A writer's thoughts on 'PowerPlay' - Drew Wagar

[Zulu Romeo]

Actually not the case. Attacking ships belonging to the same major faction loses you merits. As a Hudsonite you are, therefore, more an enemy to non-federal powers than you are to Winters.

This is a detail that is easy to miss - and I did miss it myself until I tried to undermine Aisling by destroying her ships as a follower of Lavigny-Duval. Thankfully I had earned no merits by that point so I didn't really lose anything.

That's an important point to emphasise in big and friendly letters. At the end of the day, they're FAAAHM'LY.

However, can those powers from the same major faction still attack you, e.g. their special agents, with impunity? I think the major faction rule should work both ways. They can interdict you but just to give you a stern message, I'd accept that.

 

[Cody]

Of course, the other elephant in the room is that the original mechanics made flying to the centre of the galaxy easy and only 10 hours away... But that particular horse left the stable a long time ago.

<nods sadly>

 

[Ian Doncaster]

1.4 could really be a lot of minor content like that. Relatively simple additions in themselves but as a whole add so much more to the world around us. At the moment human space is just one sprawling blob of the same old infrastructure, system after system... Whether it's federation space, empire space, industrial space, of high tech space. That may well be the realistic approach but it does little to give us the feeling we're part of a vast world full of variation and uniqueness.

I recall, back in the mid-90s, reading an early review of First Encounters, which noted that Frontier Elite II had suffered from "it doesn't matter where you go in America because all the chain stores are the same" (I forget the exact quote, but it was something like that). FFE's unique missions were noted in the review as shaking this up (which they didn't reallly do, of course, but you had to play it a lot more than an early reviewer would have time for to notice that, especially with the bugs in 1.0...). So I don't think it's a new problem with the series, or one which will be fixable just with a point release level of work ... but on the other hand it didn't stop the previous games being very enjoyable.

For me I don't think it's the graphical diversity (nice as that would be) but the core gameplay diversity. It doesn't matter what system I'm flying in with a hold full of expensive goods, I will get interdicted either zero or one time between the sun and the station, by a single ship (or maybe a wing of two weak ships) who at best strip off one ring of shield before being blown up. If I take the time to do a full surface-scan survey of an Anarchy system, I might get a second interdiction of the same sort. (Yes, yes, I know that if I just wanted more interdictions I could go to Eotienses and shout anti-Patreus slogans over the broadcast channel. Hardly the point...)

In the previous games, though ... go to an Anarchy system and in Elite you'd basically be in a running battle all the way to the station, and in FE2/FFE you could expect several strong pirate groups to ambush you all the way until you killed them all, jumped out again, or died. Stay in the safe systems, and you might never even be attacked once.

Similarly if they did broaden the danger spread trade prices could vary much more based on system security - yeah, you can get an easy 300/T between two safe systems, but if you want over 1000/T you need to be running between two Anarchy systems, and you'll either need to fill several of the cargo holds on your multi-role with shield generators and other combat equipment, or if you're taking a T-x pure freighter, either bring friends in a wing to escort you or accept that your profit is going to be quite a bit less than the nominal 1000/T because you'll have to drop quite a bit of your cargo for every pirate group you pass.

Combine that with making system security strong in the Imperial, Federation and Alliance core systems, and very weak on the frontier (as it was in FE2/FFE), with perhaps a few other smaller points of strength (waves at independent Powerplay leaders) and there's a lot more environmental diversity at relatively little extra cost ... though I would expect it to need several months of balancing passes to get it properly right.

 

[Arindor]

... The time invested in PP could have gone on something people actually asked for and wanted.

Absolutely. +1 (and for the rest of your post). I was saying more or less the same thing after PP was introduced.

The problem with PP is that it plays an important part of the background sim and, for a sub-game within ED, it shouldn't have that kind of prominence for the game to work. As I've said in other comments, PP doesn't enhance ED and detracts from the potential it has as a space sim. It's an immersion-breaking grind-fest. As Drew also said, everything about it is two-dimensional. I don't care for any of the people behind the powers and I'm certainly not fussed about factions. Starship One missing/destroyed? Why should I care if I am earning healthy credits elsewhere? Give me derelicts, space dredgers, shuttles running planet side (even Elite and Elite 2 had those!), seeing ships to'ing and fro'ing from gigantic liners outside starports, NPCs walking IN starports, just more space sim content! That's what FD should have spent time on.

Unfortuantely, PP is FD's attempt to make the player integral to the background sim by aligning themselves with powers. At the end of the day, powers can't expand without PP. Therefore, sadly, it's here to stay.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

I totally agree but the issue is with the playerbase having so many different voices, opinions, playing styles etc. What you want for the game might be completely different to what I want. They cant please us all, they can only listen and then decide on the direction they feel is best. That WILL certainly mean a section of the community will be disappointed to and feel like they have not been listened to.

For me it feels like the big problem is that it's trying to be an "open world sandbox game" - and actually it would have a much easier job if it was an "open world game" or a "sandbox game".

The open world people are if you like the "It's called Elite: Dangerous, not Elite: Harmless" - they want adventure and excitement and danger and challenge, to make them feel like they're a small fish in a big pond trying to make their way. Progress needs to be slow, difficult and feel like an achievement.

The sandbox people are if you like the "It's called Elite: Dangerous, not SpaceKillers: Dangerous" - they want freedom and experimentation and unusual emergent behaviour and pretty sights and the joy of boosting a T9 past the inside of the Orbis habitation rings, or working out if you can fit a ship with so many shields it can shrug off the big gun on a Majestic-class, or seeing just how many Vipers they can shoot down outside a station. Progress needs to be fast and easy, because the game only really begins once you've got implausible resources to spare.

So to take a simple example: insurance. The open world people think the 5%ish currently charged is way too low - for most ships it's a trivial cost compared with the earning potential of the ship, and it means that ship maintenance and repair costs are ridiculously low (because otherwise you can get your ship repaired more cheaply by self-destructing it, which is clearly wrong). The sandbox people think it's way too high - if you want to do that stunt flying with a T9, you not only need to work for months (or at least weeks, if you do it the really boring way) to afford the ship at all, you then need to do it a whole lot more to replace it every time.

They're both right about "what Elite is about" - whether they've been playing since release day 1984 or discovered it just this morning - but it's a big challenge to give them both a game that they can enjoy and feel is "heading in the right direction".

(Personally, I think the lack of "reload last save game", "reload save game from three weeks ago", and "edit save game to give yourself 1 billion credits" inevitably make catering to the sandbox preference really difficult, and just giving up on what's left of that approach might make for a better more focused game. That said, stuff like the rumoured "arena mode", if disconnected from the persistent universe and able to fight NPCs as well as players, might be great for this - I know I'd use it to try ships like the Vulture or the T-7 which just don't fit with my style normally)

Edit: obviously both "sandbox" and "open world" people are archetypes and most people are actually at least a bit of both

 

[Acteris]

Absolutely. +1 (and for the rest of your post). I was saying more or less the same thing after PP was introduced.

The problem with PP is that it plays an important part of the background sim and, for a sub-game within ED, it shouldn't have that kind of prominence for the game to work. As I've said in other comments, PP doesn't enhance ED and detracts from the potential it has as a space sim. It's an immersion-breaking grind-fest. As Drew also said, everything about it is two-dimensional. I don't care for any of the people behind the powers and I'm certainly not fussed about factions. Starship One missing/destroyed? Why should I care if I am earning healthy credits?

Unfortuantely, PP is FD's attempt to make the player integral to the background sim by aligning themselves with powers. At the end of the day, powers can't expand without PP. Therefore, sadly, it's here to stay.

Hear hear, I had great expectations of PP an yes it is in essence just another grind (unfortunately).....so suggestions anyone? Any ideas of how this can be improved?...Personally I feel time / money would be better spent creating more immersive experience ie....VR compatibility, space walks, exploring derelict spacecraft - salvaging cool stuff, planetary landings, space station exploration etc etc

 

[Elgered]

I never saw E : D as a sandbox game (it is missing the toys). For me it is open world achievement hunting The achievements are the ships, the ranks, the standings and whatever comes next.

Right now this open world is inconsistent (as the powers don't integrate themselves into the world).
When this is fixed, the Multiplayer part is finished and the missing features are implemented, it will be a great open-world experience, but still no sandbox at all.

For me sandbox is all about customizing, open world can be anything where you can act freely.

 

[Alien]

Absolutely. +1 (and for the rest of your post). I was saying more or less the same thing after PP was introduced.

I was saying before the 1.3 PowerPlay update went to beta testing, that Frontier shouldn't be wasting time on pointless fluff and should be working on adding things like they proposed in the DDF Archive. I was the only one saying it. I got criticised and shouted down for saying it. Now look at the reaction from the forum over PowerPlay.

 

[Retrograde]

Ok. I haven't read this thread, but I'll comment on Drew's blog. I think he makes a lot of valid points, particularly that it would have been nice to have used the books as story material. But I disagree that we oldtimers somehow have a right to define what is and what is not Elite. I played the original version as well, but I don't think that gives me a say in what an updated version looks like. Let the nostalgia go and see where FD takes us.

I also suspect much of the story material will come over time. Archon Delaine will fall madly in love with Aisling Duval, Torval will kidnap Felicia's only son, etc. They'll be fleshed out with family, henchmen, and personal tragedies. I'm sure we'll get more gameplay and narrative depth as we go.

And actually that is my own main concern with PP. It is very hand-crafted. I hope future updates develop the procedural aspects of the game more. I'd like the minor factions to get far more history and depth, and that can't be done individually per system. So if it were up to me, I'd be having the developers looking more at Dwarf Fortress than Game of Thrones.

 

[Ytheleus]

..I (@Ytheleus) said something about having access to senior devs as an official writer and using this to provide samples of better characterisation in PP to inspire their future efforts..

It may surprise you that we don't. The official writers are no different from any other player in that regard.

Cheers,

Drew.

You do surprise me, but in that case try getting Kate (you know the one I mean) on board. Writing talent at FD has not been highly prized in the past except as marketing spinoff, but my guess is they can be moved by practical, implementable suggestions. I think good writerly input into PP is uncontroversial, even professional trolls will struggle to find meaningful objections to that.

On other matters, I feel we should beware too much nostalgia or strict adherence to DDF. This is an ambitious software project in progress. We are fortunate in the sense that FD are listening at all to constructive player feedback as well as dealing with bugs and everything else that goes along with that, so as players I think we should avoid blanket statements because they are all but meaningless in the context of a software project. Software developers eventually need well-defined boxy-pointy diagrams, not general statements of vague discomfort.

 

[Katkon]

Do you think that FD are thinking the same? They are surely disappointed with the reaction from the community, no?

Per the poll, more people like it than dislike it. However, the forum is inundated with whining, which undoubtedly skews what's really going on. People - particularly those on the Internet - love to moan. They do it in spades, and often in the hope that others will agree. That's why we see the same posts over and over again, coupled with the questions like: Is it just me? Does anyone agree? These people are desperately seeking affirmation of their thoughts, which they KNOW will be affirmed given the hundreds of posts from other people expressing the same. (Am not suggesting Drew falls into this category btw!)

Bottom line, the forum poll would suggest that PP is a success, if your measurement is people liking vs disliking the update. So in that regard it's a success. But it's close. And if you overlay all the repetitive whining, I'm sure it's disappointing to FD. I suspect, however, that they're mature enough to know that's how the Internet works these days, and this is to be expected on a forum. Especially a developers forum, where people are more inclined to complain as they believe it increases their chance of getting an eventual enhancement made that reflects their own very personal point of view. The Reddit forums, for example, are quite different. Not nearly as negative. So, bottom line, I don't think this forum is representative of the total player base; I think it's skewed towards the vocal negative minority. Just my opinion, of course. The true litmus test are FD's sales figures, and the degree to which they spiked when PP was introduced.

 

[drew]

I chat to Kate most weeks.

Cheers,

Drew.

 

[Hydrino]

1.4 probably won't please you either.

FD would do well to read your full post and the comments. PP imho should have been built up from the existing and faction mechanics and there def needs to be more influence than just expanding territory on a map.

Overall, high hopes after Xbox release FD can get back to implementing more DDA items. Talk is cheap and easy, developing a game as complex as ED is not. Would have been great if FD got a lot more cash from Kickstarter or pre-sales but they didn't. Obviously the plan for the next year was based on laying the foundation for console sales, where FD have sold tens of millions of units. It's just the reality of money and time, unfortunately.

Latest Galnet feed today hints at Tuesday the 16th revelation will be arena combat, as the article states a way to "train" youth to be better fighters, pilots... just curious how the mechanics and content may also evolve along with arena combat.

 

[Zephyriel]

I agree with Drew's post wholeheartedly. While I've enjoyed this update to some extent, I don't think it's what the community is waiting for, I'm sure people would love some effort towards things like persistent NPCs with dialogue trees, more complexity for each profession... I hope the next update won't be something they pull out of nowhere again, but rather something that was in the DDA...

 

[Cosmo]

Powerplay is important to simulate macro-scale events of powers that players can influence. The powers used to be vague, faceless entities. The Powerplay update made them more tangible and interactive which is a good thing. It does need improvements.

I like this comment by gus:

GUS JUNE 13, 2015
I agree with you completely about the lack of background on the PP characters. It should be considered an atrocious crime that Kahina was not one of the powers, or any of the other authors’ main characters as well.

I also agree about the grindiness aspect of it, and the need for more space mysteries but in my opinion, something that you missed is the need for ED to be dynamic and evolving based on player actions.

While it pains me to say this EVE did an excellent job of this with the way they structured their economy.
The raw materials you mine and sell are ALWAYS sold to a player (or group of players) who is manufacturing anything from ammunition to frigates to Titans or Player Owned Stations. The manufacturer in turn sells his component (say the part for a POS) at a location where there is demand, but let’s say he doesn’t have a large enough ship, he creates a contract for a PLAYER to transport it at a reasonable fee to the location of demand. Once there, the new station is built offering services to capsuleers (CMDRs) in that new region of space. The region will grow and expand creating new demands for the cycle to start all over again and the players want to make money so if there is a demand with a satisfactory risk to reward ratio it almost always gets filled. This is emergent content created by the players that is always changing and the niche that PP is, IMO, a poor atrempt to fill.

I think a reason a lot of us feel jilted is we’re not attached to the characters, or we enjoy the single player aspect so much that we are frustrated there was little to expand our single player experience in PP. I hope FD addresses this in the future. So why did I stop playing EVE? I didn’t like the gameplay. Watching my ship orbit a battleship for hours while repeating the same firing animation is dull. Taking a large insurance policy out that only covers the hull of the ship and not the components creates a HUGE financial setback when you die and was not conducive to my family life.

I love Elite’s gameplay, but I feel it should take a play from EVE’s book and have a player based economy / expansion that maintains itself. For those who will knock EVE – it’s been around for more than 10 years and still has a strong player base so they’re doing something right.

As for the single player exploration aspect, EVE did that too and with better rewards. You can specialize in discovery scanning where you can find wormholes that have strange, aliens and other structures in them. These rewards are high risk as the aliens are very strong but their components hold a high monetary value in normal space. These wormholes also connect to other sections in space that can be hundreds or thousands of lightyears from where you entered. They play a strategic role for multiplayer groups since you can build outposts in them and assault from them while remaining hidden until another group scans down the wormhole and finds you, but only so much can pass through the wormhole at a time giving you an advantage if you play your cards right…

I would pay large amounts of money to see the Elite Dangerous gameplay combined with EVE’s player based sandbox / economy./'

Power Play is FDs step toward emergent content and I appreciate that. I wish they had included the author’s content in it as well instead of just ignoring it and put more single player content in it. This was a major expansion for them and a lot of work, so I’m not ruling out the possibility that they may yet do that in the future.

Drew offers good suggestions to improve Powerplay:

Powerplay could be enhanced quickly by some in-game character bios. Flesh out these people for us. Are they trustworthy? Are they maniacs? Are they depressives? Are they naive, hyper-intelligent, brutal? We don’t know. Reward us with something more than a ‘special upgrade’. Medals, mentions, exclusive ranks, insider information… there are all sorts of possibilities. Allow players to collaborate effectively on tactical decisions rather than just push systems into a ‘top five’ by voting, in-game faction specific message boards, comms. There’s lots that could be done.

 

[Ceo]

With a due sense of trepidation, my thoughts on PowerPlay.

http://www.drewwagar.com/progress-report/elite-powerplay/

Cheers,

Drew.

Give us adventure... not politics. The last few points you made in your blog post are exactly how I feel.

 

[Parmo]

It may surprise you that we don't. The official writers are no different from any other player in that regard.

Cheers,

Drew.

It does surprise! But it explains the incoherent mess of Elite Lore: Galnet news, official fiction (characters & events), and Powerplay.
No integration, no strategic idea or plan for creating a long term vision and Elite Universe that players can imagine themselves in and feel immersed in when they sit down and live it.
But, I feel Elite Dangerous is in a state that reflects the opinions, attitudes, desires and tension of this forum. These tensions seems to have seeped into the development team of ED and consequently into the game.
Do you not sense it as an experienced IT manager?

 

[Alien]

But, I feel Elite Dangerous is in a state that reflects the opinions, attitudes, desires and tension of this forum. These tensions seems to have seeped into the development team of ED and consequently into the game.
Do you not sense it as an experienced IT manager?

I've repped you for this comment in your post. I think this may be more accurate a reflection than anything else I've seen on this forum, including my own opinions.

 

[Roybe]

I agree with Drew's post wholeheartedly. While I've enjoyed this update to some extent, I don't think it's what the community is waiting for, I'm sure people would love some effort towards things like persistent NPCs with dialogue trees, more complexity for each profession... I hope the next update won't be something they pull out of nowhere again, but rather something that was in the DDA...

Your going to love arena play aren't you? ;P

 

[HeimdallofHavn]

I agree with Drew's post wholeheartedly. While I've enjoyed this update to some extent, I don't think it's what the community is waiting for, I'm sure people would love some effort towards things like persistent NPCs with dialogue trees, more complexity for each profession... I hope the next update won't be something they pull out of nowhere again, but rather something that was in the DDA...

I agree wholeheartedly.

Also, Frontier really should involve talented people like Drew a lot more, for several reasons propably not the least of which is getting the talent below market rate most likely as Drew is a fan like us.

*btw far from me to actually do monetary negotiations on your behalf Drew. lol*

Cheers.

- - - Updated - - -

If you read this Drew,

Is it ok if I use your suggestions (properly attributed of course) in a future post about potential PP improvements?