I like the voting for features idea, but aren't some of the things on the list features that are a given, non-optional part of Reloaded, such as advanced AI and ability to make a standalone EXE?



Is it just a vote to decide which ones are tackled first?

/agree



I'm with Kilgore on this. I mean, are you actually saying that if no one votes for "Standalone EXE" it would then not be included in the product? That would seem pretty ridiculous to me.



If on the other hand, it is simply a vote for which are tackled first (meaning all of the items are planned features) then it could certainly change the priority of my votes.



And if it is some mixture of the two categories I mention above, well then its "apples to oranges" and would make no sense at all.



So I think a better clarification is warranted.



I also like the idea of "voting for features", but it should be for either voting for features to be included, OR voting for features release priority.



Perhaps you could make both - a list of features that are not currently 100% scheduled to be included in the final product, that we can vote on as additional features "wanted by the community" and a separate list of the features already decidedly going into the product that we could vote on in a "priority fashion" to get into the beta.



My 2 cents anyway.

I think its about what you would like to see in reloaded first.

Standalone EXE will come,or how will we be able to sell our games .



Dave

Yes, the aim is to understand the communities immediate needs. We're not going to stop all the fine tuning, tweaks and necessary parts to the product as we move forward.

ok, so if this is a things to be done next vote, how many on the list can we expect per beta release please?, I may also have to change my votes alittle. also just curious but whats to stop trolls spamming votes with multi accounts on the forums and give false numbers?. if steam greenlights the product and they get votes aswell this might out way actual pledgers, I have 2 steam accounts 4 emails and I consider that to be below the average troll lvl for account holding lol.

Anyway to sort the list? By votes & by score?

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not sure why anyone would desperately want the ability to build a standalone EXE until Reloaded is in a near finished state. So much is likely to change, even system requirements.



Are people are voting for that because they think it might not be included at all if they don't?



I think a better way to do it would have been to have users put ALL the options in a list according to priority with the clear message that this should reflect what they most need for development, not what they most want in the finished product.



Not complaining at all -- just my 2 cents.

Well, I think I can answer part of your post - As far as why someone would want the ability to build EXEs before release would have to do with prototyping.



Game prototyping doesn't really require all the system requirements, or even all of the mechanics and processes to be available or in place to do. So even before FPSCR is complete, the ability to create EXEs is still useful, even if things will be changing.



Another aspect, probably not thought of by many, is the ability to get more people interested in FPSCR by creating some small map with a handful of entities, just enough to have 10 or 20 minutes of game-play, creating an EXE of it and sending it to your friends, colleagues, and associates. It could spurn more pledges for FPSCR itself, which is obviously helpful too.



I'm not trying to say that having the ability to create EXEs should be top of the list, just putting some reasoning behind one (or two) possible answers to the question you posed.

Do you think they'd be impressed without the advanced AI and with the current performance issues for lower end machines? I think that would be more likely to put them off.

Absolutely. You could tell people a million times that it's not finished, and they would play the game and say it sucks because it doesn't have X, Y, and Z. Never a good idea to put out something that's nowhere near finished.



And what is this? From Lee's blog...







Really? A character Creator feature is more important than performance? Perhaps there is some confusion on what the voting is for.



Brian.

Wow... I really hope that TGC do not take this voting to serious as a majority wants FPSCR be able to create game assets and characters before anything else.

It´s of course very nice features - but in my world have a very low priority.



A decent game engine would be the top priority. Performance, stability, AI, scripting and not at least a decent terrain-editor (as the current one is pure BASIC).

If this fails, I´m off to Unity in a heartbeat.



I think TGC needs to wonder which one is the target group for their product. As for now it does not feel as a Pro product.

I think it's a little early to make that determination, but I understand your concern. FPSC has a niche in the low-cost, easy to use, lots of cheap content arena, and I don't foresee Reloaded straying far from that. Hopefully the engine will stand on it's own, and the selling point won't have to be some included content and frilly features. How "Pro" it turns out to be remains to be seen. Without performance and stability we'll end up with prettier 2-3 level BOTB titles, but little more.



Brian.

I think this is the problem -- people are getting confused about what the voting represents. Why would anyone prioritise having a standalone EXE above having a base engine that's well optimised? Why would they choose to create characters before having a decent AI to control them? It doesn't make sense.



Reloaded is going to be fantastic, I'm sure of it. But I think the voting idea needs to be re-done with very clear guidelines about what it means, as well as reassurances that fundamental features, such as building EXEs, aren't going to left out if they aren't voted for as a priority.



Also, why no voting options for things like room blobs, inventory etc.?



It feels to me like there should be a project plan in place with timelines for all major features.

I agree it's confusing and I am even more confused since folks cant have the slightest idea what they are voting for when it comes to "character creator". This sounds more like a game feature than a game creator feature. How will it work?



If it's intended to use morphed meshes or a collection of parts and textures it's still going to be limited and to me appears to be a gimmick rather than a solid feature, I have no idea since there are no details so wouldn't put it top of my own list of priorities.



Anyone serious about game design will know that performance and stability are the most important to tackle from the outset, but I understand the user base when it comes to this software. I watched how it went over the years with Classic, where many 'features' were constantly requested while the same people would put the engine down as unusable due to performance issues and then never use these 'features' anyway.



I believe in this case TGC should not listen so much to the hive mind and concentrate on whats really important, goals can be set by the development team for each new beta and then ask which of these goals are most important to users as things progress. At this time some of these goals are simply going to detract from the real business at hand.



From what I am seeing Lee is getting burned out enough and should be left to finish up things he starts on before piling on more. He is already stripping things out of the engine to fix performance before adding them back in again, I don't want to see him having to do this in a years time when it's bloated with 'features'.



The good ol' days...yeah right!

I voted with the most weight on advance AI, because I think its very important, needless for me to say (just look at some of Umans posts ). I was a little surprised when "Character creator", "Construction kit" and "Save standalone .exe" were voted ahead of this feature. Each to their own of course, but does feel that necessity has been glossed over here.



Another point is that I did not vote for performance optimisations because as the description says "Support for lower spec graphic cards". I'd rather work be put into other core areas than support the low end computers. So when Lee says he finds it interesting that more people are voting for a character creator than optimisations, maybe that is not a bad thing because people may want to move on from low end systems.

If we were honest we would be realizing that most machines are struggling with performance right now and not just lower spec, you throw in advanced AI at this stage and you will see it struggle even more.. Save standalone exe and AI are not really features but, simply put, are necessary so will go in at some point. Patience is the key, I am all for voting on priorities for users, but not when it comes to moving away from core development.



I do agree though that it shouldn't be expected to run on very low end machines, you wouldn't have expectations of running any modern 3D game engine on something so low spec, so why expect it of Reloaded?

I want quality over quantity, it's always been my mindset.



As pointed out above save exe would in fact do more harm than good at this point in time as you would have youtube awash with the usual "this sucks. my rig can run....blah.blah" comments on whatever is posted by users who have access to Beta's.



You build a solid engine then add the coffee cup holder.

I likewise find this survey a bit perplexing. Nowhere is it suggested that we are voting based on desired priority, but instead implies that we are voting to determine what features will actually be developed (to quote the newsletter: "to help decide future features").



It is apparent some features in the survey will need to be implemented regardless (EXE, Advanced AI, Media Import...) but others are totally new and very much optional to the core functionality of FPSC:R.



The current results, in order, is as follows:



Character Creator - 356

Save Standalone Game - 301

Construction Kit - 291

Performance Optimizations - 278

Media Importing - 272

Advanced AI - 265

Multiplayer - 231

Advanced Terrain - 192

LUA Scripting - 181

Cut Scene Editor - 164

Vehicles - 154

Save Mobile Version - 109

Random Terrain Tool - 58



A lot of these items were not part of the original Kickstarter plan while others were way up on the stretch goal list. To summarize the core FPSC:R goals from the Kickstarter:



- Terrain

- Physics

- Advanced AI

- Weapon enhancements

- Game play improvements

- High quality characters

- Advanced graphics engine

- HUDs improved

- Game Runtime enhanced

- Better Sound & Music



The three items ranked higher than performance make little sense to me. Obviously Export to EXE is essential and I believe many voted for it in fear it would otherwise be excluded due to the vagueness of purpose of this survey. If the survey is in fact to determine priority, I can't comprehend how Lee would ever put a Character Customization screen ("Character creator lets you edit a male / female mesh. Choose head style, flesh colouring, clothing, weapons and other add-ons. Assign animations to the character and once complete export to use within Reloaded") ahead of performance or advanced AI.



I also believe the "Performance optimisations" is misleading as it seems to suggest that will only be for low-end machines. Yet clearly even higher end machines are in dire need of performance tuning.

Just want to inject a few points from my view.



It has been said all along that performance is always important for the development team and is a priority item.



The performance item on the vote system is "Support for lower spec graphic cards" so you can support older systems also (i.e those that really users should have upgraded long ago). Performance on mid and high range systems will always be a focus as Rick has told me many times. Having heard the work that has been going on behind the scenes I know this is the real focus and Lee has made a big jump since the beta the community has access too, with many more to come.



All the items on the voting system are all core engine features as I'm sure we all agree. However the most popular will be done first to make the community happy with progress and so they can build with the engine as it grows. Adding advanced AI for example may well slow down the engine at the first or second release but means from the get go it can be tested by users and improved. The same with compiling a standalone, many of you may say it is not needed right now but it will allow users to build a level and share it to those without beta testing so a wider range of systems can be tested for bugs, therefore producing a better end system.



All have their merits and all will have to be put in, there is no best way to go about adding the features someone will always want a feature more than another and by using this method the team will be able to find the majority opinion.



Please remember that betas are not intended to be used as a final product and the features that are added will be slow, may crash or have bugs. But that is part of the process to making a great engine.



Maybe I will have to talk to Rick about making the voting system more clear about the voting being for what happens first and not a vote for what is done and what isn't as quite a few people have become confused.



EDIT: Madlad I did see your suggestion for sorting the results and I will see what I can do this was in before but was removed for a few reasons.

I think the confusion for me is the fact it was added to the voting system in the first place, though I now understand they mean really lower spec...or do they?



My own opinion on that is still the same as above but my priority vote may have been different had I realised at the time "performance optimisations" didn't mean what it says on the tin. Which rule of thumb do we use to measure a 'lower spec graphic card'?



If this was added I would have got it right away



I am quite surprised to see scripting so far down the list, but then again most users want a 'hands free' program and when you advertise 'no coding required' then your going to get that. Still, it leaves things very limited for a long time to come. Particularly for media developers who might want to create more than just static entity's for Reloaded....and users who might want more than is supplied in the 'box'.



This is where a voting system goes astray for me and some features should not be a part of it, otherwise we get a brilliant but useless 'toy' with no diversity



I am not just harking on here as this limitation will apply to any assets released by TGC themselves for a long time if it keeps being shoved down the priority list.



Still, I reckon once users get their character creations in there and want to start creating actual gameplay this priority may change pretty fast

Agreed.



Based on the voting info, I'm not sure whether there will be full FPI support even if LUA is given a low priority. That's to say, will some form of custom scripting be available in the near future? I think that's a fundamental part of the product.

The voting is to help TGC gauge the communities needs. While still keeping the right to develop the product as we see fit to.



One example is the save as exe option. This is needed by everyone and some people have been asking for it as soon as possible. So this is why it's in the list. If you prefer it to be added much later then don't vote for it. Based on feedback we will be implementing a version of it into Betas soon, but we'll not be adding every conceivable option until much later.



We have decided internally to focus on these;

- Performance Optimisations

- Easier media importing

- Character Creator



- Oculus Rift support (left out of list because this is more of a marketing decision than community needed feature)



The early results did show us that a random terrain tool is just not something you are crying out for. We were thinking of doing this next and the results say the opposite.

We also felt multiplayer would be high on the request list but this is mid table on the must haves.



You can be sure we'll focus on the engine (this is Lee's area and always will be). He'll now be supported by other freelancers who are tried and tested and will help accelerate the development.



Regarding the Character Creator. It's a vital addition for a lot of people. It's very hard making 3D models and adding all the animations to them. It took Bond1 many weeks to create just a few characters for the Beta. We aim to create a tool that anyone can use so they can create their own character content. We also want to make it so artists can make new clothing for these characters and as such expand the possibilities. We also want the engine to be able to deal with any animated characters and models in the long run (so you can add and animate anything).



It's also worth saying that until we start on some of these features we'll not not fully what's ahead. Just remember that our aim is to create an amazing game creator. We're not moving off to some other project any time soon. This for us is about building a well known brand and continually improving it.

Very interesting comments from all sides and as may be expected what various users see as priorities don't always match up with one another, nor do they always or often match up with what the product developers see as priorities.



Personally I would still like to see whatever is currently existing and "Started" and we know what that is now - completed to a standard of the most advanced and best quality with the best set of tools and sub features that any one of the core features can be given and achieved for it before moving on to any new features and no feature not skipped over half done before the next is attempted for integration though I understand about factors which may break this chain of stable linear development putting the core features fully developed in place properly first. Existing Terrains and Water are two examples that could certainly do with some serious improvement to the tool set and the potential benefits for users developers and of the results returned for game players to the benefit of the product in the long term and not the short one.



For example I see we are getting Player Huds for weapons - which I don't need as I don't have any enemies worth placing in my game yet so wont have any enemies or any weapons in levels yet for some time to come. I have terrains and outdoor environments which need to be substantially improved - now while the core feature is half done or I don't want to show anyone what I am doing as its just not good enough - so don't need enemies in there for that reason too.



Personally I do need improvements to what we have now and don't need any new feature now. They can follow in the same vein - new feature - make it top notch whereas the current ones are not as they are missing quality tools and sub features which current pledger users have asked for many times.



Apart from those I have a use for updating of more basic missing small features again asked for like transparency for glass windows or for ice in my ice world. Simple things missing that make a big difference to what you have now leave alone considering other major features. If possible finish one thing complete and in its entirity to the standard of tools and sub features while you are at it at a time is good or it may never get done to a standard that may otherwise have been possible.



If you have a Voting system then you have to follow it or there's not much point in having that either is there. Thus you have it and that's an end to it - why as users what they want and then say we don't accept that. Like having votes for screen shots and saying well we don't like your choice so we will reorder them in priority as we see fit.



Clearly a voting system may return results of an unforseen, random and perhaps undesirable results. That's the nature of us humans. You have to applaude TGC for continuing their commitment to giving users the opportunity to shape the product as they see by asking them what they want to see in the engine - cant fault that. It does not always or necessarily mean its the best line of procedure or will return the best outcome because of our nature as said.



I can understand all the points of view. I understand the priorities of those who want a product they can make a game with and publish it ASAP even if that is limited, lacks features or has poor quality, half complete or unfinished features, issues or bugs, performs poorly or is unstable leaving those things to be attended to or addressed later - perhaps if it ever gets to be the case. We have seen it all before.



I also understand the possible legitimate need to add some additional core features at any stage because others or the whole depend upon it for successful testing at any stage - that is and can be justifiable as each core feature may and probably will impact on those others and the whole so until they are in place the impact overall cannot be accessed. Clearly completing any one major core feature fully to an advanced level risks that a great deal of time, money and effort could be wasted as when you later add another major core feature the engines efficiency and performance cant cope with it so whats done has to be r-done to adjust something to accommodate that fact. That's a very real risk which cant really be quantified until you get there but can result in a lot of going around in circles doing - undoing and so on until a balance is reached.



Thus the very basic core quality, performance, efficiency and stability is so important or you cant build in those very many advanced features users seek to have use and add to their games so that in the final analysis your game players can enjoy them.



I can understand that everyone has a pet feature and that as such its of vital important to the individual. In most instances most will have including TGC a number of these and if they don't get them well its like the end of the world and for the individual it probably is



Whatever a balance will be needed as I don't think everyone will ever have everything they want.



The only thing that we have to go on is past experience and by and large we know what is needed in an engine if it is to deliver- the bottom line core things have to be up to supporting, providing and maintaining the rest as development proceeds - the end result will be governed by how good that basic core is.



Indie game makers know whats needed for them to be able to make good games and deploy them irrespective of the end Game Player - first you have to make a good game. The better the engine and the tools in their hands the better the games made will be - bottom line there. We are talking small independent individual or small group game makers here. They have been around a long time and know whats needed, what they need and what they have always needed. That's fixed and it don't and wont change. Its not rocket science.



You don't need a vote to know what is needed to make a poor, good, great, professional, AAA or masterpiece of a game. Its well proven and documented too.



Great engine, great tools, great features - the rest is down to the creativity, effort, skill and so on of the user - new user or experienced user alike - all will benefit from those things or not depending upon how good each of those things is.



Thats the bottom line.



Quality, performance, stability are paramount and a necessity and can't be as being of prime importance no matter what anyone thinks. You cant build a house on quicksand or water and you cant change that. You have to get to bedrock if you don't want your house to fall over.



If you want your house to be as good as it possibly can be then you only use the best materials, tools and workmanship. You don't skip on time, cost, effort and you don't do anything at half measure and skip anything that clearly needs doing. Last but not least you don't sweep the rubbish under the carpet and say I will come back and clean it up later. You wont.



I don't really mind which order things are done in as long as its some kind of sensible order and doing it follows good practice and well known disciplines of whats useful and helpful for indie developers. Look after the core and you wont go far wrong.



Whatever, Vote, develop, make, deploy away all.



Reloaded - I am enjoying it and waiting for Beta 1.004 so it must have something going for it or it would be on the shelf keeping Classic company.



Have great Christmas and New Year Everyone. Your Christmas present is attached. Sorry that's all I can afford and that cost me an arm and a leg in effort.



P.S. Can I have the Character Creator first Ah only joking!

BTW, going off on a tangent here, but has anyone else used 'Fuse' for character creation?



It's new (on Steam) and very simple and quick, but the problem is it doesn't save in X format as yet. Converting/rigging for Reloaded is therefore a pain at the moment.



Something after the style of Fuse for a built in character creator in Reloaded would be incredible. That said, simply supporting more formats would make programs like Fuse more workable for FPSC-R.

Tried it,crashes every time for me.Make human is better.



Dave

By the same company, I believe, and works in a similar way.

Say WHAAAAT ?!

Character Editor? CHARACTER EDITOR?



Just to straight things out here.. do TGC mean that they will work on a Character Editor befor AI, script, water functions and a decent terrain editor?? The very basic we need for a decent game?

Therein lies the quandary of the voting system. Nice idea, but the priorities should be driven by the logic of what making a decent game requires.

Indeed.

I feel more and more that TGC are targeting the regular home end user that want some fun in 20 minutes creating his own little games - and not the more professional one who will try to create a decent indiegame worth selling.

Suddenly Unity feels as a good option

Pfffaaaa dont think so, the voting system is not the priority of tgc i think! just look sometimes in Lee´s Blog and you will see it...

Well, Rick has announced that Character Editor is top priority right now...

I wouldn't be too concerned by it -- I doubt very much TGC would delay essential features in favour of features that would be great some time in the future. But this does highlight why the voting could put potential new users off. In my view, a vote for extra features should only happen once all the essentials are in place (i.e.advanced AI, scripting, building exes), but appearing to ask users to prioritise 'nice to have' features against essentials, regardless of what was intended, undermines credibility in my opinion, and I speak from having considerable Project Management experience, albeit not in the games industry.



I think Reloaded is going to be superb and will offer by far the quickest way to get ideas together. But it's a work in progress. Have faith

You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time

It's quite amusing to me that the concept of 'community lead development' and the reality of it may turn out to be two different things In reading this thread you could almost sense that the priorities set by the majority are not reflective of what the majority wants Very strange, and fascinating.



To calm the waters a little (as development can get very exciting at times), I can assure you that the early trinkets offered through the voting system are to assess what the community as a whole would like the next big feature to be. I can further assure you that I am as far away from starting any of those big modules as it's possible to get.



MY mission has been, and continues to be, the creation of a solid foundation for Reloaded, and I am still working on it (see blog). Performance is king, stability and compatibility are Queen, with scripting, AI, logic, core elements, editing and interfaces my Courtiers. I will remain in my very busy Palace until work on the foundations are complete, and I completely agree there is absolutely no point running off to do a Character Creator when there is no AI to control them.



However, there is absolutely no harm in another coder taking up the challenge of writing a few pipeline tools that integrate smoothly into the main Reloaded product I am very happy to have fired up a few small projects in parallel to the main development, as it means you are going to get MORE SOONER, which I think we all agree is a good thing.



I can't say I blame the reactions here, given my 'past record' Let's just say it took me 13 TGC years to learn how to create a decent product, and this product is FPSC Reloaded. As long as the pledging continues, and our marketing efforts meet with success as we grow, you can rest assured that my only job is to sit inside the core Reloaded engine and make it awesome. Sometimes fun, sometimes grueling, but what a ride!!

Well, this is very true

All sensible things from Lee above



If other freelance developers are being brought on board to work on these features while you continue core development then I am happier with the situation.

We users weren't to know this so maybe a little more information from you guy's at the time of voting would have helped prevent all this angst. I am really looking forward to the next Beta as I think this one is going to be the best release yet



Your only seeing those commenting who tend to be vocal about things, also those who might have a little more insight into development process or simply those who have been around long enough to have high hopes and a belief in what your creating.



Uhuh! TGC years are equivalent to dog years.

I´m happy again

Back from vacation - Hope everyone is having a Merry Christmas holiday season!







Well, I would not necessarily agree with that statement. I think you are experiencing what we call "the squeaky wheel" syndrome. There are some 360'ish votes portrayed up in this thread, but we have maybe 15 unique posters to this thread (at least 3 of those are TGC).



However, I think it is probably more attributed to the confusion of what the votes are for, as mentioned several times. I think an update to the description of this is needed, more so for any new pledgers down the road so they can make a better and more informed decision on what they vote for initially.

Not everyone necessarily needs advanced AI to simply be "impressed". And not everyone is a mindless sap who doesn't know what "alpha / beta" or "early release" or "demo" or <put your favorite tag here> means. I'll grant you there are quite a few that do not know, but frankly I don't associate with those in that category so when I say I'm already discounting mindless saps.



For me personally, I'm in no rush at the moment for this feature, but after performance (which frankly, I've had no issues with from the beginning) has been readily dealt with, I could use for testing on my 11 workstations of differing flavors (read as performance) here at the house.



And of course, refer to the last line of that post.

A good point, the things you vote for should be given enough detail that you know what it is (and what it is not). I will forward this thread to Rick who may flesh out the descriptions to avoid confusion moving forward.