January 2017 preliminaries

3-4?

Treat us like project managers. 

We don't need the nitty gritty compiler settings, but we would like to know what decisions are being made and why.

I also agree 3-4

So we're not going to go into talks about how to align data structures to better align with the CPU cache pipeline?

Anything you share with us is going to get met with some amount of FUD (Fear/Uncertainty/Doubt).

Your team can help combat some of that by clarifying some of the details that you share in the update. A good example was how Andrew clarified the distinction between world biome types (6-9) and the number of world variants (52). These types of clarifications are needed to help break us out of our assumptions that we make due to lack of data.

(I also appreciated your timely reply to my interview thread.)

My advice would be to keep the discussion at a project manager level (3-4) and then circle back to us in a few days to clarify some of our discussions.

Is that an example of a 3-4?

I don't know how many people would care about the CPU end of things except as to how they pertain to AI or saving/loading.

Graphics, though...

I'm probably closer to a 3-2, but that's also because I'd like to know, for example, if the game will run better on a CPU with multithreaded cores, or if I'll need to clock my RAM up for some ungodly reason.

I am good with the 3-4 range. I think most everyone who is active on the forums want more details than eve that. Then there are the founders who aren't active. I assume many of them just wanted the pre-order. Anyways, I have no idea if they even check the vault or what their reaction would be.

I have to agree on the requirement part.  I'd like to know if a 6-core CPU with hyper threading is going to have better performance than a 4-core with hyper threading.  I also would like to know how much RAM I should have for recommended and if 4 GB VRAM is enough.  I wouldn't know enough about programming to discuss anything lower than maybe a 3.  I also would want to know if I would need to turn on the overclock on my CPU for performance increases.

I'll echo what most people here say - I'm not a computer programmer, so I don't need to know about all the tech details. But I'd sure like to be more involved with the discussion of the general direction the game is going - and to let us all know how we've specifically affected the development so far. Any chance you could give us some of that knowledge? That was fun about the Super Melee discussion - intense debate both internally, and with us on here, and I feel like you guys actually weighed our input and made decisions based on how we reacted over time. More of that in the update - does that make sense?

So please, non-technically, sausage-factory us up! Let us discuss, then like IBNobody said, clarify, and then next month, tell us how we - as founders - helped you guys make up your minds. 

That would be excellent.

This is English forum. Please, keep your Programanese to your home. Ok? Thanx. 

The discussion about what would SCO run better on is interesting, but irrelevant. Stardock should focus game optimization on the median PC power which they already know (not the first rodeo?). Or should know.

I'm personally interested in Stardock artists demagoguery and programmers + designers push-backs. I don't know if this discussion will be beneficial for the game, but it'll certainly keep us occupied 'till the Feb 28.

I like the data details to learn more about the industry, but i'm not down for a simpler version

i like both, what i want is you guys to involve us more, i check it here everyday, just don't comment much because i don't see much use for it (yet)

also, do what its easier for you! because if it's easier, it will have more of it

I'm going to say 7, however, I feel you would find the most sincere answers to this question if the team just posed specific questions about the content we get to see, rather than leaving things open-ended as they generally have been. You would find out what people are most interested in organically if you ask direct questions survey-style and collect the answers provided. I am sure there are some who can provide technical insight if prompted to, but it shouldn't be expected of anyone. I think it would probably also take much less time for the project leads to be asking questions closer to "10" than to "1" because they won't have to spend any additional time explaining things that may be above the concerns or technical knowledge level of most fans.

I'm not terribly worried about the technical minutia of how software is written as I am with knowing more about the kinds of new gameplay concepts under consideration; much less concerned with how graphics get rendered or the CPU gets utilized than I am with how the game expands on the original ideas with something new, but I don't even know what's really on the table besides the variety of planet types so far. Even that feels like something we have little say in and is really just something we have to accept and wait on. Why not show us some side-by-side concepts illustrating what the team is trying to decide between, and ask us to vote for our preference and explain why?

A lot of us don't know whether what we're seeing and commenting on is a non-negotiable idea that's been set in stone versus something we can actually have a say in, so the threads basically become a free for all because there's no bullet list of discussion topics and very few acknowledgements from the project leads. I know they are plenty busy, but if you ask people specific and direct questions about the stuff we get to see, I'm confident you will get insightful answers that will end up falling all over that 1-10 scale. You could say that scale goes both ways.

I think a 3-4 range is good with a little behind the scenes of features that are going to make it or not and why. Development time/PC requirements.

I think you should leave the technical stuff completely out of it, you don't want to reveal story either and there is no reason to.  The point of having a group of gamers who's opinions you trust is to get more information for yourself about things you are unsure of.  Don't think of terms of what the founders might want to see, but what you want to know.  So, just as a random example, if you are comfortable with super melee but not sure about the lander game... ask the founders about the aspects of the lander game you want to hear more people's opinions on.

This is nowhere as serious as what we used to do, people don't normally take games as serious as we did, but the same concepts still apply in a more casual "opinion focus group" kind of way.  I think you should be using your founders programs as a kind of, what you guy's call a focus group, that you regularly use to get a greater number of opinions on aspects of how the game actually works in the end to the player.

The technical stuff really isn't relevant, this kind of group is all about the game.

1

Those who are not technical will either learn something or be too lazy to learn.

Either way not a bad thing

I'm fascinated by the whole process.

I don't need to know about who likes milk and sugar with their coffee but the process of making a game enlightens me concerning issues other developers might have in their projects.

So any information about the engine,art,story,music and thoughts behind it all are all welcomed by me.I think these particular topics would be of more interest to the majority of people.But I may be wrong.

But as well a hint to the story is better than spoilers.

I still like the original girl...

On the interface screen with her it says "...you are ordered not to die..."  You should change that to the classic phrase that real-world military types will recognize "... you do not have permission to die..."

3-4 for me as well,

I think the team has been doing a great job keeping the founders in the loop and explaining why certain decision were made.  E.G., the explanation between why Nitrous Engine was chosen for SC was very insightful.

Having written a (tiny) 3D engine myself during study time more than 10 years ago, I'd be tempted to give "1" as answer because I'm interested in this (not at all boring ) stuff.

But since it should be also fun to read for people who bought the founders edition just to play Star Control and support it, I think somewhere in the 3-5 range would be best.

So what level do you feel you wrote that update for, Brad?

It felt fairly managerial to me, which is what I asked for. Thumbs up.

But what feedback do you want from us this month?

Honestly I'd say give us a 3-6 area.

Treat us like we're minor share holders, where our feedback is welcomed but we don't have the power to nail your feet to the floor in front of your desk to fix things we don't like.

Unfortunately either way complaints will be given either via the spectrum demanding more in depth info, or the other end thinking you're machine gunning made up technical terms to confuse them.

The important question is, honestly how are you and your team feeling about the project and the direction it's taking?  A happy motivated team can take a steaming pile of a turd and turn it into a masterpiece... where a stressed unmotivated team under the lash of the whip of investors could turn an established masterpiece into a steaming pile-o poo -- I'm looking at you Mass Effect 3 ending LoL

They don't want/need any feedback until Alpha rolls out. Everything is literally WIP and subject to change at this point.

Look, they showed us the ships and now redesigning 2 of them. Nothing to discuss here until THEY decide it's good enough for public consumption. Then the real feedback will be needed.

It didn't stop them last month from throwing a question out there...

3-4 for me should do. I just want to play the game ...