Endless Sky's Vision

[Amazinite]

The vision document that @Saugia, @warp-core, @Anarchist2, and myself have been working on is now available on the repository wiki here: https://github.com/endless-sky/endless-sky/wiki/Endless-Sky's-Vision

As the first paragraph in the page describes, this is effectively an expanded Style Goals page, some of the contents even copying from that page. We'll potentially combine these two pages in the future.

This should be seen as something of a "first pass." There are likely topics that were missed on our first go, and there will undoubtedly be questions about what the page contains. I'm opening this discussion to act as the comments section for the vision page.

[Amazinite]

As the first paragraph in the page describes, this is effectively an expanded Style Goals page, some of the contents even copying from that page. We'll potentially combine these two pages in the future.

"Vision" feels like a loaded term. Perhaps we just copy the vision document into the style goals page, as I feel that "style goals" is a more fitting description of what this document ended up becoming. Thoughts?

[Azure3141]

That works better in my opinion. The document seems to be more focused on how to maintain consistency, instead of providing a direction or vision for the game.

[MasterOfGrey]

Good to see it finally make the light of day, but the fact that the very first thought is that "style goals" is a more fitting description of what this document ended up becoming. I have upfront concerns...

I'll give it a thorough read and respond properly as soon as I am able though.
Edit: I'll put it in here rather than follow-up commentary:

Review

So I spoke previously on the essential components of a vision document. I referred to 2 particular elements:

• "Values" - the goals for the gameplay experience; what we want playing the game to feel like.
• "Principles" - the derived gameplay design elements that are targeted to create that desired experience.

Since that time I would actually add a third one that'd be worth elucidating in a central vision document:

• "Focuses" - the way in which elements are prioritised over each other, and the extent to which that impacts the development process with contributors.

While I'm sure there is much in here that is valuable in terms of updating our collective understanding of things, I'm going to restrict my commentary to things which in some way satisfy or contribute to actual Vision elements (including Focuses).

Full scope of review:

Endless Sky can be said to have left its beta years ago

Generally, this is something that you'd determine by measuring against definable, vision-supported outcomes. We'll see how this pans out.

---

Consistency and Cohesion

This is a constraint which falls under "Principles", complete with attendant rationale:

In order to make story-telling more focused and less difficult to maintain, there should be only so many tie-ins between different factions and stories in the galaxy. [...] about three or four

This is a constraint with weak rationale:

Each major storyline should also only have so much branching in it, and/or the branching should not result in extremely disparate results if the expectation is that other storylines will follow on from the consequences of the prior storyline. [..] reduce the complexity and number of considerations of storylines that rely on other content in the game...

This is a vague constraint with weak rationale (and clearly targeted):

The amount of technological progression

This is a constraint with no rationale provided, re-emphasises the targeting of the previous point, and is arguably inconsistent with content going all the way back to MZ:

Each faction of the game should have a range of capabilities that the faction stays within [...]

---

Why limit the scope?

This leads to vanilla having a soft-yet-defined scope that we can easily work with and fine-tune within itself.

Well, not so far, but let's keep going and see...

---

Gameplay Design

So in here we should definitely have some vision elements.

This is a value with a clear rationale, but less-than-clearly communicated, with a weak example:

[...] a sense of immersion/authenticity.

This is a principle lacking an underlying, articulated value rationale:

gameplay contrivances: mechanics which clearly aren’t realistic but which exist to make for a better experience. [...] hiring crew can be done on any inhabited planet in the game, even if that planet is inhabited by aliens[...]

These are a principles lacking an underlying, articulated value rationale:

Similarly, there are some aspects of the game which are intentionally shallow.
Credits are a (currently) unexplained universal currency that you can use with anyone...
boarding combat, which [...] boils down to rolling dice against your opponent to see who gets the higher number...

This is an attempt at a value rationale, but it is weak as there are many "why" questions that can be asked of it:

These gameplay aspects are intentionally shallow because they are not the game’s primary focus. The primary/main focus of the game is what is literally called the MainPanel in the game’s code: the area of the game in which you are flying your ship and spending most of your time. All other areas of the game should serve to improve or add to the experience in the MainPanel, not try to detract from it or overshadow it by being more complex, as the MainPanel is in a sense what Endless Sky gameplay is.

This is a principle/constraint lacking an underlying, articulated value rationale:

The game is also intended to be actively engaged with. While we will add quality of life features to improve areas of the game that players may find frustrating, we should avoid adding features which effectively serve to automate gameplay.

This is (mostly) a principle lacking an underlying, articulated value rationale:

Combat missions are designed with the expectation that they can be completed by a sufficiently experienced player in a single ship of comparable strength to the opponents and to what the player is expected to have at that point in the story.

This is a principle/constraint lacking an underlying, articulated value rationale:

Having smaller systems also minimizes travel times within a system, as systems are not intended to take a considerable amount of time to traverse.

This is a principle lacking an underlying, articulated value rationale:

Human space is intended to be a comparatively simple experience [etc....]

This is a principle with a conjoined attempt at a value rationale, but it is weak as it has imprecise explanations of the goals trying to be achieved:

no one faction should be overly saturated with gameplay mechanics. [...] different factions can have mechanics or combinations of mechanics which are unique to them, creating for more interesting and varied gameplay[...]

These are focuses that are in conflict with each other - and the approach to how that conflict is ideally reconciled is not explained:

While we do add features to the engine that may not be used in the vanilla game [...] we will tend to avoid adding gameplay mechanics to the engine which we do not see being used in the vanilla experience[...]

...There is 1 (and a half) value-level core vision statements in this section.

---

Story-Telling Style

So in here too we should definitely have some vision elements.

This is a clear principle that is supported by the only value with a clear rationale so far:

We want to build a universe that feels “lived in,” like it contains actual people going about their lives irrespective of what the player is doing.

This is almost a derived focus:

To this end, the game’s story, as well as other aspects of the game, should not be overly hand-holdy. [etc...]

This is a clear principle (and an old one) that is supported, but lacks an explanation of the linkage to the supporting value:

The player may be involved in pivotal events, but their involvement is not entirely what makes them pivotal.

This is a principle lacking an underlying, articulated value rationale:

planets in both the in-game story and lore function similarly to cities, having one major industry and a handful of local traditions, with interplanetary travel being a triviality. [...]

This is a clear principle (and an old one) that is loosely supported, but lacks an explanation of the linkage to the supporting value:

Any faction you join should feel like the good guys at first: noble goals, interesting people, etc. But as you continue to play, each faction should also have clear faults.

...There are no value-level core vision statements in this section.

---

Game Balance

Now here I would expect to find many principles supported by values that were already articulated above...

This section contains some fundamentals of game design.

This is a clear principle ... that is lacking an underlying, articulated value rationale:

The goal of missions is to tell a story, not give tools to take over the rest of the game.

This is in conflict with the above principle:

NPC Fleet Battles the player participates in should be balanced to require their participation.

This is a good and reasonably clear focus... presented in a completely isolated manner, which makes it minimally useful:

Anything could be re-balanced at any time to adjust around shifts in content, tech, other overall changes, or inconsistencies with other data. Everything within the game is subject to balance regardless of whether or not it already exists/has been committed into the game in order to keep things consistent. These kinds of adjustments are natural, healthy for game development, don’t take much time, and can always be (and very likely will be) looked at again in the future.

...There are no clearly pre-supported vision statements in this section.

---

Visual Design

No vision commentary possible.

---

In conclusion:

• There are no measurable development goals against which can be justified the claim that this game is not in alpha or beta.
  • Which I'm sure is very convenient for justifying whatever viewpoint you'd like to argue at the time, but is not helpful to the community.
• There is roughly one and a half value-level core vision statements in this whole document.
  • And a lot of unsupported principles for people to keep arguing over endlessly.
• The "soft-yet-defined scope" of vanilla is not meaningfully better defined than it was before this.

The purpose of this exercise was to produce a vision that could:

1. serve as a reliable reference point for settling substantial disputes on game direction, and
2. provide an aspirational direction and vision for the game.

These purposes have not been achieved.

There were more vision statements in my example template than in this entire document...

Perhaps it is time to consider whether, if this is what "dev-led" looks like, that an alternative approach is warranted.

[MasterOfGrey]

Updated the original post with the commentary.

[MasterOfGrey]

So I ask for the more critical response to the vision document to be less of "this is not this"/"this lacks something", and I'd much like to see more examples of what it could/should be saying

It has come to my attention that previous explanations I've given have either not been seen or relayed to people at various times. And while this only adds to the frustration in some respects, I suppose it behoves me to be clearer in this forum.

Every single time I identify in this that something is "lacking" here's what that means:

• There is no direction, goal, or objective that targets the intended player experience that explains why the comment exists.

That's it.

The issue with this is not really that it says anything terrible (though there are a couple points I might quibble over) but that it largely uses a great many words to not actually say much of anything at all...

To use a metaphor; this document lays out the boundaries of a construction site, and gives a rough indication of the building materials on hand - but it does almost nothing to define the objective of the thing we're building.

(You can see that every line item in the template is a goal rather than an approach: #8738)

Every single thing that I've called out in my comment above can be a valid thing, and can be used to think about what goal is being supported/achieved by it's existence.
But what the community needs to see for the Vision is those goals, and they're currently not there.

To pick a simple example:

Credits are a (currently) unexplained universal currency that you can use with anyone...

You take the statement and ask: "Why?"
Is it because:

• The intended vibe is a game that feels smooth and minimalist?
• There is a focus on narratives and different currencies would be a complication that doesn't serve that?

Or, is it simply because there haven't been any proposals for implementing any alternatives that work well enough to meet some other goal?

These are the things that need defining to provide, as Azure says, "a direction or vision for the game."
Those things that explain why you've set this development guideline, are what actually make something a vision.

[MasterOfGrey]

And for the record, if that's something that you're genuinely struggling with - I am willing to go through the content of this and propose what underlying goals might be implied by this, for ya'll to refine, discuss, and ultimately settle on.
I can facilitate getting from here, to there.

But after the length of time this took, I'm only going to go to that effort if there's an upfront commitment to adopt the result in an official capacity.

[Quantumshark]

I'm glad this has finally been released. It'll be very helpful having this all centralised and publicly available.

re: What stage of development is Endless Sky in?
I strongly agree with this section. ES is a good game, which was released nearly ten years ago, and which a lot of people play. That is not the sign of a game that is in 'alpha', or arguably even beta. This is not an environment in which we should be thinking about huge changes or redesigning parts the game from the ground up, this is an environment in which we should be improving on what we have.
In short, the goal should be to make ES the best possible version of what it is, not to make it into something that it isn't.

re: Consistency and Cohesion
Avoiding too many different faction tie-ins per storyline is a good way to prevent storylines from becoming chaotic and unfollowable, in addition to the points made about excessively crossconnected storylines becoming difficult to work with/around.
The point about limiting branching and disparity in end states between branches is the one thing in this document that I don't really agree with, but I do think it has a place as a limitation provided it's made specific to content that's intended to be followed up on, such as human space campaigns. I don't think alien campaigns should necessarily be limited to ending more or less the same way whatever choices the player makes.
Also agreed on the point that technological progress over the course of the story should not be orders of magnitude faster than what's been happening before it.
I would say, though, I think this point could be expanded generally to a broader point that what happens over the course of any given storyline shouldn't be out of place compared to the established nature of the game universe given by background lore. I don't think it's only technological progress that this point could apply to.
As far as factions sticking mostly within the same range of capabilities, that seems reasonable to me, because it makes faction theming more coherent. A faction's technology and sandbox options would be at risk of losing their unity if they start gaining more capabilities excessively.

re: Why limit the scope of Endless Sky?
I agree with this section almost entirely. One thing I would like to say, though, is that forks have very poor discoverability and are much less convenient to distribute than plugins.
Here, I'd like to suggest something: a launcher similar to ESL2, but that can build from any fork, and that also comes with a list of available forks designed for use from it that is similar to the plugin list on ESL2. The greater convenience of working with forks with such a system would make them a much more popular option, I suspect.

re: Gameplay Design
This is a long section, and I agree with all of it. I won't pad out this response unnecessarily by agreeing separately with each part.
What I will say though, is that I am very glad that all of this section of the vision describes ES as it is. As I said before, we should be working to make ES into the best possible version of what it is, not making it into something that it isn't.

re: Storytelling Style
A lot of this seems familiar, so I gather you're sticking to MZ's ideas for storytelling style? That's a good thing in my mind; they're good ideas.

re: Game Balance
Technology level and tiers are important in making gameplay coherent with lore, and in providing the player with a sense of progression as they advance through the game.
Agreed about avoiding 'no-brainer' picks - this is probably the primary purpose of balancing. See also MZ's points about wanting to avoid adding outfits that there's never a reason not to install.
I agree about unique rewards needing to be potentially powerful but still balanced. They should be competitive options with other similar things, but should be, well, unique. The Emerald Sword is the gold standard of this in my mind. It's not overpowered - in fact, a lot of people seem to think it's underpowered - but what it is is unique. It's not like anything else. That's what unique rewards should be like.
With regards to the point about fleet balance, I agree that that's a desirable goal. But, it is worth noting that it's not as simple as always putting the fleet on the player side one heavy warship down against their counterpart - the larger the two fleets, the smaller the player's contribution can be proportionally, and hence the greater the extent to which randomness dominates over player influence. Excessively large fleet battles should be very sparse, or use enemies carefully set up to be vulnerable to effective solo-vs-fleet tactics, because there just isn't that much scope for the player to influence them otherwise.
Agreed that a very small, cheap ship shouldn't be expected to be the equal of a large, expensive one. This makes sense in-universe too - nobody in their right mind is going to invest 12M credits and a thousand tonnes of material into a heavy ship if it's not significantly better than a 1M credit, 150 tonne interceptor. If larger ships aren't better overall than smaller ones, it doesn't make in-universe sense for them to exist at all.
Given that your point about capture balance is that you're still thinking about what to to with it, I can neither agree nor disagree with your stance until such time as you have reached one :p
And yes, balance is an ongoing process. I consider it preferable to balance iteratively rather than making giant leaps and being likely to widely miss the mark or create major new problems.

re: Visual Design
I am definitely not an expert on this subject, for sure. But, I like how the game looks, and I'd like to see more that looks like it currently does.

re: Usage of AI-generated content
Hard agree.

Final comment:
I'm happy to see all of this put into words and made easy to refer to. As I see it, this is just canonising and defining what's already been the approach of the developers: Endless Sky is Endless Sky, and it shouldn't be overwritten by a completely different game.

[Saturnalia9]

My response to the vision document:

These points are all up for discussion, and I would love to talk (on Discord) through each of these quotes to better understand the dev's, and everyone else's, viewpoints.

While we will eventually have a 1.0.0 release, that will not mark the end of the game’s development, as the main plan for that release is simply to have each of the three main human campaigns completed; the game’s universe will still have plenty more to offer after that.

I get this. Having all 3 introductory campaigns seems like a good prio for the 1.0.0 release.

In a similar fashion, Endless Sky can be said to have left its beta years ago, as the foundations of what makes the game what it is have been decided and completed for some time now, but we have still continued to provide updates to the game, some of which have contained sweeping changes to major aspects of the game.

First section, what? But the introductory campaigns haven't been finished yet. Republic and Syndicate campaigns don't exist yet, and the Free Worlds campaign is being reworked. This isn't a full release yet without at least the first campaigns fleshed out.

While the nature of the game’s development does mean that sweeping changes could be made to the game, we must maintain moderation in how we go about making such changes. Any sweeping changes to the game must only be made after heavy consideration, discussion, and testing.

I would love to see changes being discussed and considered in a more public space. Or at least being visible to the public, so the public can give some input somehow. It gets frustrating when someone makes something that sounds good, then is denied for no apparent reason.

For example, each faction in the game should only have so many major story ties to other factions in the game, about three or four, with the exception of the Pug, Drak, and Quarg, which can have their fingers everywhere...

This ties back to the alpha, beta, full release version mentioned previously. There are only a handful of campaigns in vanilla, and only one campaign finished. It's difficult to see this game as a full release with so much material missing in vanilla.

Having limits for Endless Sky allows the developers, as well as contributors to the game, to focus on the parts of the game we want to improve instead of trying to add never-ending amounts of new features or mechanics for the sake of variety. We’d rather have a group of people working together to make one part of Endless Sky the best it can be than each individual in a group trying to create features that pull the game and developer attention in different directions. Endless Sky shouldn’t try to be every game in one.

Too many features can be detrimental to a game. Game-breaking bugs can be nasty, hard to track, and hard to find sometimes. With that said, adding a popularly suggested feature here and there can also be a beneficial thing to add. It can appease the community... unless this game is not for the community. The community would likely be happy to test out bugs for new features. Forks can alleviate some of these problems, but forks have limits as to how much can be added and maintained without its own team.

The realism paragraphs are something too sinister to discuss, but I will say that high fantasy and science fiction (spelled out to emphasize science) don't really coincide often, and can break immersion if there are too many cross-overs.

The game is also intended to be actively engaged with. While we will add quality of life features to improve areas of the game that players may find frustrating, we should avoid adding features which effectively serve to automate gameplay.

I am completely fine with this point. Provided the QoL features are added in some way or another to ease frustrations, I am happy. When things are denied without discussion, that does hurt and discourage people considerably. Again, transparency can help calm the community and ease frustrations. Without communication, trust is broken and tempers flare.

While system “sizes” may vary, largely influenced by the system’s arrival distance and to a lesser extent the distance of the outermost object in the system, most interactions in systems are within a concentrated enough area that they can fit within the player’s screen (zoom level depending). This creates a degree of predictability for the player; if everything can fit on the player’s screen, then they won’t be blindsided by an opponent that could potentially be far off the screen bombarding them from afar. Having smaller systems also minimizes travel times within a system, as systems are not intended to take a considerable amount of time to traverse.

This makes a lot of sense, but tweaking system sizes to be slightly bigger would also help make the systems feel a little less empty. Do note that I play zoomed out entirely (as do some other players). Another idea I'd like to propose is adding some kind of departure distance to systems to make the player feel like there is more substance in each system.

This way, different factions can have mechanics or combinations of mechanics which are unique to them, creating for more interesting and varied gameplay, either through changing up how the player may approach different factions in combat or by allowing the player to mix and match technology from different factions to create new interactions that aren’t seen in any existing factions.

I would really like to see more variance with this. It feels like most races don't have enough variance with their weapons. The Korath do have quite a few heat weapons, but they and the Wanderers an exception. The Wanderers, I suppose, have superior missiles and anti-missiles. These two aliens aside, there isn't much variety of weapon types. Having a race focus mostly one that one damage type could open the game to more possibilities.

It's all too common in science fiction to have the central conflict defined in very black and white terms: the noble Rebel Alliance against the evil Galactic Empire. The world of Endless Sky is nuanced, with no “correct” path. Any faction you join should feel like the good guys at first: noble goals, interesting people, etc. But as you continue to play, each faction should also have clear faults. And as the war gets more and more brutal, NPCs should be ambivalent about fighting and more worried about the destruction the war is causing on all sides.

I am all for this. Perhaps we can add something for the Alphas? I'm quite sure they're not nearly as horrible as most of the factions describe them to be. And this is coming from someone who almost always sides with the Pug. (Maybe the Pug and Alphas eventually come to an understanding and ally?)

... I'll go through the rest of the document later. The next section is balance, oh boy...

[mOctave]

I think maybe our argument over alpha/beta/full release stems from how we define the different development stages. It sounds like your definitions are
alpha: doesn't meet planned goals
beta: meets most of the planned goals, but still needs to be polished up before release
full release: meets all the planned goals, polished, ready to go

Wheras my definitions are more based on who gets to play the game (beta and full release being public, alpha being limited to maybe a dozen people), and whether the game can be fully enjoyed in its current state without leaving rough edges (alpha/beta being no, full release being yes).

Thus, I would call ES a late beta, maybe a full release, since thousands of people play it and enjoy it, with maybe a couple issues surrounding a few campaigns that are cut short and some outstanding bugs, whereas you would call it alpha because it doesn't meet the original development goals. I don't think we're moving signposts here, we just are using different signposts to begin with.

Actually, because ES is in constant development but open to the public, I'm not even sure if the alpha/beta/release labels really matter or are helpful, since we have aspects of all three categories.

Anyway, the important part; is that we need to nail down exactly what we actually want in a 1.0 release, and how important those items are.

I'm inclined to agree, although, since we're probably going to be in development for years to come, I don't think it's as important as it would be for a commercial product.

I strongly believe this should be something decided by at a bare minimum the combined entirety of all faction leads, reviewers, and devs together; preferably all contributors with input from the playerbase; and is absolutely not something that should be dictated to us by a trio of Devs.

Yes... but there's a fine line between democracy and anarchy. If we just let everyone chime in, we'll have a contradictory list hundreds of items long.

[Zitchas]

I'll take democracy over autocracy, thank you very much.

My main point for Alpha vs Beta is in terms of focus. If something is in Alpha, the primary focus and drive should be to get all the pieces in place. That should be the overarching focus and push. Don't worry about details, worry about getting fundamental principles in place, mechanics working, and above all else, a vision of what the goal is. Beta is where the focus shifts to polish, to finagling fine details, and any new element that gets added had better be coming in already polished up to that level.

The point being that if the game is in Alpha, polishing everything to perfection is counter productive, because it actively hinders the production of the rest of the game. For example, if all the ships are the result of a hundred hours of careful blender work and then artistic post-processing after that, suddenly the bar has been raised to the point no-one can contribute other than a handful of blender experts, and now the entirety of artwork is basically their responsibility; whereas if it'd all been left at MZ's level of art, we could have hundreds of people contributing things everywhere, and then had all of that polished up over time when the time came to polish. Now replicate that to the writing, the code, and every other element.

For a case in point, the Hay Reveal campaign. That's how Alpha works. Get it in as a rough thing, then everyone can work on it and get it working nicely. In contrast, we have the.... Right, we don't have a counter example. We've had no complete campaigns merged as polished things at all. Just a few teasers, and little enough of that, either. There might be a reason for that, and I suspect a large part of it stems from this. The other large parts being the lack of respect for writers, and lack of artistic freedom.

In short, calling it an "Alpha" means that people can continue contributing the way Amazinite, myself, Tehhowch, and all the rest of the old timers did: Starting small with rough things, and learning and building over time.

If we're calling this "Beta", then all those people who need to learn those skills and take those small steps are out of luck; contribution becomes the domain of those who already have the skill and experience to do so. It becomes more exclusionary, and less participatory. No more small successes and rough initial PRs that they can then build on and improve; they have to hit that final stage now.

[mOctave]

Again, I disagree with your labels, but I agree with your conclusions.

[Azure3141]

Right, we don't have a counter example. We've had no complete campaigns merged as polished things at all

I don't know if you missed it, but the Coalition intros (both the Lunarium and Heliarch ones) were merged together and are both highly polished campaign introductions of significant length. I'd hardly call that "just a teaser."

[MasterOfGrey]

Those are not "complete" campaigns. They're definitely polished intros, but if Arachi got hit by a bus next week, they'd be just yet another unfinished project that someone would have to start from scratch on to develop them into full storylines.
That might make them a robust and highly polished teaser (and especially the resistance one is excellent), but that is still what they are.

[Zitchas]

After reading this a few times, I can only come to the same conclusion as GreyMasterofGrey did: This is not a vision, this is a style guide that changed its name to pretend to be something it isn't.

As a style guide, it has some value, and a lot of what is in here is codifying what has been said here and there over the years. It is good to have it written down, if only to make it easier for everyone to see the writing on the wall. I can't say that it inspires any degree of optimism, though.

Looking through it, the level of quality and the degree of restriction present make me pity any new person hoping to contribute to this game. I know I had lucked out to be able to contribute what I did, since I know that if I was just starting out now, my efforts would likely be completely "No'ed" without hesitation. I likewise both sympathize with and pity anyone not a Dev who seeks to add any story.

As far as I am concerned, this document is the death knell for any significant degree of community participation in Endless Sky's development in any meaningful capacity. I am sure there will be plenty of minor things from the community. But anything that actually challenges preconceptions, brings its own ideas into the game, or dares a storyline or faction that doesn't conform to a spreadsheet? I don't see those going anywhere. From the top-down delivery to the contents therein, this is effectively nailing down that no, the community does not have a say in how the game is going to develop, and should not expect to be able to make significant and/or meaningful contributions to it.

And then there's the bit that many have been expecting me to comment on:

Story content should make sense within Endless Sky’s universe and timeline. While the player can play the game for an indefinite amount of time, a majority of campaign content occurs over the span of a few years. The amount of technological progression a group experiences on the timescale the player interacts with them for, over the course of a story or campaign, should not rival the technological progression other groups achieve in longer timescales. It has been established in-game that most factions progress their tech level over the course of thousands of years; a campaign that takes place over the spawn of two years should not result in a faction multiplying its technological capabilities.

First off, I can think of no valid reason why any one faction's rate of technological development should dictate the rate of development of any other disconnected faction. There's no basis for comparison. They are different creatures in different societies in different environments thinking about things in different ways. Good science fiction writing is repleat with examples of civilizations evolving in completely different directions, technologically speaking. The story that one experiences with one faction in no way indicates that the story and development of another faction should progress a certain way. You even explicitly state that interconnections between campaigns should be rare and carefully decided, and yet here's this blanket rule that carefully maintaining a fixed ratio between factions is more important than story or gameplay. This game purports to be sandbox-ish. And that means that the player's experience should be different when they do things in a different order, including having some ships and outfits that may have been excellent choices in one playthrough are unappealing in another because the player has access to different things. This is good, and results in variety. Just like most factions should feel like they are "the good side", there's nothing wrong with people feeling that the faction they chose ends up better off than the alternatives.

Secondly, I can't think of a single reason that such a rule would be contained in the vision document for the game.

Thirdly, stories naturally happen at the point of change in their environment. When new things are invented, when societies change. This is the nature of stories. No one wants to play the story of how things went ho hum nothing changes for the next three hundred years.

Speaking of contributions to the game, and probably of interest to those who have been gently inquiring as to when they'll be able to play the next chapter. There's currently one faction in game that currently runs afoul of that rule. Are they the exception to it, or are they going to be deleted? ? Technological development and the exploration of how society and individuals adapt to it is a fundamental plot line of that campaign. Trying to reset them to ensure they haven't accomplished in the past 300-400 years what has taken others thousands will pretty much gut the whole faction & storyline. Not to mention, humanity itself will need to be downgraded a lot since they've accomplished more in last thousand than pretty much any of their neighbors have done in the ten thousand prior. Especially the Hai. Much bigger numbers there. The Hai and the Korath have lost ground over the last thousand, so does that mean that every other faction's campaign should be negative technological "progress"? That'll be fun. I guess that means no moonbeam or newly developed Wanderer ships, right? Honestly, tying any one faction's rate of progress to another's is just... beyond words.

[Zireael07]

Looking through it, the level of quality and the degree of restriction present make me pity any new person hoping to contribute to this game. I know I had lucked out to be able to contribute what I did, since I know that if I was just starting out now, my efforts would likely be completely "No'ed" without hesitation. I likewise both sympathize with and pity anyone not a Dev who seeks to add any story.

Quoting because I feel this is the most important thing here, as someone who asked some coding questions and thought of writing a set of small insystem missions... the extremely high quality bar made me give up before I really started

[Wyrdean]

My name might not carry as much weight as Grey's or Zitchas's, but I've written my fair share of plugins, and might voice opinions that many plugin-writers like myself would feel after reading this "Vision" Document.

Simply put, it seems Endless Sky is forgetting it's a community-made project.
One made by talented people, who chose to spend their efforts making it a better game.
Talented people, who are now getting burnt out, through the heightening barrier of entry, and the system telling them "No" at every angle, without a chance to present their reasoning.

Whether it be smaller things like Ship Folders, and Submunition-Ships, to Boarding reworks, and Realism Changes. Many of which were specifically called out in this document, and categorically refused.

These talented people are now getting burnt out trying to change this system, making them regret the hours they've spent on it, instead of being able to put their talents to use the way they want to - by making ES a better game for everyone to play.

Derpy seems intent on keeping the general vibe of ES exactly the way it is, it's why this "Vision" document lacks direction, because there isn't any.
Just keep adding more of the exact same with no strange diversity, leading to the exact same "bloat" he seems intent on avoiding at all costs.
The issue is, if you keep chopping off all the new bits of bright green growth on a tree, you just end up with a bush, at best.

Or it dies.

Which ES might, if it keeps going down this path of snipping talent, rather than nurturing it.

[Zitchas]

1. Lack of empathy on my part for Devs as a group:
   When there is a complaint about workload and burnout, and we provide a tool, namely a system explicitly designed to minimize workload on the Devs and alllow (even encourage!) them to focus on working on their own interests, and the Devs toss it in the trash and keep on going doing what they were doing that was leading to burnout and high workload while adding new responsibilities... That's on them. Devs collectively decided to not use the thing designed to solve the problem. Thus they get no sympathy, as a group, for the very predictable consequences of those decisions. I have a lot of sympathy for individuals within the dev group that are stuck with dealing with those results, varying depending on how much input I think they had in making that decision. Obviously, there are some strong personalities that appear to dominate the group, and others that aren't even active and have little to no input.

2. Expectations.
   I must admit, my expectations color my opinions. When someone is appointed a Dev, my expectations is that they keep doing exactly what they have been doing previously... Except instead of just hitting "approve" on things, they also check to make sure it doesn't break things, and then hit "Merge." That's it, that's all. I view Devs as reviewers who can merge things. Nothing more, nothing less. I have had zero expectations that anyone would take control of game development and impose their view on the entire game. I expected them to add their flavor, their ideas, in the form of what they choose to merge. I expected to see them continue to publicly discuss things and resolve problems when two different PRs happen to conflict (and I mean this in the meta sense, not just the technical) just like they did as a reviewer. But overall, I expect each of them to be one more voice merging things in a largely uncoordinated way that allows the game to grow organically. Sure, some things need coordination, like combat mechanics, but most stuff does not. So watching the devs coalesce into a small group that discusses stuff in private and makes broad top-down "We the Devs have decided X" pronouncements is antithetical to the community driven process we have had to date, and in my personal view, a bad thing for the game. With every Dev we appoint, my hope is to get more PRs merged, and have the delay between "approved by a reviewer" and "merged" shorter. That, and acting as an arbiter when conflicts arise between reviewers. That's it, that's all. While there might be a few other things, largely anything outside of those two things is overreach.

3. On communication: Most recently, a Dev approached me with the intent to broach a reconciliation. They are free to name themselves and give their perspectives if they wish, but I will not name them. I trust that they were honest in acting as a go-between, as they have been very trustworthy and dependable in all other matters, but who knows, there is a chance that they weren't actually talking to any of the other Devs about it at all. (Just to be clear, the entirety of the following was between me and the instigator Dev, who said they were relaying this to and speaking with the other Devs. I do not know if that was collectively or individually. I had the impression collectively.)

In any case, they approached me with the intent of establishing a "tournez la page" resolution. (literally, french for "Turn the page") Namely, both sides agree to just let the past die and move forward cooperatively. I welcomed that. I offered what I was hoping to get from the Devs, as well as the commitments I was offering to resolve the various concerns people have expressed to me. I heard from them that some had some concerns about the past, and I offered to include a general public apology for those past mistakes. I expressed that I would like a corresponding apology from them as a symbol of good faith, but I'm neither expecting nor demanding one.

What I heard back was that there was general (although not universal) acceptance of that offer, but a very hardline demand that before any agreement, the Devs wanted another run at hashing out history again. I said I'd be willing to if they had a clear agenda. And by that, I mean a formal business or parliamentary agenda with clearly defined points to be covered that we both agree to, strict schedule (or amount of text) from each of us on each topic, specified conditions of what the expected result of each step is, and someone impartial and respected by everyone to enforce that. And that was rejected, or at least, not followed up with. The offer is still open, by the way.

I also offered to let all the Devs have one last round to hammer me with their commentary on the past. I wouldn't be much of a conversationalist since discussion on the past has inevitably led to more hard feelings every single time, but I was willing to sit through and read every last word they typed and respond occasionally to acknowledge that I had done so. I strongly suspect that this will hurt me quite a bit once again, but I am willing to take that damage and skip responding/retaliating if that is what it takes to start working together again. Likewise, if the Devs want to just skip the formal agenda conversation, and just have one last opportunity to give vent to all their frustrations, comments, and opinions before moving on to just working together cooperatively, I can do that. Don't expect me to say much, in an effort to not cause any additional harm to you, but I will read all of it. To the best of my understanding, this was also ignored or declined, leaving me with the impression that the Devs (either collectively, or individually the ones who currently appear to be "in power") want a full fledged free flowing "discussion" of the exact same style that we've had in the past that has led to severely damaging our relationships in the past. I categorically refuse to take part in such a discussion, since our relationships are bad enough as it is, I don't care to see what "even worse" looks like. I'll take "bad" over "worse", thank you.

If this is the way it actually happened on your side too, well, it is what it is. If this isn't what you got, or it didn't happen at all, then I will be very disappointed in the Dev that was the instigator.

tdlr:

• A Dev reached out to me suggesting a "bury the hatchet and work together" proposal.
• I expressed that I liked the idea.
• I specified what I was expecting from an agreement, and what I offered.
• I was informed it is largely acceptable, but with concerns.
• I offered to include a public apology in response to those concerns, and a hope (not an expectation or demand) that they might reciprocate in good faith.
• They expressed a non-negotiable demand for a conversation to hash out history one more time.
• I proposed two formats that would be acceptable to me. (A: A heavily structured and moderated formal meeting, or B: a one-sided listening session where they can give vent to everything and I will acknowledge reading it, but keep my own responses minimal.)
• These have been either rejected or ignored, and nothing has come of it.
• The offer still stands.

To quote the closing lines of our conversation:

A: All of this is one big miscommunication
B: Agreed.
Largely driven by erroneous assumptions.
And negative perceptions.

4). Appreciation. I would just like say this: I have an immense amount of appreciation for the effort that all the Devs put into the game. It is a lot of work, a lot of stress, and a lot of demands on your time. Don't get me wrong, I have a huge amount of respect and appreciation for that. That being said, appreciation for the effort you spend does not correlate with appreciation for your results. I currently have a fairly mixed appreciation for what that effort has achieved, with strong appreciation on some things and a fairly negative opinion about certain specific results.
I agree, it hurts a lot to be told what you have achieved isn't appreciated or isn't wanted. I'm sorry for my part in that. I hope you also appreciate that it goes both ways, and I've seen an awful lot of that dished out (usually indirectly via neglect, but sometimes directly) to people who don't have a position of authority to provide them some shielding or comfort.

More appreciation for everyone, by everyone, for the time and efforts invested would be a very nice change indeed.

[Zireael07]

WTF? What would rehashing history again even accomplish?

[Wyrdean]

It'd be a chance for said unnamed dev to try and prove they were right, and force Zichas to admit it.

Why else would they refuse both a moderated discussion, or a chance to rant?

[Zitchas]

Just for clarity, in case there was any confusion: the "instigator Dev" that initiated this conversation with me, and acted as go-between between me and the other Devs; gave every indication of being very firmly of the opinion that we all need to "forgive and forget" or, as they framed it "Turn the page" on history. As far as I can tell, that Dev had(has) no interest in rehashing history, only in mending relationships. Due to the nature of having a go-between, I have no idea what format or who was involved on the other side of the conversation. It might have been just one person, it might have been all of them. It was implied there were multiple people, and a variety of opinions.

[Saugia]

I appreciate the transparency and discussion of this. For clarification, the dev that reached out for a proposal to talk together didn't do so alone, largely in part I was suggesting that we do so rather than let things continue to be quiet and a lack of communication and grumbling. There are a few circumstances as to why we haven't yet moved forward with this, but I can guarantee you there still is a desire from us to have a discussion. Personally, I too wish we could move forward, and am hoping we are able to eventually do so.

As for the "rehashing history bit" - no, it is not an attempt to force or prove ideals. It is sincerely an attempt to look at where things have been and acknowledge it and move forward - since issues have arised between devs and individuals this has never happened. This might different between individuals in the degree, and I cannot speak for others (nor do I wish to do so), but overall it is mostly trying to bridge that gap again. I appreciate the discussion and other post following it, really, and I hope the others do too.

To be blunt again, the extremely negative and assuming points here that this is something that wouldn't even accomplish anything or is intentionally a negative action only further supports my concerns of biased negativity (note, I'm not saying all negativity - I know the concerns around several things have lead to understandable frustration, I moreso speak of the immediate responses, which happen often nowadays). I understand if it comes off not useful, but in reality it is something that would ease the mind and be very helpful in moving forward for a few people, not just "an unnamed dev". It's this kind of reception that is why MCO, and recently me and some others, have been taking a seat back. I'd like to avoid assumptions and continue to communicate the desire to work together, work around disagreements or ill-concerns, and with no ill-intent, there's always a reason for something.

[RisingLeaf]

A summary of my thoughts, as this piece of document seems like an important milestone to me.
I will have more time for ES soonish, but I want to post my thoughts right now when the discussion is active.

I find it a commendable initiative to set ES goals into stone and such goals would definitely help to resolve some questions that are constantly argued about. That said I think some parts of this document seem to open more questions instead of resolving existing ones. Take this paragraph for example:

Endless Sky is a 2D spaceship game inspired by the Escape Velocity series. However, this is not the same thing as saying that Endless Sky is a remake or modernization of the series. It is not trying to exactly reproduce EV or any other games it may take inspiration from or be similar to. While there may be some common elements, Endless Sky is its own take on its genre, and isn’t an attempt to mix every mechanic, gameplay element, or story from other titles.

Now given the heading: What type of game is Endless Sky? I expect to get some information on exactly that, but when I extract all information all I get is:

• a 2D spaceship game
• inspired by the Escape Velocity series
• it is not a remake

What does this tell me about the game? Nothing. If I dont know EV this could literally be a sidescrolling shooter or an alien invaders type game. Where is the part about story driven? Where is the exploration, where is combat and where is trading? If you dont want EV to be in foreground, just dont mention it here and describe what you want ES to be, EV should be a sidenote here, not 80% of the paragraph.

I have a similar problem with What stage of development is Endless Sky in?.
Such information does not belong into a vision document. I wont even argue about whether whats stated is true or not, because I do not care. In a vision document I want to know what the game is about, not what is currently happening. Just as a reminder, this is the second paragraph, so after the first two paragraphs I still do not know what ES is truly about.
Imagine a potential contributor wants to do something for this game they like. So they go onto github to see what changes would be in line for this game, they find this document and the first thing they get is: "we are currently in [insert stage here] big changes are currently dis/encouraged", but what kind of changes? what brings this game closer to completion? They dont know that yet.

More of these problems come through the whole document, such are:

• the use of AI (what does this have to do with a vision? thats just a rule)
• Currently, we are in the middle of deciding on where exactly to go with Capture Balance, unless you want to constantly update this, consider making clear points that are independent of current development
• etc.

So far for the problems, but i also see lots of good decisions, obviously I wont focus on them so much because there is nothing to explain but here is a short list of what I consider main statements that actually affect development (they are sometimes hidden between a lot of explanation, consider highlighting them more):

• a lower bar of entry for aspiring creators this is a clear statement that might even be its own heading
• The game is intended to be an open world for the player to explore. Another clear statement, why not move it up to the first paragraph
• The game is also intended to be actively engaged with. Same here, these are what ES actually is, why do you hide this 😃
• Combat missions are designed with the expectation that they can be completed by a sufficiently experienced player in a single ship Another point directly impacting gameplay design

Now I have one more thing to say, that is more related to some replies I have seen here, that is that people who work on features often get them closed after hours of work. Maybe it is worth to take a turn on this point, often people just open PRs without opening an issue and getting some approval on it(this includes me, I am guilty too), but the correct order of operation would be:

1. open an issue or discussion related to your feature
2. wait until a dev or maybe a reviewer(I am not sure how the opinions weight right now) states that this feature would be considered beneficial to ES, note that it should be a person with some authority and not just random people who think this sounds cool
3. actually develop the feature now that you have some assurance that it isnt just getting noed, there is still some probability that your implementation is just bad and gets rejected, but that is much less likely now
4. engage in review process until merge
   If more people would follow this process(yes including me) some of the mentioned problems would be occur less often.

Second, big PRs take a lot of time. This can be tiring, I know for myself, but if you open something with over a hundred lines of changes, people will wait until they got more time to review this. More changes=Longer review process, simple as that and if you want something faster, consider splitting it up into multiple small PRs, this is not always possible, a reason why factions take so long.

As stated earlier, I will have time for ES again soon, hope this feedback is actually helpful.

Edit:
Another important point that just came to my mind, this document lacks severly in providing any structure on how the development is organized, which would be really helpful, for example apparently there are 3 new devs, but I only know because of an announcment that says: "Hey, cool they are new"
If I may just show my reaction: Whaaat? Why? Insert total confusion
Why can there not be a place where I see who is doing what, why new people were needed and what their qualifications are as well as what they will be doing. (a lot of why and what here, honestly this point really makes me desperate some times, because I am doing stuff here but there seems to be no intend to push forward some of the most crucial information, please, please be a bit more transparent.)
(Also, every announcment should be on github as well as on discord)
I would be so happy if this could be recognized as a problem.

Edit: Edit: of course they are all qualified, no doubt in that.

[MasterOfGrey]

Personally I consider OpenTTD's example to be a better and more relevant match-up: https://github.com/OpenTTD/OpenTTD/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#project-goals

Notably, each of their project goals can be communicated in 1 sentence.

It never hurts to have supporting paragraphs, but at the top level these goals should be able to be simply summarised.

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

Now I have one more thing to say, that is more related to some replies I have seen here, that is that people who work on features often get them closed after hours of work. Maybe it is worth to take a turn on this point, often people just open PRs without opening an issue and getting some approval on it(this includes me, I am guilty too), but the correct order of operation would be:

1. open an issue or discussion related to your feature
2. wait until a dev or maybe a reviewer(I am not sure how the opinions weight right now) states that this feature would be considered beneficial to ES, note that it should be a person with some authority and not just random people who think this sounds cool
3. actually develop the feature now that you have some assurance that it isnt just getting noed, there is still some probability that your implementation is just bad and gets rejected, but that is much less likely now
4. engage in review process until merge
   If more people would follow this process(yes including me) some of the mentioned problems would be occur less often.

This is something I thought of suggesting many times. Nothing, creates more frustration than spending many hours on something to find out it's trash.

[MasterOfGrey]

[...] but the correct order of operation would be:

1. open an issue or discussion related to your feature
2. wait until a dev or maybe a reviewer(I am not sure how the opinions weight right now) states that this feature would be considered beneficial to ES, note that it should be a person with some authority and not just random people who think this sounds cool
3. actually develop the feature now that you have some assurance that it isnt just getting noed, there is still some probability that your implementation is just bad and gets rejected, but that is much less likely now
4. engage in review process until merge

If more people would follow this process(yes including me) some of the mentioned problems would be occur less often.

My concern with this is that on the few occasions I have done this, or seen someone else do this, there seems to be an unhelpful pattern here.
Specifically the concern is that:

• The larger the potential change, the more this process makes sense.
• The larger the potential change, the less I've seen the discussions engaged with.

Now I'm not disagreeing that this is a logically ideal process - but I think if we're going to go about saying that this is how it should be done, then we need to have some sort of process or system (perhaps at least a new label for proposals requiring concept review) to make it more viable for devs or reviewers to identify and engage in the things that need engaging with.

And I also think that the template for opening a PR should then call this out, and the template for opening an issue (which I think is where this is better placed) should give specific instructions on presenting it so that things can be readily identified as needing this.

[Zitchas]

Then there's also always the problem that we've seen more than a few ideas get shot down repeatedly as terrible things that will never be considered until they're done anyway and tried in a PR, and then, surprise, it's actually a decent idea! All the long thoughtful contemplation in the world isn't better than actual experience of the currently suggested implementation.

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

I feel a much clearer policy surrounding the submission of ideas would be the first step. I've seen and experienced what happens when you come into somebodies PR and start suggesting alternatives to their work. It never goes well. Once an idea reaches the PR stage it's too late to rework the whole concept of an idea. Had the ideas been started in a discussion or issue first and maybe people took the time to leave their thoughts and opinions, the ideas could be turned from just satisfactory to really good.

ideas get shot down repeatedly as terrible things that will never be considered until they're done anyway and tried in a PR, and then, surprise, it's actually a decent idea!

This is true. If somebody feels that an idea is better experienced then they could go ahead and create a PR so people can test it. The PR should only be created after an initial submission of the idea for review. Now, I understand not everything needs to follow this approach but there needs to be some sort of policy in place.

[ziproot]

I gathered this document would be used to show why or why not to make X PR, rather than just closing it with a vague “this doesn’t follow the vision of the game.”

First of all, the devs should probably explain what MainPanel is. After looking at the source code and RisingLeaf’s documentation, I think MainPanel is outer space, but not everyone will know this.

However, the main issue I have is that the developers seem reluctant to draw the line. For instance, one paragraph talks about how features should not be added that make the game too much like an idle game. However, fleet jumping makes it easier to do what is considered the core gameplay loop of the game, making it more automatic than it was before. Where would developers draw the line here? How much automation is too much?

Another paragraph mentions how the game should not hand-hold the player too much. However, from what I had gathered, the developers seemed to be in favor of some communication on where you were told to go to continue a story line. Would that now be considered too hand-holdy? What hints are considered realistic enough to be acceptable by the developers, and what would cross the line?

I had those sorts of questions on almost every paragraph. The only way to ensure this is being followed without having to have long back and forths between a contributor and a developer is to assume the worst case scenario, which would mean almost no changes to the game. This is probably what is causing some of the controversy, and this is why my biggest issue is with one paragraph near the beginning:

While the nature of the game’s development does mean that sweeping changes could be made to the game, we must maintain moderation in how we go about making such changes. Any sweeping changes to the game must only be made after heavy consideration, discussion, and testing. Such changes should be the exception, not the rule. We should not expect that large swathes of the game will be completely redone, especially for a purpose such as fitting new content into the game. Similarly, content should not be made with the expectation that it will be completely overhauled or entirely replaced later. It should still be complete, but may need tweaks later down the road as we slowly add more to the game. This goes for both writing and game balance.

There is no explanation as to what counts as a sweeping change, and one person’s small bugfix is another person’s sweeping change. Unlike other paragraphs which deal with specific types of features, this paragraph deals with every feature ever requested, while not actually drawing the line.

Even one of risingleaf’s quoted lines (“Combat missions are designed with the expectation that they can be completed by a sufficiently experienced player in a single ship”) still doesn’t draw the line, as it doesn’t mention what the developers think counts as a sufficiently experienced player.

This makes me wonder if this is even the right approach. If the developers are unable to determine where to draw the line, then I think a better idea may be to have the developers give a list of issues that they want solved along with the solutions, and then the contributors can work on those issues, with the reviewers making sure they meet quality standards for the game, rather than having this game of contributors making a solution, convincing people to support it, only for it to still be closed because the contributor and the developers had a different interpretation of the vision document. This is still a notable improvement from before, where there was no idea at all what the vision was, but I still think there are many ways to go before this can be used as a good way to see if X PR should be made, or if it will be a waste of time for both the contributor and the developers.

Thank you for your consideration.

-ziproot

EDIT: Clarity

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

from ziproot:

I think a better idea may be to have the developers give a list of issues that they want solved along with the solutions, and then the contributors can work on those issues, with the reviewers making sure they meet quality standards for the game, rather than having this game of contributors making a solution, convincing people to support it, only for it to still be closed because the contributor and the developers had a different interpretation of the vision document. This is still a notable improvement from before, where there was no idea at all what the vision was, but I still think there are many ways to go before this can be used as a good way to see if X PR should be made, or if it will be a waste of time for both the contributor and the developers.

I think this is a much better way to do things at least for the mean time. (i.e. until the back log is cleared) It makes more sense to have contributors working on what is wanted and needed instead what the contributor wants to add. I feel any 'new' ideas should be brought up as Discussions first, it's an area much better suited to work out details of an idea before it goes to a PR. It saves a lot of wasted time and hopefully a lot of understandably defensive arguments.

[mOctave]

I agree. However, the problem with discussions it that it's a tab that is very easy to ignore, so (at least for me) I often forget to check discussions for a couple weeks at a time. Maybe that's a problem that would be fixed by giving discussions more mainstream use outside of this kind of debate.

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

I wonder if there is a setting that could be adjusted to indicate when and if people post new discussions.

[ziproot]

I agree. However, the problem with discussions it that it's a tab that is very easy to ignore, so (at least for me) I often forget to check discussions for a couple weeks at a time. Maybe that's a problem that would be fixed by giving discussions more mainstream use outside of this kind of debate.

I get you. I didn't even notice there was a vision document or new devs until the campfire chat.

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

I think I just found out how to receive notifications for all activity in discussions tab. I'm only assuming we would get notifications for new discussions. Won't know until somebody starts a new one.

• goto the main code page for this repo
• click on the watch or unwatch button (depends on whether you are watching this repo or not)
• in the pop-up click Custom
• select Discussions

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

I can confirm that 'watching' Discussions, as I have done above, does indeed notify you when someone starts a new Discussion.