Apr 30, 2018, 09:26 PM
(Apr 30, 2018, 09:13 PM)Jono Wrote: [ -> ](Apr 30, 2018, 07:42 PM)Blazing Wrote: [ -> ](Apr 30, 2018, 06:39 PM)Jono Wrote: [ -> ]Can potentially consider an alternative fund, which if actually supported I can cost up and take quotes to essentially get an outside contractor to rewrite much of the code - but of course with contractors not willing to work for cents on the dollar, it's going to be rather expensive. Likely multiple K if outside. Then comes the aforementioned issue with security, which means that not everyone whom could potentially work on the gamemode can - ultimately if our current gamemode is leaked then our value as a business, as a community would be treading on very thin ice.
There's not many solutions to this problem to be honest, and it largely comes down to priority. Equally the community (as a whole) may reach out and say go for it now, but in 6 months time with no new content and some bugs causing potentially major issues for day-to-day gameplay, the likelihood of our playerbase being remotely stable is fairly low. That twinned with revenue impacts of having the lack of updates of summer (historically our best season for income, and largely helps further developments for the remainder of the year), would result in a negative financial impact for the server. This would ultimately place the future runnings in danger just from a financial aspect, not discounting future cashflow that would also be lessened by the inevitable decline in the playerbase.
I hope this makes sense, but a decision on priority of optimisation was made laterally thinking. Ultimately the gamemode really does need optimisation, but it is playable in it's current state. The frustrations from getting shit FPS whilst playing at this stage can't really be mitigated.
So real options are:
Alternative fund raising from community separate from normal membership system (unlikely to be popular of course.)
Focusing on optimisation on a stage by stage basis (current stance) - Mixture of content development and optimisation. (Effects are marginal individually, and as more content is added could potentially reverse the increase in positive performance),
If anyone has any other thoughts to this, please do contribute. It's possible that there is something we have missed, and community feedback into this is appreciated.
It's frustrating that the argument being used against performance optimisation is that it would stop updates, because I think the updates have been quite disappointing in impact, meaning a lot of this time has been lost.
You could argue that a lack of updates would drive away players, but there hasn't been a major update for a while now. These small, 'cheap and cheerful' updates create hype for perhaps a week or two at most to increase the player base temporarily, but they don't seem to have a significant impact in the long term. A lot of new weapons have been added, but they have a negligible impact as the majority of players will always just use the 'best', or most cost-effective weapon.
Something which Limelight could probably do is polishing the in-game experience as a whole.
To my eye, the user interface is a pretty terrible attempt at mimicking a Windows 10 theme, with inconsistent design, and a poor, outdated colour scheme. Menus feel clunky, and it is obvious that they were created by different people with different visions.
It seems that updates are often rushed out, resulting in completely dead features like the Stock Exchange, which was released and then abandoned very quickly.
There are a lot of vehicles which are pretty useless due to how awful they are to handle.
Very little foresight was done with regards to how big of a change a switch to Rockford would be, resulting in the majority of the map being a complete dead zone, and very little passive roleplay due to a lack of locations where players' roleplays can actually be seen.
The issue of an inactive staff team who are over-reliant on a few newer staff members has been discussed for a long time now, with little signs of movement. Bolder decisions need to be made.
I agree with pretty much all you have said - and communication between developers internally is an issue which has been reoccurring since even the FL days. There have been attempts at management positions in the past which would mitigate much of the issues above - especially consistency. The example of the stock exchange highlighted inefficiencies within the team. This issue has been covered in the past, but the major problem with it was that is was released too early. Paul and myself both spoke about this at the time, saying both it's incomplete and it requires further updates (which are still yet to come). This was released to provide 'content' in a then lull. I think it highlights the issues surrounding updates, that are often ill thought out or rushed.
More emphasis needs to go into planning future updates, to incorporating previous updates into it (so systems are built upon and expanded) and to maintaining themes better.
I'd argue it isn't the inefficiency of the team, but of the method as a whole. There remains very little management of developers relative to what it could be. Current system (simplified) is essentially Get given task > Get given budget > Get rough specifications. > Create.
I personally have pushed for more constraints, but the issue is enforcing it. When people are working at times when 'management' are unavailable then it simply becomes a hassle, and previous attempts at this has failed for that reason.
"Faustie" doctor_internet
Perhaps you guys could expand upon this further. It's not exactly my area to cover, and so my knowledge of it is limited and skewed from a 'business' perspective.
Aye, there is an issue in that perspective, where a large number of poorly planned things were pushed out. We're reducing that now with some new internal processes to ensure higher levels of planning (at least, for larger projects).
I can't go into much more detail, but
im also on a membrane keyboard and my fingers are crying.