What if they had not noticed...

For those complaining about the state of the game since fleet carriers, just think how bad the fleet carrier design must of been back in November last year after all that previous design time, for them to have to delay the realease for six months.

Even the designers noticed how bad that itineration was, so maybe we should be grateful we have what we have now.

Just a thought.
 
Yeah. And think about in what state fleet carriers would have been implemented if there wouldn't have been two betas. With excessive upkeep, huge credit loss upon decommission, just as they were implemented in the first beta.

Good thing that some wise people saw it coming and wrote an open letter last year. And thank to it we got better fleet carriers and two betas.
Best thing by far to happen to ED in the last 2-3 years, this letter. :)
 
Well, yes? FDev figured out there were issues with Fleet Carriers, pushed the release date back and (probably) fixed whatever was the issue. Of course I'm thankful for that. The current iteration of Fleet Carriers may not be "perfect" (whatever that means, anyway), but I'm having fun with mine.

As for the Betas: that's what Betas are for. Find issues. Fix issues. Probably not to everyone's satisfaction when it comes to balance, but that's a given.
 
For those complaining about the state of the game since fleet carriers, just think how bad the fleet carrier design must of been back in November last year after all that previous design time, for them to have to delay the realease for six months.

Even the designers noticed how bad that itineration was, so maybe we should be grateful we have what we have now.

Just a thought.

Actually - here's an alternate thought.

The designers actually designed something that was pretty damn good, at what it was designed for. (A squadron asset, requiring multiple players to be a part of buying it, and maintaining it)

The higher ups decided they wanted to modify this design to work for single players. (more arx potential, no way to sell the arx to the entire squadron of players - just the leader....???)

The designers had to entirely re-design something that had a lot of design baked in based on the idea of a multiple player asset - resulting in something a little substandard to what it may have been.

This is why "It's just cosmetic, it doesn't affect anything" is... not entirely correct.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 182079

D
I'm still a bit taken aback by how far off the mark the initial upkeep cost during Beta 1 was. It wasn't even ballpark figures ok that just required a bit of tweaking based on player feedback.
 

Deleted member 38366

D
I think it's pretty obvious they didn't have anything to launch in Nov last year.

All they had was a vestly incomplete Squadron Carriers pre-Alpha build.
 
I think it's pretty obvious they didn't have anything to launch in Nov last year.

All they had was a vestly incomplete Squadron Carriers pre-Alpha build.

What I really disliked was the dishonesty about all of it. Frontier took a look at FCs and decided they aren't good enough and need to be redesigned, which pushed them back half a year. (That's what one of the developers said on the release stream).

What Frontier told us back then was "we listened to you, so we'll focus on bug fixing for the next six months". They simply used the infamous open letter as a convenient excuse.

I don't value Frontier's word any higher than e.g. EA's anymore. The days of the small development studio with a tight-knit community are over, they are now a big studio/publisher. Congratulations, I guess success proves them right.
 
For those complaining about the state of the game since fleet carriers, just think how bad the fleet carrier design must of been back in November last year after all that previous design time, for them to have to delay the realease for six months.

Even the designers noticed how bad that itineration was, so maybe we should be grateful we have what we have now.

Just a thought.
Imagine if they put more of the profit from the game back into personnel and testing?
 
I'm still a bit taken aback by how far off the mark the initial upkeep cost during Beta 1 was. It wasn't even ballpark figures ok that just required a bit of tweaking based on player feedback.

It was the original design, for squadrons, that never got updated when it got redesigned as single player assets.

When Dav Stott(sp?) (server dude) said they'd "run the numbers" about it - I'm 100% sure it was true. They ran the numbers based on it being a squadron asset.
 
Actually - here's an alternate thought.

The designers actually designed something that was pretty damn good, at what it was designed for. (A squadron asset, requiring multiple players to be a part of buying it, and maintaining it)

The higher ups decided they wanted to modify this design to work for single players. (more arx potential, no way to sell the arx to the entire squadron of players - just the leader....???)

The designers had to entirely re-design something that had a lot of design baked in based on the idea of a multiple player asset - resulting in something a little substandard to what it may have been.

Counter thought: The Devs actually know what they're doing and figured out that FCs as squadron assets wouldn't work with existing game mechanics.

There's no Squadron bank account to pay for the FC, so someone has to be "voluntold" to buy it for the Squadron. Second issue: you cannot transfer money directly to the poor guy who has to buy the damn thing. So someone has to do all the grind "alone". Squad members have only limited options to support with that. Third issue, maintanance. As I pointed out, there's no bank account for a squadron. So the poor guy who bought the thing now has to pay the weekly fee on top of it. That's sort of the situation we have right at the moment anyway, but when thinking about Squadron FCs, what happens to the Squadron asset if the player stops playing/doesn't have enough money or decides to leave the squadron? Who inherits it? What happens when the player leaves? He already paid for it, but isn't allowed to keep it, because it's a "squardon asset"?

The implementation of a squadron bank account would open up an entirely new can of worms when it comes to abuse and exploits. Not to mention the overhaul of how squadrons work ingame (roles and rights, payment/taxes etc). That is/was probably just too much effort when the majority of the Devs are working on Odyssey.

Last but not least, the Squadron FC would have been an asset only a select few, already powerful Squadrons could/would actually have been able to obtain. Think of the mayhem in BGS/PVP/Powerplay when the "big guys" bring out their FCs to totally stomp on any small squadron they come across. Also with the potentially limited amount of players actually buying/playing with Squadron Carriers, one has to question if that idea would have been worth the development time/effort.

Long story short, the personal FC we have now was/is probably the "best" way to implement FCs with existing game mechanics anyway. It solves all the above issues without wasting too much development time on "features" only few players could/would actually use.
 
Imagine if they put more of the profit from the game back into personnel and testing?

Imagine if the profit came exclusively from high quality regular content expansion packs... all design and implementation would have to be based around that.
(Instead of some of it being informed by !!!ARX!!!)
 
Counter thought: The Devs actually know what they're doing and figured out that FCs as squadron assets wouldn't work with existing game mechanics.

There's no Squadron bank account to pay for the FC, so someone has to be "voluntold" to buy it for the Squadron. Second issue: you cannot transfer money directly to the poor guy who has to buy the damn thing. So someone has to do all the grind "alone". Squad members have only limited options to support with that. Third issue, maintanance. As I pointed out, there's no bank account for a squadron. So the poor guy who bought the thing now has to pay the weekly fee on top of it. That's sort of the situation we have right at the moment anyway, but when thinking about Squadron FCs, what happens to the Squadron asset if the player stops playing/doesn't have enough money or decides to leave the squadron? Who inherits it? What happens when the player leaves? He already paid for it, but isn't allowed to keep it, because it's a "squardon asset"?

The implementation of a squadron bank account would open up an entirely new can of worms when it comes to abuse and exploits. Not to mention the overhaul of how squadrons work ingame (roles and rights, payment/taxes etc). That is/was probably just too much effort when the majority of the Devs are working on Odyssey.

Last but not least, the Squadron FC would have been an asset only a select few, already powerful Squadrons could/would actually have been able to obtain. Think of the mayhem in BGS/PVP/Powerplay when the "big guys" bring out their FCs to totally stomp on any small squadron they come across. Also with the potentially limited amount of players actually buying/playing with Squadron Carriers, one has to question if that idea would have been worth the development time/effort.

Long story short, the personal FC we have now was/is probably the "best" way to implement FCs with existing game mechanics anyway. It solves all the above issues without wasting too much development time on "features" only few players could/would actually use.

So... they didnt want to put in the effort to complete the original design.

OK. that's... er... better?
 
So... they didnt want to put in the effort to complete the original design.

OK. that's... er... better?

Keep it simple, stupid.
Why spend time and effort on overly complicated overhauls when you can essentially achieve the same or even better results with a more simple solution? FCs are working just fine (ignoring some balancing issues) and a large part of the community obiviously loves them (or there wouldn't be so many around)
 
For those complaining about the state of the game since fleet carriers, just think how bad the fleet carrier design must of been back in November last year after all that previous design time, for them to have to delay the realease for six months.

Even the designers noticed how bad that itineration was, so maybe we should be grateful we have what we have now.

Just a thought.
Nah, I'm not grateful for the game being trashed severely rather than totally.
 
The only place fleet carriers and the game in general appear to be trashed is on these forums, more specifically Dangerous Discussion. That's where all the sensitive disgruntled people gather, most of which don't play anymore. ;)
So please enlighten me as to how I can interpret

  • Galnet, CGs and IIs; gone.
  • Smuggling; entirely broken
  • Outbreak Massacres; broken
  • CZ Massacres; broken reward mechanisms
  • Thargoid CZs and storyline; gone
  • Research limpets; broken
  • Combat; rewards seal-clubbing novice NPCs instead of actual challenging fights
  • Procedural generation; useless as content generation in favour of static grinds[1]
  • Negative states; Essentially impossible to cause
  • Mission reward logic; non-sensical for a good portion of missions (e.g delivery missions, mining missions)
  • Some of the best mechanics in the game being "viewing-only" affairs, with no actual gameplay hooked onto them

... just to name a handful of the problems, as anything but severely broken?

Oh yeah, space legs and FCs are gonna fix all this... ahuh.

EDIT: Forgot the footnote:
[1] For a game priding itself on the procedurally generated and "emergent" content, 23,000 people wingbanging triple LTD hotspots for infinite lengths of time sure does seem static.
 
Last edited:
So please enlighten me as to how I can interpret

  • Galnet, CGs and IIs; gone.
  • Smuggling; entirely broken
  • Outbreak Massacres; broken
  • CZ Massacres; broken reward mechanisms
  • Thargoid CZs and storyline; gone
  • Research limpets; broken
  • Combat; rewards seal-clubbing novice NPCs instead of actual challenging fights
  • Procedural generation; useless as content generation in favour of static grinds[1]
  • Negative states; Essentially impossible to cause
  • Mission reward logic; non-sensical for a good portion of missions (e.g delivery missions, mining missions)
  • Some of the best mechanics in the game being "viewing-only" affairs, with no actual gameplay hooked onto them

... just to name a handful of the problems, as anything but severely broken?

Oh yeah, space legs and FCs are gonna fix all this... ahuh.

The P feature as well.
 
The P feature as well.
I intentionally didn't say that one, because I knew this would be your response ;)

1596799879525.png
 
Top Bottom