Star Citizen - The E.L.E.

[Serviceman]

I see where you're coming from here, but I fundamentally disagree with the premise that a project managers primary job function is to give directional commands. In my estimation a good project managers primary responsibility is the emotional well-being, and engagement of the team members on the project.

Which CR would be doing by listening to everybody. What other sort of engagement are you thinking of.

On the face this statement seems reasonable, in retrospect it is ridiculous because of the use of the single word "everybody". Any person managing a project on this scale will have delegated authority, and will respect that delegation. Command structure is implemented for a reason. It creates levels of buffering. No single person, at this level of development, can keep the entirety of the project in focus, all the time.

It's also a statement that presumes we should read everything literally, one of the issues I have with the anti-SC crowd. We don't know what subset of "everybody" CR is referring to. True, it could mean he listens to all 400 employees. It's far more likely to mean that "everybody" is simply all the appropriate team leads.

No manager, ever, should "lose it". A statement like this just tends to evoke visions of the lowly wage slave, browbeaten, and bullied by a tyrannical boss. Tyranny in the workplace, never, EVER, in the end, leads to lasting results.

And define "lose it". I'm not going to defend CR here, since we have all heard the stories and seen him during the disaster at GC17, but at the same time an employee who doesn't do what his boss wants him to after the boss has made a decision is probably going to get chewed out in some fashion if not canned.

A good project manager would put on the bigboy pants, and do the best that they could to bring the team into harmony.

Which entails making a decision and getting the team to follow it and making it work.  Once CR decides that space mining is a good profession to have and that CIG should implement mechanics for that profession, then having somebody tell him he is wrong, that space mining shouldln't be there isn't going to help team harmony.

In summation a good project manager understands that the goal of the project is a by product of building an environment that will be eminently conducive to bringing that end goal to fruition.

And if a team member challenges that harmony by constantly criticises the boss, and his plans, ideas and vision? Would he deserves the chewing out or firing that is likely headed his way? A project cannot have 2 or 20 or 200 different goals in mind. Whether we like it or not, CR is the man in charge and it is his vision that counts.

I like that vision. But I also think that if what we hear is anywhere near accurate, CR is the wrong project lead. But a project lead needs to also lead. Part of that is creating a good working environment. But it's also about listening to everybody, even if it is just through team leads, making a choice about how best to achieve the vision and getting the team to work towards it taking that decision in mind. Just because CR speaks about one aspect of the job doesn't necessarily mean the others aren't there.

Hello everyone, new here.

Kyrt, I do agree with you about CR being the wrong leader for the project and he is leading it the wrong direction.  He needs to make Squadron 42 first, a basic Wing Commander type game ,perhaps with that FPS part as well, make some money from that and then continue on making SC.  My feeling is that sq42 and sc will both come out, but most likely not under CR leadership and most likely by another group that had to bail out the company and bought it and end up finishing up the games with less fidelity than CR wants, basically another Freelancer situation.

[Spunky Munkee]

This would be the second time that he drove a game project off the cliff with his failure to maintain fiscal constraint.

[Serviceman]

This would be the second time that he drove a game project off the cliff with his failure to maintain fiscal constraint.

Yup, that is true.

[Backer42]

My feeling is that sq42 and sc will both come out, but most likely not under CR leadership and most likely by another group that had to bail out the company and bought it and end up finishing up the games with less fidelity than CR wants, basically another Freelancer situation.

I don't think so. They already burned through all the money of potential after-release sales: Almost anybody with an interest in these games already paid for them.

[GaryII]

My feeling is that sq42 and sc will both come out, but most likely not under CR leadership and most likely by another group that had to bail out the company and bought it and end up finishing up the games with less fidelity than CR wants, basically another Freelancer situation.

 Yes, its Freelancer again, but today no big publisher (like MS) will buy out them, because today publishers do not like to take any extra risk with new ideas..AAA games today are super expensive to make and thats why we see copy and paste shooters and neverending remasters.... 

 So its up to only to the cultists to keep this project alive...

[dsmart]

My feeling is that sq42 and sc will both come out, but most likely not under CR leadership and most likely by another group that had to bail out the company and bought it and end up finishing up the games with less fidelity than CR wants, basically another Freelancer situation.

I don't think so. They already burned through all the money of potential after-release sales: Almost anybody with an interest in these games already paid for them.

Which is why they keep selling concept ships because that's the only way they are going to be milking whales.

There is simply no post-release monetization for this title beyond selling ships. Which, as we know, they've said you can "earn" in-game. Considering how much stuff they have walked back, and done in order to raise money, even if they do this, it's going to be hilarious to see how restrictive it is, thus compelling fools to buy ships so as not to grind.

There is simply no gameplay element that warrants buying ships for this game. None. And it's not likely that they are ever going to get that far.

Even SQ42 is going to get universally panned if it ever gets released. So that's not going to be sustainable either.

[Backer42]

There is simply no gameplay element that warrants buying ships for this game. None. And it's not likely that they are ever going to get that far.

More importantly there is also no gameplay element to "earn" ships in game three years after the announced release date.

That was of the longer standing reasons for me to refund two years ago: By that point of time I expected to have a hangar full of ships (with no "LTI") owned by playing the game in late 2014 and 2015. Regardless if it's called Alpha, Beta or "Early Access".

Now it's almost 2018 and still the only way to progress in that "game" is sending the developers ridiculous amounts of money.

[dsmart]

INCOMING!!!

https://twitter.com/ChambersArt/status/913034918376148992

we. are. getting. closer... #StarCitizen #Evocati #Avocado

[dsmart]

Holy Crap! That's a lot of Google queries for Star Citizen refunds!

[dsmart]

I don't think this guy knows anything about game development.

Yes, that WAS what he promised in the kickstarter.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cig/star-citizen

THANK YOU. This has always bugged me. People sometimes claim that SC was initially pitched as a singleplayer only game, or with very limited multiplayer - well it wasn't really. It was already pitched as a massive juggernaut from the get-go. It only widened in scope after that.

Also, let's keep tabs here:

Single Player – Offline or Online(Drop in / Drop out co-op play)
- Canceled from SQ42.

Persistent Universe (hosted by US)
- Still a go

Mod-able multiplayer (hosted by YOU)
- Nope.

No Subscriptions
- Oh look!

No Pay to Win
- So no paying money for getting anything that's giving you an in-game advantage over other players, right? Right.

[dsmart]

the evocati leaks are going to be absolutely brutal

I know they don't have much choice but to rush out a "wow you can fly a ship around in space" 3.0 with a shitload of ships disabled and you can only land on landing pads and not anywhere you want

but the second a single pissed off evocati starts leaking the "welp game is shit still" they are going to get a flood of additional refunds

they really fucked themselves on this

Agreed. Thing is that CIG has completely eroded whatever backer trust they had left; save ofc for a few devout stragglers.

We now have more people in EFT and Evocati than ever before. So trust me when I tell you this, we're going to leak EVERY FUCKING THING.

And now that Goons control ETF and Evocati, even hilarious ETF chats like this, are getting screened + shared. ETF Stuff like this which we just lol about, are going to be the sort of screen caps we'll be taking - nonstop. Including 3.0 shots etc.

[premiumnugz]

Holy Crap! That's a lot of Google queries for Star Citizen refunds!

Make sure you click "Feedback" and "This is helpful" below that Google link so shitizens can't get it removed from Google or delisted because it hurts their feelings, you know sure as shit they're going to be reporting it en-masse.

[Orgetorix]

Which CR would be doing by listening to everybody. What other sort of engagement are you thinking of.

My whole point in posting that quote was to show that he really doesn't listen, at all. His approach is a micromanagement style tailored to limit any downside risk pertaining to his decisions, eg... If the people working in any part of the project produce brilliancies, he takes the credit. If they fail due to his ubiquitous micromanaging, then the blame shifting is immediate. 

It became clear within a matter of weeks of working at CIG, that all the decisions for the character pipeline and approach had been made- by Roberts. It became clear that this was a company-wide pattern- CR dictates all. Instead of articulating the standard for approval and allowing the team to develop the best methods to meet this bar, Roberts dictates what the method is, usually with a fraction of the knowledge that the employee has over their particular field. Then, when the plan or method fails to produce the results CR wants, the employee inevitably takes the blame, after all they are responsible for their corner of the game. -David Jennison

It's also a statement that presumes we should read everything literally, one of the issues I have with the anti-SC crowd. We don't know what subset of "everybody" CR is referring to. True, it could mean he listens to all 400 employees. It's far more likely to mean that "everybody" is simply all the appropriate team leads.

"everybody
pronoun

    Every person."

Though I can't be certain on exactly what he meant when he said "everybody",

In verbis non verba sed res et ratio quaerenda est. In wording, it is not the words but the substance and the
meaning that is to be sought. (Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) p. 5318)

Of course then there is,

Non accipi debent verba in demonstrationem falsam, quae competunt in limitationem veram. Words ought not to be accepted to import a false description when they are consistent with a true definition.(Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) p. 5353-5354)

So I can only assume that he meant exactly what he said. Which "everybody" is, by a modern analogous definition equal to,

IN TOTO
in toto (in toh-toh), adv.[Latin “in whole”] Completely; as a whole <the company rejected the
offer in toto>. (Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed. 2004) p. 2409)

So by using the single word "everybody", in my view, he means the entirety of the project. From backers, to devs, to leads, to management, and every one else involved, in an inclusive state.

If I'm misunderstanding what he meant by "everybody", than he is more than welcome to clarify that point. Until such, my initial examination stands.

No matter how much verbal diarrhea proceeds from his mouth. He doesn't seem to have a laconic grasp on what he's trying to articulate. Hence the voluminous amounts of handwaving trying to visually express what he has a hard time conveying verbally.

You seem to fail to understand that I'm not really part of the "anti-SC crowd", nor am I truly a goon. What I am is anti-psychopath, and to me, in my opinion. Croberts=Psychopath.

And define "lose it". I'm not going to defend CR here, since we have all heard the stories and seen him during the disaster at GC17, but at the same time an employee who doesn't do what his boss wants him to after the boss has made a decision is probably going to get chewed out in some fashion if not canned.

lose it
informal
​
to stop being able to control your emotions and suddenly start to shout, cry, or laugh:
I'd been trying so hard to stay calm but in the end I just lost it.

There's a definition, so how are you going to defend Croberts here, by not defending him?

If you can't control your own emotions, how can you be expected to control a $150+ million project?

If you were interviewing a PM for a project, and he has known emotional control issues. How would you justify selecting him over the other applicants? How would you ever justify subjecting any employees to abuse, because that PM lacks basic emotional control? 

Also remember here, that you need to choose your words with care. Would you, in an interview about project management, trying to deflect criticism of that management, ever use the phase "lose it", and use it in a sense that directly relates to your managerial actions?

Which entails making a decision and getting the team to follow it and making it work.  Once CR decides that space mining is a good profession to have and that CIG should implement mechanics for that profession, then having somebody tell him he is wrong, that space mining shouldln't be there isn't going to help team harmony.

Why is Croberts making a decision on spice mining, when he has no clue that implementing that mechanic would be either a good thing or a bad thing? In the end, even if he did know that this was the best course, browbeating his team into submission, is not a valid managerial tactic. A better tactic would be to understand why you are getting the push-back from your team, and address those concerns.

Just to refactor, hmmm I mean reiterate what Dave wrote,

Roberts dictates what the method is, usually with a fraction of the knowledge that the employee has over their particular field. -David Jennison

And if a team member challenges that harmony by constantly criticises the boss, and his plans, ideas and vision? Would he deserves the chewing out or firing that is likely headed his way? A project cannot have 2 or 20 or 200 different goals in mind. Whether we like it or not, CR is the man in charge and it is his vision that counts.

The question here is why is he "criticizing" his boss. That's where the "boss" needs to have humility. No one is ever right all the time. Of course if you have a poison pill disrupting things then it's another story. Those kind of people can be spotted, though there's no point in "chewing them out". Most company's adhere to the policy of a verbal, then written warning, then walk them out.

Seriously though that's what project management is all about. You're having to coordinate multiple teams goals to produce a single homogeneous whole.

I like that vision. But I also think that if what we hear is anywhere near accurate, CR is the wrong project lead. But a project lead needs to also lead. Part of that is creating a good working environment. But it's also about listening to everybody, even if it is just through team leads, making a choice about how best to achieve the vision and getting the team to work towards it taking that decision in mind. Just because CR speaks about one aspect of the job doesn't necessarily mean the others aren't there.

Then we agree, Croberts is the wrong person to be leading this project, and my initial statement stands,

The question isn't whether Croberts judgment in direction is correct, but whether his judgement in any respect of this project is correct.

[Kyrt]

Which CR would be doing by listening to everybody. What other sort of engagement are you thinking of.

My whole point in posting that quote was to show that he really doesn't listen, at all. His approach is a micromanagement style tailored to limit any downside risk pertaining to his decisions, eg... If the people working in any part of the project produce brilliancies, he takes the credit. If they fail due to his ubiquitous micromanaging, then the blame shifting is immediate. 

Of course, Jennison could have been exaggerating.

So I can only assume that he meant exactly what he said. Which "everybody" is, by a modern analogous definition equal to, .

And when faced with several possible meanings, you don't choose the option that mskes most sense in context, you choose the option that is most beneficial to your argument.

CR could have meant everybody on the planet ehen he said 'everybody'. All 8 billion plus. Plainly that would be silly.

But so is presuming that by 'everybody'  he means everyone involved in the project from backers right up to team leaders.

Given who and what he is, 'everyone' most likely refers to a much smaller pool. Most likely, the team leaders alongside a handful of others....at least directly. You could say he also listens to his devs, and the Evocati, and backers but directly? As in talk with each team member?

Hes going to hold meetings with team leads and liaisons. He might hold occasional group meetings with the devs but by and large, he isn't going to be talking with 'everybody".

No matter how much verbal diarrhea proceeds from his mouth. He doesn't seem to have a laconic grasp on what he's trying to articulate. Hence the voluminous amounts of handwaving trying to visually express what he has a hard time conveying verbally.

Lots of people gesticulate while speaking. This is not a reason to attack CR.

CR is a visionary who has repeatedly shown himself to be a terrible project lead. Whether or not the reports of micromanaging are correct...and they seem likely to be given his behaviour during GC17...he has definitely shown that he has no discipline wrt fiscal matters and no will to resist feature creep. He spends money like water and the feature creep is responsible for a lot of the issues the project seems to suffer from.

There's a definition, so how are you going to defend Croberts here, by not defending him?

Yes...I figured you would choose a meaning that showed CR in the worst possible light.

Conversely, if I were to say that I 'lose it', I'd mean that I het a little excited or that I take things a little too seriously. In conyext, that seems closer to CRs meaning than by asduming he mrantv"I go full postal!!!"

You may not call yourself a goon, but by demonstrating an ability to choose a meaning for CRs words most beneficial for your argument rather than the most likely meaning, you undermine the credibility of DSmarts arguments and give CRs backers more cover, mote reason to defend him and his actions.

CR appears to be incompetent in his own way.

Also remember here, that you need to choose your words with care. Would you, in an interview about project management, trying to deflect criticism of that management, ever use the phase "lose it", and use it in a sense that directly relates to your managerial actions?

Given the context and apparent mraning in which CR uses the words,  tne only downside seems to be having someone coming along with a personal agenda and twisting the meaning.

I'm not going to argue CR is a good PM...IMO, he isn't....but his actions and results show that. There is no need to twist his words

[Motto]

I for one think that Chris Roberts' words actually can be taken literally. I know the kind, I have worked for one. He sticks his nose everywhere, will have a comment on every aspect of the work of everybody who works for him, even the receptionist or janitor, without having the knowledge to do so. Will take credit for all and blame for nothing yet he is the one constantly fucking up everything. Does not listen to any input given. He's not micromanaging, he's nanomanaging. And when he loses it, he actually loses it. Screaming like hell. Like a toddler with a tantrum. He is the kind who constantly expects people to do what he wants, and get's angry when the they can't (do that). He'll be pissed even when backers don't do as he wants and starts screaming and rambling about that. It's a fucking nightmare to work for a guy like that. I always get a North-Korea / Kim Yong-Un feeling. So I think the letter can be taken literally and probably it'll be even worse than described. And I can tell you from experience, it's no fun working that way. No matter what you do, the only thing you get is critique and that'll take all the fun out of work(ing). In the end, you just collect your paycheck and try to find a better job as soon as possible.