Data-driven design is something I passionately believe in as it can provide an objective, defensible rationale for choices made by my team. It generally makes for better products. So the question I was left with was if the Vehicle Experience Team (VET) uses data points in their decision making process. Why was the reception of a Master Modes a disaster? I will do my best as a outsider/non gaming dev to share my thoughts on why this is likely the case. Data-driven design is an approach where decisions about product features, user interfaces, and overall design are guided primarily by data collected from various sources. This data can include user behavior analytics, performance metrics, A/B test results, and other quantitative insights. The core principle is to base design decisions on empirical evidence rather than intuition or subjective opinions, aiming to create a more effective and user centrist product. This sounds great, so how can it go so wrong? While data-driven design is powerful, it has its limitations. It is not well-suited for aspects of design that involve high levels of creativity or innovation. Where existing data may be sparse or non-existent. It may also overlook qualitative factors such as emotional responses or cultural factors that data alone might not capture. Additionally, over-reliance on data can sometimes lead to a focus on incremental improvements rather than breakthrough innovations. Seem familiar? I'm sure most of you have heard the story WWII bomber with the bullet holes pertaining to survivorship bias. I'll leave a link to the video here in case you have not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9WFpVsRtQg To summarize the video, the data that we do not have may be more critical than the data we do have. When considered, it may drastically change a decision made. I suspect the VET went to great lengths to measure every conceivable player metric pertaining to flight. They likely then used these metrics coupled with a list of yet carefully considered goals of what they wanted to achieve to make combat more fun (closer combat, slower speeds, inability to escape, no jousting, etc.). No doubt, they collected a ton of data that clearly indicated that people had the most fun when the defined criteria was met. Interestingly, this criteria would likely have been gathered using the old flight model. So, when flight characteristics of the old model did not align with their per-defined goals and were altered or lost it would have appeared to not have been an issue. It didn't matter as they were not measured in the equation used to define what fun is. As the VET developed Master Modes in a black box, the most important PU data point to of all to determine fun was missing. The only thing that could have prevented most the displeasure. User feedback. User feedback is crucial because it provides qualitative insights that complement quantitative data. While metrics can show you what users are doing, feedback can reveal why they are doing it, their pain points, and in our case of most importantly their desires. This contextual understanding helps to address user needs more effectively and fosters a more empathetic approach to design. Integrating user feedback ensures that the design not only meets technical requirements but also resonates with the end-users, leading to a more successful and user-friendly product. Without this, the VET was completely blind to how racers, haulers, explorers, miners and many other PVE players would receive Master Modes. Or how something may be somewhat positively received in Area Commander to then bring much frustration in the PU. CIG, I'm sure you have metrics that indicate Master Modes is a success. Yet the community has numerous channels and tens of thousands of data points of growing player displeasure. I understand that thousands of hours and likely seven figures was invested to bring us Master Modes. It takes great humility as a developer to recognize that something you invested so much of yourself in, did not work the way you intended. That's okay. Learn from this. Get changes out quick, measure feedback, fail soon, iterate then succeed. For the developers reading this, Agile is all about transparency, if you're going to develop in a black box of secrets, you might as well be using the Waterfall methodology instead. It's cheaper. We the community, including all the complainers are passionate about Star Citizen. We want you to succeed in bringing us the best damn space sim ever. We have and will continue to back you if we believe you are engaging with us, for us. Continue to use your data to make decisions but this time around, please put more weight on feedback in your decision making process. Provide us a plan for a plan on how you will fix this. But be agile.