MOTIVATION: Estimated time of the co-existence of the current and new power systems?

[DeepspaceMechanic]

As always, sorry if this is either a re-post or at the wrong place.
Also, please tell if I missed something official relevant to this.



I think that an official estimation/promise of the amount of time for which the current and the upcoming power systems will co-exist would remedy much of the current demotivation of the community.


The way I imagine most players' mindset is: "I have this idea of a cool potential project / this promising work-in-progress ship, but I don't want to start/continue knowing that it will be unusable in X months from now. I'll wait instead for the release/balancing of the new power system."

The "X" is the key. Not having a clue about the rough number is the problem, I believe. Some might choose to do some building if they would have an approximate date until which their creation would be perfectly usable.

Some might say it doesn't worth making something predestined to uselessness in eg. 5-6 months (if they don't refit it), while the same person might say it's worth making it if it still has perhaps a full year of life.



Maybe the dev team should make a promise, something like "We'll remove the old system only after a full year after the release of the 2.0 prototype". Again, please tell if this promise already happened somewhere

 

[PLIX]

We need answers criss

Also I'm working on just the hulls and interiors and stockpiling system less ships till the update

 

[jayman38]

On the surface, this looks like a good suggestion.

However, inevitably, introducing heavy features, not to mention phasing out original mechanics always seem to take much longer than expected. That means following this suggestion creates all kinds of expectations that the player base expects Schine to adhere to, and they simply can't, not knowing what will come down the line. We've seen plenty of promised features that had to be delayed while they worked on the underlying support features.

Broken estimates will cause the same kind of problem, and will further erode trust in the dev team's updates.

What if they over-estimate the time needed? Uh-oh.... Now they have to either introduce a heavy feature that is ready early (riots and disgust!) or they have to figure out some sort of "filler" feature, to pad the time until they introduce the heavy feature on-time.

If you are still interested in an estimate, which poison do you think the community would prefer, and which poison would benefit them the most? (The two things, preference and benefit, are not necessarily served by the same decision.)
1. Delay disappointment
2. Early Surprises

 

[ZektorSK]

Then build space stations, logic creations, rail creations... Or all three at once :D... I don't get why people are making excuses of the type: "I am waiting for the next update"

 

[DeepspaceMechanic]

Then build space stations, logic creations, rail creations... Or all three at once :D... I don't get why people are making excuses of the type: "I am waiting for the next update"

Right, exactly what I've been doing.
[doublepost=1501410863,1501410697][/doublepost]

On the surface, this looks like a good suggestion

I myself am not necessarily one of the demotivated majority(?), I kept on building, and would only like to see some more life around here.

So I should approach this dispassionatly, but I have a hard time appreciating the "riots, disgust, poison" metaphors (I know there are a lot of flamy infantiles out there, but, with all due respect, why replicate their negativity if a point can be made without it, in sync with one's own attitude?)

I might very well be missing something obvious for some reason, but for me it seems like a promise (I'll admit, shouldn't have called it an "estimate") of a long delay between the introduction of the yet-to-be-balanced Power 2.0 and the removal of the current system can only be beneficial.

As it stands now, there are lots of ideas of potential new projects, and lots of promising work-in-progress, that have a sense of futility to them in the eyes of their creators, due to two factors: the knowledge that they will become useless in time + a lack of knowledge of an approximate date of this transition into obsolescence (it goes without saying that most builders won't want to refit most of their old stuff).

One might not want to start/continue one's home-made wooden sailboat hobby-project if one knew he has a terminal illness that can do its thing in... who knows... maybe shortly. The same person might find a lot of joy in that project if he knew there's still 5 years left; the higher the number, the lesser the sense of futility, I think.

The thing I need even more clarification about (genuine curiosity), is the supposed detrimental effect of releasing a heavy feature before schedule. You wrote that it would be harmful to the community, not the game's development - what's bad about an early surprise?


Sorry for the length, it's real OCD, and also, I really appreciate your minimal but regular positvie feedback on my CC posts, thank you!

 

[Dr. Whammy]

While I too am chomping at the bit, (yes; I know I spelled it wrong...), I think that a request for promises and estimates is a bit unrealistic. You cannot predict how long it will take to make software and it's not like we are coding the game for them. On the other hand, I think the Schine team should be a lot more forthcoming with regard to their progress on the power update.

Seriously; they basically said... "Sooner or later, we're gonna overhaul the power system and it's going to break literally everything you own..." They didn't say when. They didn't say whether or not the change would be optional, or failing that; what kind of grace period we'd have with the old system. They didn't even say, "Hey everyone, we have/have not decided on how we're going to proceed with this update.

Instead, they gave us an ominous dark cloud and a massive disincentive to build ships. Say whatever you want about patience and it being their game. The fact remains that most of our players have real jobs and responsibilities. We may not have the time and/or patience to build, refit and then eventually, rebuild the same ships repeatedly, based on a vague description of a PENDING game-breaking update.

I think the best move Schine could make at this stage, with regard to player activity would be to post something (anything) about the power update in each of their news posts, dev blogs and releases. Even the words "we haven't decided yet" is better than nothing at all.

 

[jayman38]

...
I myself am not necessarily one of the demotivated majority(?), I kept on building, and would only like to see some more life around here.

Excellent! I am also concerned, not only about the lack of activity on the forums, but also the lack of original suggestions, of which this is an original suggestion. (Most popular suggestions seem to be focused only on the latest updates, not the overall future of the game.)

So I should approach this dispassionatly, but I have a hard time appreciating the "riots, disgust, poison" metaphors (I know there are a lot of flamy infantiles out there, but, with all due respect, why replicate their negativity if a point can be made without it, in sync with one's own attitude?)

I absolutely cannot make my point without those key words. You see, "riot" and disgust" are the words that accurately describe some of the community members when they "throw a tantrum" and refuse to play the game... Despite the fact that there is no timeframe on the changes. The attitude doesn't really make a lot of sense to me, but there's a lot of the same attitude there that is present in wild sports fans when they overturn cars and set them on fire after a defeat (and sometimes after a victory). I carefully selected "poison", because for these same community members, they will not be adequately satisfied with either an overestimate or an underestimate. And isn't this suggestion all about calming the masses, so that they don't "riot"? However, in either case, more detailed estimates will prove to be "poison" for these players, because it won't really resolve anything for those vocal players.

I might very well be missing something obvious for some reason, but for me it seems like a promise (I'll admit, shouldn't have called it an "estimate") of a long delay between the introduction of the yet-to-be-balanced Power 2.0 and the removal of the current system can only be beneficial.

"Estimate" "Promise" "Approximation" "Reckoning". It doesn't matter what it's called, or how "firm" or "loose" it is supposed to be. The community at large will always treat these things as hard promises, and will start trouble if there is the slightest deviation. Schine members have repeatedly talked about how they don't like to give estimates or even reveal ideas for gameplay mechanics, such as new power systems or other "hidden ideas", specifically for this reason.

As it stands now, there are lots of ideas of potential new projects, and lots of promising work-in-progress, that have a sense of futility to them in the eyes of their creators, due to two factors: the knowledge that they will become useless in time + a lack of knowledge of an approximate date of this transition into obsolescence (it goes without saying that most builders won't want to refit most of their old stuff).

One might not want to start/continue one's home-made wooden sailboat hobby-project if one knew he has a terminal illness that can do its thing in... who knows... maybe shortly. The same person might find a lot of joy in that project if he knew there's still 5 years left; the higher the number, the lesser the sense of futility, I think.

The thing I need even more clarification about (genuine curiosity), is the supposed detrimental effect of releasing a heavy feature before schedule. You wrote that it would be harmful to the community, not the game's development - what's bad about an early surprise?

An early surprise will only be a problem for the community, who would in turn, make a ruckus to bother the dev team. The dev team would inevitably have to take time out to address these vocal community members. That's where an early surprise would effect the development. Crazy, right?

Again, I don't understand the attitude regarding the game, since these proposed changes do not yet have any kind of timeframe or even verification that this will certainly be implemented. It's likely, but not verified. So in this case, there is no real solid diagnosis of a terminal disease of an imminent obsolescence of the existing power system. Just the possibility that the test results might come back terminal. With just the possibility, I would think it would light a fire under players to finish current projects (completely finish, not just a shell). That's a good illustration of why I just can't understand the larger community's "futility". It seems like seeing a mole grow a little bigger and just giving up on life, because you are sure you have aggressive cancer. They should keep building out those sailboats at a normal pace until the diagnosis comes through....

Sorry for the length, it's real OCD, and also, I really appreciate your minimal but regular positvie feedback on my CC posts, thank you!

Good, original content should always be appreciated. I can't leave a more in-depth review, because I have been busy with a medium-sized project in Starmade, and haven't really taken the time to import any new designs and play with them. Nevertheless, you are posting good stuff.

 

[DeepspaceMechanic]

I think that a request for promises and estimates is a bit unrealistic. You cannot predict how long it will take to make software

I might have put things a little ambiguously, it happens sometimes, but to clarify, I wasn't trying to suggest an estimate of the Power 2.0 release date, but the minimal length of time for which they intend to keep the current system too (after the 2.0 system is balanced enough).
[doublepost=1501441285,1501440774][/doublepost]

I carefully selected "poison", because for these same community members, they will not be adequately satisfied with either an overestimate or an underestimate.

Thank you for the reply. You can disregard my problem with the previous phrasing. It's just that, with the lack of a tone of voice in text, I mistakenly identified an accusatory undertone mostly in the "poison" part (I assumed that the word was chosen to try to indicate how very damaging my suggestion was, which felt unfair, but I won't make these assumption from now).

And isn't this suggestion all about calming the masses, so that they don't "riot"?

Actually, I'm not active enough around the forums to be able to tell which attitudes are the most prevalent in the community, so I wanted to suggest something to remedy simple apathy instead of the fiery outbursts you mentioned. I imagined cases in which people have some visions in their free time about things to build, but then bring themselves down by thinking that their creations would become obsolete "shortly". Some people might assume, probably falsely, that the time until the Power 2.0 update, plus the P1-P2 co-existence period will be short, after which P1-powered structures will become "useless", at least in every of the post-P1 versions of the game, if not refitted.

This apathy/demotivation is a problem only in this pre-P2 time period, of course, the end of which really can't be estimated, since we can't know when will there be a good enough P2 prototype. But a promise about the length of the P1-P2 co-existence period would be straight forward: in an unreasonable extreme scenario they could promise that it will last forever, by choosing to keep the current system too (I would never ask for that), while in a more reasonable case they could promise that the complete definite removal of P1 will happen AT LEAST say 10 month after P2 sees the light of day.

So if the team wouldn't be able to finalize P2 in 10 months, P1-powered creations would live a little longer, while if they would manage to balance it to a good enough degree before the 10 months have passed... well, I hit my ceiling at this point, I can't see a problem with either outcome. But I suppose if I was more familiar with the complaining player type you mentioned, then I'd reason along entirely different lines.

That's where an early surprise would effect the development. Crazy, right?

Right, now I can see where you are coming from, the psychiatric aspects of game development are important as well, so true.

Good, original content should always be appreciated. I can't leave a more in-depth review, because I have been busy with a medium-sized project in Starmade, and haven't really taken the time to import any new designs and play with them. Nevertheless, you are posting good stuff.

Thank you for the kind words, it's always nice to see when others are able to appreciate these little things too, I'll go and check out your CC content tomorrow.

 

[jayman38]

Thank you for the reply. You can disregard my problem with the previous phrasing. It's just that, with the lack of a tone of voice in text, I mistakenly identified an accusatory undertone mostly in the "poison" part (I assumed that the word was chosen to try to indicate how very damaging my suggestion was, which felt unfair, but I won't make these assumption from now).

It's all too easy to misunderstand intent online. Thanks for understanding.

Actually, I'm not active enough around the forums to be able to tell which attitudes are the most prevalent in the community, so I wanted to suggest something to remedy simple apathy instead of the fiery outbursts you mentioned. I imagined cases in which people have some visions in their free time about things to build, but then bring themselves down by thinking that their creations would become obsolete "shortly". Some people might assume, probably falsely, that the time until the Power 2.0 update, plus the P1-P2 co-existence period will be short, after which P1-powered structures will become "useless", at least in every of the post-P1 versions of the game, if not refitted.

This apathy/demotivation is a problem only in this pre-P2 time period, of course, the end of which really can't be estimated, since we can't know when will there be a good enough P2 prototype. But a promise about the length of the P1-P2 co-existence period would be straight forward: in an unreasonable extreme scenario they could promise that it will last forever, by choosing to keep the current system too (I would never ask for that), while in a more reasonable case they could promise that the complete definite removal of P1 will happen AT LEAST say 10 month after P2 sees the light of day.

So if the team wouldn't be able to finalize P2 in 10 months, P1-powered creations would live a little longer, while if they would manage to balance it to a good enough degree before the 10 months have passed... well, I hit my ceiling at this point, I can't see a problem with either outcome. But I suppose if I was more familiar with the complaining player type you mentioned, then I'd reason along entirely different lines.

Right, now I can see where you are coming from, the psychiatric aspects of game development are important as well, so true.
....

As always, different people will have different reactions. Not everyone has a "riot" attitude, naturally, but the more vocal ones can influence others, and make the dev team think that everyone feels such a way, simply because few others are talking.

I suspect that the P1 retirement will depend entirely upon the community's reaction to P2 and community comments on the fate of P1. It may never go away entirely, in favor of allowing old designs to remain available for use. It's not quite like the chunk32 update, where the old was completely replaced by the new.

The kicker is that everyone, even me, suspects that P2 will supercede P1 completely due to changes in efficiency and other benefits, which will effect the design of all power-dependent systems (larger guns that use more power, and so on), so I think P1 retirement will be a non-issue as most players scramble to make more efficient ships with P2, leaving P1 unused (poor P1).

 

[Lord_Greyscale]

I'm thinking/hoping it'll wind up more like the rails update, note how we still have the old docking system, and it works. (and you can even toggle a .cfg option to allow you, the player, to use them)

They simply "aren't supported", in that nothing is being programmed/coded to work with them. (all the new stuff if for rails only, the very first example was shipyards not being able to use "old docking" and "rail docking" on the same ship at the same time.) and that the .cfg option defaults to off, so that you can't dock to them.

Again, the important thing here is that the old system is still in the game, and still works, nearly a year after its "replacement" was put in.
(given all the default stations, most of which use old docking, I suspect it'll persist for a few more years.)

 

[DeepspaceMechanic]

I suspect that the P1 retirement will depend entirely upon the community's reaction to P2 and community comments on the fate of P1. It may never go away entirely, in favor of allowing old designs to remain available for use. It's not quite like the chunk32 update, where the old was completely replaced by the new.

Agreed, good points. We'll see how things will work out, I'm sure the fun of working with the new system will compensate quite a lot.

(As a side note, I feel a need to clarify a little ironic mistake I made in my last reply - I realized that "hit my ceiling" has nothing to do with what I wanted to express, non-native speakers of English like me should be more careful not to misuse these expressions/idioms)
[doublepost=1501492693,1501492499][/doublepost]

Again, the important thing here is that the old system is still in the game, and still works, nearly a year after its "replacement" was put in.
(given all the default stations, most of which use old docking, I suspect it'll persist for a few more years.)

Good point, I had a comforting thought about exactly that rail system example myself.