, memories.

Still, Risk does get an airing in my house around xmas time, it's good to wheel it out, dust it off, a good old family favourite. Arguments over rules, dog choking on the pieces, beer over the board. Great fun.

But compared to the really huge number of slick, modern tabletop games nowadays, it's a dinosaur. The game that comes out the most in our house right now is Matt Leacock's Pandemic. Co-op play in a board game, rules that fit on a couple of A4 sheets. Unbelievably intelligent, the game unfolds and plays against the players based on a few simple, genius rules. Emergent gameplay, super super tight design, drama, tension, surprises, plans all going to hell. Panic, sweat, cheers, people talking about it a day later. In a boardgame.

Tabletop games have come so so far from the days of Risk and Games Workshop - slicker, tighter, accessible, intuitive. I have shelves of tabletop games, I dived into Powerplay, loved it, and now I'll put it away and bring it out again next year. Therein lies no longevity whatsoever, and predictably the underlying game is still a total mess of bugs and nonsense and shield cells and far too many minor factions to ever care about.

I really hope I didn't say any of that out loud.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Given power play was described by Ed "community manager" Lewis as a board game overlay of 3D risk, saying ED is "A Bit Risky" is now spot on

Too soon ?

 

[Tar Stone]

Given power play was described by Ed "community manager" Lewis as a board game overlay of 3D risk, saying ED is "A Bit Risky" is now spot on

Too soon ?

If you say enough good things about Frontier Developments, Ed Lewis appears on the forum like a magical fairytale genie from a children's bedtime storybook.

 

[JeffRyan]

If you say enough good things about Frontier Developments, Ed Lewis appears on the forum like a magical fairytale genie from a children's bedtime storybook.

Ed Lewis! Ed Lewis! Ed Lewis!

 

[[HJ]-RedRaven]

I fear many early backers (and later buyers too) would never be satisfied unless E fits within their personal roadmap. It never will - its DB's vision after all.

Yes he (essentially put out for ideas, feedback etc, but all FD has said is that they'll take feedback on board, not implement it unless they (internally) think its a good idea and can be coded in a reasonable amount of time for the 'impact' of the feature. Naturally, involving potential players through a 'backer' system is somewhat a marketing tool, but some good ideas (that fit DB/FD's vision) will make it in - great!

If it doesn't fit your roadmap, or you're not having fun, have a rest for a few weeks/months and keep half an eye on the updates' content.

More people should learn to code, and code something they'd like to play, and see if the rest of us want to back it to the extent E has received. I think many of these new coders would be disappointed (same as new writers of many genres).

 

[tough boy]

There was nothing wrong with it, they probably just didn't have the resources to actually implement what was proposed. I think they should have been more clear about it.