People say they want a large open world, but no one wants to travel more than 200 Ls to a station, some dont want SC at all, just jump from station to station, the SC drop in was moved from 20 km to 9.5 and even that was described by someone on this forum as literally "the worst torture ever" because it takes 40 seconds...
I'm an advocate of the mini-hyperjump from star to planet to cut down on wasted time Supercruising just to get from A to B. However, I only want that as an extra option, but that doesn't mean I want the ability to Supercruise instead, like we do now, to go away. Think of it like this:
In other openworld games, I can walk from A to B, or I might be able to drive, sail, fly, ride a horse or even swim... etc., if I choose to depending on the environment. Each one differs in the rate and way you can experience the journey, but you still arrive at the same point.
Supercruise has its place, and I wpuldn't want to be without its ability to explore, or visit small points of interest that cannot be locked onto by the FSD; or, indeed, if you really like the process, to visit any and all objects, large or small, as we do now. However, having the extra option to also jump from a star to planet, or from planet to planet, won't kill the game for those that don't want to do it. But it will make the game better for those that do need it to economise gameplay time.
Sure Obsidian Ant's delivery could be a little more "perky" but he's obviously made the vid with non native english speakers in mind and he's taken the time to lay out his version of the words he means to make understanding his point that much simpler.
I've now watched both the videos, the one before this, where he does the Military Strike mission, and this follow up "rant". Much of the argument is clouded by overstating the personal definitions of "grind" and "time sink". I can't blame him for feeling like he must repetitively go over this because of the way internet discussions end up devolving into, as he says, semantic arguments at the expense of the real issue.
These terms are not long words; they are easy for anyone with more than a passing familiarity to gaming to differentiate. Of course all games are based on repetitive actions; however, a grind is simply an activity which in itself is not enjoyable, but people do it for some reward promised at the end of it.
On the otherhand, a non-grind is one where the player is having so much fun doing the task, that they aren't necessarily motivated to do it because of the reward. Something that is a time-sink is again perceptable, usually as unnecessary filler through which you have little control or interaction, so there isn't very much enjoyment in the process, but must endured before you get to the fun activity you came for...
Now of course it could well be that the powerplay mechanic will be totally re-written down the road to become more like what DB described, and 1.3 is simply digging the trenches before laying the foundation; because currently the reality looks very much as though 1.3 is the rank treadmill time sink that Ob-Ant thinks it is; and worse still that time spent in the time sink has a timer that ticks down to zero, and if you go on holiday for a week you have to repeat what you did to get back to the stage you were at before, with nothing new to show for that time. Some people have the luxury of disposable time they can "waste" doing the exact same rep grind over and over, but a much higher percentage of players do not.
While I agree that the implementation we've seen, with the boardgame mechanism, is less than exciting in itself, I wouldn't say it needs a re-write. The technology behind it might actually be capable of delivering a lot more "emergent gameplay". For instance, the fact that these number games you have to grind fetch and carry quests to achieve can impact which faction controls what systems and stations, is a promising development for the much needed "depth" the game lacks.
There's no reason they can't build on that to introduce some more fluid and dynamic gameplay elements in future; but the will has to be there from the Frontier team to deliver that experience, just like ObsidianAnt attempts to illustrate with his reference to David Braben's talk at EGX. If they've decided that this turn based stats game with players acting as glorified mules is enough, then it would be the end of the potential of Elite: Dangerous.
However, if this is a beginning, another placeholder of a deeper technology that will take time to mature, then we could be in for some thrilling times ahead if we continue to patiently support it. The problem, as always, is communication, or lack thereof. While I've welcomed David Braben's AMAs, they've proved to be more or less pointless in really understanding what we can and should expect going forward.
Zero benefit time sinks are a game dev's way of saying "we don't want you to play another game, you must play OUR game, and if you want to keep those nice bonuses you have right now, you WILL play for 10 hours this week (and next week and the week after, and ....) just for that priviledge".
...There is of course another alternative to falling into that time sink / money pit - not participating in powerplay at all until the core mechanic is changed, as others have suggested.
That's pretty much me, right there. I'm making use of the best part of it, which affects all players by changing the benefits of trading or fighing in a particular region by introducing Power specific control effects. However, I'm ignoring the rubbish part where you have to ferry items around like a brainless automaton in order to fill a bar, and hope to get a "Rating" promotion if you grind enough "Merits".
What they should have done, if they wanted me to play, was make it so the things I do already in the game, trade, hunt and explore, could benefit me more if I pledged to do them only on behalf of a specific Power, thereby increasing their economic, security and territorial influence versus the others.
S
