There is no question there's 100+ devs on ED.
Why does it take so long to fix game issues?
- Thread starter Audaxxx
- Start date
There is no question there's 100+ devs on ED.
I've found most players report bugs in a rant filled Dangerous Discussion post instead of in the actual bug reporting forum.
"I'm not going to report it properly, but I will moan about it not being fixed."
Plus, Hello Games lied openly and repeatedly to their customer base before NMS came out and is only starting to get good after years of development effort. Let's not hold them up as the paragon of the gaming world. They aren't.
BTW, There's a credits button on the menu of Elite. Clicking on that tells you who the "DEVS" are.
Last edited:
Wrong.
Surely this is was a point over the interpretation of the word 'developers'. If 'developers' is being taken as a catchall for all of the roles involved, then that fine, but that's not necessarily how everyone is interpreting it - some may be interpreting it akin to 'coders' or things along those lines, in which case there's a potential misconception about the numbers of developers.
But what you're saying is fact in your post is not.
Out of those X amount of people, there will have been a split between working on:
- the bits of beyond that have come so far
- 3.3 (which is due to be the biggest bit of beyond)
- The post beyond stuff - the things that Zac said went from Pre-Production to Production a while ago
Plus there is everything associated with the 'Run' of the existing game.
So, no, it isn't a fact that 100+ people worked on what came out over the last year.
Also, FD set out how Beyond would work, and that the biggest part of it would be in Chapter 4, and that Chapters 2 and 3 would be smaller content updates. So why the talk about what was delivered over the last year, when we are not yet even into Q4?
It's basically like having an arrangement for 20 of something to come in Q1, 80 in Q4, then reaching Q3 and crying foul because you've not had 100 delivered yet.
There is a question whether you read before you post. Direct quote here:
Don't test my patience, Bob, or you'll find I won't be paying attention to you.
There's a parallel to be found there with my attitude towards the game currently.
__
I'm aware that not all the team is working on only 1 thing at any given time.
That's no different from any other team making a thing any where else. Which means it's not a sufficient excuse.
Additionally, if it is true that 100+ people were not in fact working on the past year's worth of content, then that makes Zac's post disingenuous and insincere. Which would be akin to you telling me to not have faith in what he says, which means not having faith in the Fdev team whom he is speaking for.
Either way you cut this cheese, it still stinks.
And I really don't think a full year's worth of content and updates should be measured by what appears in the final of four quarters.
Nobody goes to NMS and says that the past two years have been awesome because of what appeared in their latest big update.
Maybe Q4 will actually contain the core base improvements that were advertised, I don't know. But according to what Zac indicated, none of the things mentioned address existing core game issues.
Copy pasta from the 2018 Roadmap thread
This is the largest update of the Beyond series, with major core improvements and additions:
Squadrons
- For our first look at Squadrons we are going to cover the basics of what a Squadron is, how you create or join one and what core functionality a Squadron will provide.
Now, it’s worth mentioning that these are initial ideas and subject to change before the Q4 update (which introduces Squadrons). - What is a Squadron?
- How do I create a Squadron?
- How do I find/join a Squadron?
- Can I leave a Squadron?
- The Squadron hierarchy and privileges:
- What privileges can the leader set?
- Squadron communication
- The Fleet Carrier (Delayed)
- Squadrons and factions
- Images: Possible Squadrons Group Comms UI from the 3.1 launch trailer.
Fleet Carriers (Delayed)
Mining 2.0
- This update to mining will cover new ways for miners to interact with asteroids and gain resources from them. It’s worth mentioning early that this will be an additive update, we will not be taking away any of the current gameplay for miners. The standard mining laser will maintain its functionality on all asteroids, as will the prospector limpet (although this will also be gaining additional functionality).
- New stuff:
- There will be 3 new types of resource “deposits” available to find in rings/belts:
- Surface – dense areas of material on the surface of particular asteroids, needing to be carefully broken off to recover
- Sub-surface – high-yield deposits that sit just below the surface of an asteroid, requiring blasting charges to dig out
- Deep core – an asteroid with a treasure trove of resources at its core, needing to be cracked open to reach
- Each of these will provide increasingly better rewards/materials as a return for the increase in challenge and time
- Each of these will be distributed within asteroid fields at a tiered rarity; surface being the most common, sub-surface being less so and deep core being the hardest to find
- New modules will be available to mine these new deposit types, allowing us to introduce new gameplay based around each
- Discovering and interacting with these deposits will be aided by using a new HUD mode called “Analysis Mode” and a new active scanner
- Finally, the Prospector Limpet will be getting a small update within analysis mode, to help locate and highlight areas of interest on asteroids
The idea is to flesh out the role of the miner allowing room to specialise as well as giving options for the more casual mining participant. - Hunting Asteroids
To understand the new concepts, we’ll run through the flow of finding the asteroids with these new deposit types on. They will not be entirely visible when first entering an asteroid field, especially at range, and in most cases they will require some amount of investigation to locate. - Analysis modeThe first thing to talk about is Analysis Mode, a new HUD mode allowing players to locate these new deposits, as well as granting access to all the new modules and functionality.
- Every ship will automatically gain this mode, no purchase or module is required to use it
- Quickly switches between modes, so players can quickly adapt to situations as they arise
- Will allow space for new HUD elements and avoid cluttering up the current cockpit HUD
This mode is still somewhat in flux at the moment (it’s a big change), so this is just a preview of the idea. Hopefully we’ll be able to fill in more details at a later date. - Medium range active scanner
Once in Analysis Mode, the first new mining module is the Medium Range Active Scanner (MRA Scanner). This scanner will allow players to locate deposits within an asteroid field:- Available in Analysis Mode
- On triggering, it will fire out a scanning pulse from your ship, passing over any asteroids within range
- Any asteroids in range that contain any of the 3 new types of deposit will be highlighted as the pulse passes over it
- The highlights glow size will be defined by the distance from the ship; the further away the larger, more diffuse the glow, the closer the more focused and precise it will become
The MRA Scanner is created with an eye to introducing an amount of interpretive game play. Miners should be able to learn to interpret the information in this view, allowing them to become more effective over time. - Prospector limpet changes
Once a deposit has been located, getting more information and targeting data requires a Prospector Limpet to be used. Firing one into an asteroid will do the following:- Deposits and fissures (more on these later) will become targetable by your ship
- Any deposits will be highlighted and any associated target elements/useful information will become available
- Current prospector functionality will still be available
This is the only way to gain extra knowledge on particular deposit types, more on this later. - Extraction Process
- Deposit type: surface
- Deposit type: sub-surface
- Deposit type: deep core
- Images: Asteroid Deposit #1 / Asteroid Deposit #2 / Cracked Asteroid / Concept Art (Frontier Expo 2017)
- Video: Animation of cracked asteroids
- Dev Comments: Link
Exploration
- Sensor Probes (launched from the Detailed Surface Scanner, which will retain its old functionality as well)
- Images: Planetary Scan / Planetary Ring Scan
- Sensor Probes will travel in Supercruise
- When sent towards planets or rings, the probes will follow a partial guided orbit
- They have Supercruise assisted flight to allow them to arc towards the target body
- When close to the surface, they will deploy a complicated sensor array which will start collating data from a large area
- Essentially paint coverage on the body, then the data is all fed back to us
- Probes are affected by gravity, which will allow us to do trickshots and be more efficient with covering the surface
- Probes can be synthesized
- Mechanical rewards for doing a scan better
- Every crew member will be able to use it at the same time, including the helm
- Appropriate rewards for crew members
- Eliminate the need to eyeball planets. Be better informed before we travel to a planet.
- Interesting sites on planets will be marked or mentioned in the Codex (e.g. Thargoid imprints, Guardian relics, fields of brain trees)
- The galaxy will be seeded with new unique things to find, split in different categories (Geologic, Biologic, Phenomena)
- These discoveries can be individual things or the environment itself
- These can be beneficial or harmful
- Video: Cloud & Lightning Phenomenon
- The galaxy will be divided in regions to help us plot, locate and log discoveries in the Codex
- Focus Feedback Discussion planned to start on the 18th of June (Postponed)
The Codex
- An archive that logs our exploration achievements and acts as a repository for game lore. It will log our discoveries and will also act as an encyclopedia, giving more depth and context to the things we find. And also possibly hinting at other things that we might be able to find out there.
- Focus Feedback Discussion planned to start on the 18th of June (Postponed)
Planetary Tech (Delayed)
Improved Lighting Model
- New adaptive lighting and color grading:
- Space: Current / + Adaptive / + Color Grade
- Planetary: Current / + Adaptive / + Color Grade
- Hangar: Current / + Adaptive / + Color Grade
- Earth-like: Current / + Adaptive / + Color Grade
- Dev Comments:
I repeat myself.
Nothing, and I mean nothing, about the above addresses existing core game issues.
Blasting a unnecessary copy-pasta-wall'o'text at me with unpertinent details about the content that he did mention already (and therefore I've clearly already seen) that have nothing to do with this doesn't make your points more valid.
Your post can be summed up with just four words:
- Squadrons (no longer in the update!)
- Mining
- Exploration
- Codex
If you have to next question me what "existing core games issues" means, then I have to question whether you do actually read all the posts that answer that both here and on reddit. I would *assume*, given your forum presence in general, that you ought to know that. You could even refer to my signature.
edit: I will add, what he did mention is coming, aren't inherently bad things. They're neat. But as usual...they miss the mark.
Last edited:
The Mining and Exploration changes improve both of those professions, the latter of which is a core activity in the game.
"Existing core games issues" means different things to different people. Some want core professions like Exploration, Mining, Smuggling, Bounty Hunting, etc improving. Others would prefer to see the later additions like Powerplay, CQC, Multicrew, etc receive focus. Others still would prioritise networking, matchmaking, full crossplay, and PSVR support. There is vocal demand for large BGS improvements and more support for emergent, competitive gameplay. Immersion is high on some players' lists, NPC persistence, and the different game features being more closely tied together.
Different strokes for different folks. There are many features in the game, therefore many areas for FDev to improve.
They're not all that different, you can often find different folks saying the same thing about the same features and areas.
Mining and Exploration are what I'd call the few areas of the game that are actually pretty fine as-is. Yes, improvements to them are *welcome*, and have been called for for *years* during which they've been neglected, but they are not what I'd expected when I heard "Core game fixes and improvements" because, despite the neglect, they are still quite solid.
Combat (consistency and balance, namely; I'm not referring to flight modeling so much here), Engineers, Powerplay, Supercruise (USS baloney + taking a bit too long to traverse), Horizons (which, I mostly mean rock-pew-pew-vacuuming in particular, but when are we gonna get other SRV types and such?), CQC, Superpower Ranking, Multicrew & SLFs - these are all things that on the whole are *not* fine as-is.
(I mean, sure, Supercruise isn't exactly breaking anybody's game but it's something that most folks sort of put up with rather than enjoy. So I think it stands that it could use a lot of improvement. Sort of the same thing going on with Horizons stuff.)
The BGS is definitely a 'core game' item; I'll agree that the BGS, outside of providing basic needs for missions and USS finding, is probably not ideal as-is and could use improvements. Folks more dedicated and smarter than I have posted on the matter considerably in the past couple of years - and of any point of development, by the sounds of what this year was supposed to be, this would have been the time to expect it, no?
Network and matchmaking improvements are things I'd expect to continually receive attention over time - I wouldn't call these "core game" aspects, they're just naturally part of being an online multiplayer game - 'background stuff', as it were.
Full crossplay is a neat dream, but I'm uncertain of its future in the face of Microsoft and Sony - I reckon that ball is in their court at least half the time if not more, and that means time delays, red tape, and so on. If it's being done by other games currently (a topic I'm unaware of), then sure, it's a realizable dream, but like the network & matchmaking improvements, it's an enhancement rather than a core part of the game.
PSVR is pretty important, I'm sure, if you're a PS4 user.
So I'd expect that to be an ongoing side-project sort of deal that hopefully can be accomplished as soon as is practical.NPC persistence and other new features are also important, but not as important as making sure that this other stuff that's already in the game is solid and able to provide a good, fun foundation for other new things to be attached to. (Warframe, as an example, I feel is making a long-term mistake by not worrying about their foundations as much as they ought to.)
Last edited:
Ok, so for Zac's latest post specifically, he talks about "being able to dedicate a full development team (over 100 people!) for a full year of free content".
So for the sake of arguement let's consider that as purely just the people working on the new things that are part of Beyond (or were intended to be part of Beyond but have been postponed).
The point remains that's the amount of people working on this year's content, not the amount of people working on the content which has come out over the last year.
Given what was set out for Beyond, it would mean that a good percentage of those people would be working on Q4 stuff for most of the year.
It is not a 100 person-year / 4 per Chapter model. It is a model where a substantial amount of the person-years is towards Chapter 4.
To use an analogy, if you had a revenue forecast which was:
Q1 - 100K
Q2 - 50K
Q3 - 50K
Q4 - 300K
At Q3 would you consider it a valid criticism of performance the revenue for the year so far hadn't been 375K?
If you disagree with the delivery model that's fine, but I really don't think it's valid to criticise delivery against the model at this point of the year on the grounds that it's not matching the amount of delivery you would expect from a completely different delivery model.
Except that there is no conceivable way that this statement can be true.
There can't possibly be "over 100 people" working on Elite for a full year when apparently no one on that team could find the time to test the Guardian FSD booster even once before it went live. We are supposed to believe that with "over 100 people" on their "full development team" they still managed to release that feature in a fundamentally broken state? What's worse is that it also took them nearly three months to fix it. That should not be possible with 100 people working on their team for a full year.
It's not actually a "full year" of free content when they have been waiting until Q4 to release anything substantial in terms of content other than more meaningless grind for the Q2 and Q3 releases. We have been waiting until Q4 for the majority of that "content" to materialize and now the most important features are being cut out entirely.
It's also not accurate to emphasise that it's "free content" when they cut the most anticipated features like Fleet Carriers and will almost certainly try to charge us for that content as some type of future paid DLC release. We had a very clear promise from FD of specific features being developed as free content for Beyond and they have failed to deliver the most important features. Even if they do eventually develop Fleet Carriers they will not only be massively delayed we will actually be expected to pay for them. Zac was asked this question multiple times and managed to avoid answering it directly which tells us that anything they do develop after Beyond will be paid DLC.
This was FD's last chance to show that they could reinvest in Elite and build a solid foundation for the game going forward. Instead we've gotten more grind and broken promises.
Last edited:
Even after a year they will delay some of the promises for Q4. Why am I not surprised?
Development of this game is a joke. Period. Pure example of over-promised and under-delivered mess. That's the worst thing you can do in any job you take. The worst business practices and decisions follow this game almost since the beginning.
Development of this game is a joke. Period. Pure example of over-promised and under-delivered mess. That's the worst thing you can do in any job you take. The worst business practices and decisions follow this game almost since the beginning.
Re the now age old question of just how many FD employ on ED.
I am now convinced that for some here, if they received a personal invitation from DB himself to visit the HQ, including return air fare, limo from the airport to the facility, guided tour of the complex, one on one introductions to all the staff there would only be one outcome. They would jump on here and tell all how FD lied to them, all the staff were actors, all the furniture, the computers, were bought in just to cover up the fact no one works on the game.
I am now convinced that for some here, if they received a personal invitation from DB himself to visit the HQ, including return air fare, limo from the airport to the facility, guided tour of the complex, one on one introductions to all the staff there would only be one outcome. They would jump on here and tell all how FD lied to them, all the staff were actors, all the furniture, the computers, were bought in just to cover up the fact no one works on the game.
What FD has told us about there being "over 100 people" working on Elite for a "full year" cannot possibly be true based on the quality and quantity of work that we've seen during Beyond. It is just not even remotely possible that those claims could possibly be accurate.
The issue isn't that "no one" works on the game, I'm sure that there are at least a few devs responsible for pushing out buggy and broken features (i.e., Guardian FSD booster), poorly-designed ship cosmetics (i.e., ship paints that can't manage straight lines) and rushed ship variants consisting of adding a spoiler and mismatched hardpoints (i.e., Crusader).
i am sure there are 100+ working on Elite Dangerous.
but for us it looks like there are half of them only working in PR and management, while only one in the QA department.
nah, i think the quality drop we player experience is due to the multiplatform nature of the game, and that all the updates are going through the verification process of two different consoles.
i wonder how much staff that binds...
but for us it looks like there are half of them only working in PR and management, while only one in the QA department.
nah, i think the quality drop we player experience is due to the multiplatform nature of the game, and that all the updates are going through the verification process of two different consoles.
i wonder how much staff that binds...
I read it 100+ staff on ED dev staff are commonly referred to as dev's therefore 100+ dev's. It's really simple.
I think you mean zero people in the QA department. Even a single individual assigned to QA testing could have tested the Guardian FSD booster at least once before it was launched in a completely broken and unusable state.
Sorry, but the problems we've seen having nothing to do with whether the game is being developed for consoles. The broken Guardian FSD booster, terrible paint quality (i.e., their digital artists can't seem to draw straight lines) and severe clipping issues with the Crusader's hardpoints are inexcusable problems that quite simply should not have been launched in the state they were in. They represent sloppy, lazy work that is being done to an extremely low standard and can't possibly represent an honest work product from a development team consisting of "over 100 people".
The Tomb Raider series is an excellent example of cross-platform games done right. These games are on par, at least visually, to exclusive games like the Uncharted series (I play on PS4). Elite Dangerous, on the other hand, is obviously not optimized for my console, both in regards to visuals and the number of console-specific bugs. It very much feels like the game is developed for the PC and then sent to the chop-shop to make work on the consoles, not the other way around.
Last edited:
yeah, i get that feeling sometimes too.
like everytime i log into the game after a patch, i load that turreted flechette launcher into my ship, invite my friend for the test and we see that the turret doesn't rotate.
the broken hardpoint covers of the chieftain variants are another example of rather obvious bugs that someone could have seen that.
the thing with the consoles is, that some updates feel like back in the days when they had to send games to the CD-production and couldn't do anything about bugs that are discovered between that time and the actual release...
I already covered parts of this in the post you replied to, so it doesn't particularly sound like you're replying to my post itself, but rather just giving your view on Zac's statement.
Given that it'd be good to have a sense check before proceeding.
So, when you say:
Are you saying:
- There is no conceivable way other than the one I went through in the post you replied to?
- What I went through is inconceivable to you?
- You just don't agree with what I'd said?
- You just didn't really read through what I'd said?
- Something else?
Regardless, I did run through it in the post you replied to and hence, there very much is a conceivable way it can be true.
(I should also add, just for clarity, that when I say conceivable, I do not in any way mean 'at the outer limits of conceivability'.)