It's a living galaxy, just players don't have 100% control over it. And there are rules and consequences to face.
Perceived unfairness, or how to make people angry.
- Thread starter Martin Schou
- Start date
It's a living galaxy, just players don't have 100% control over it. And there are rules and consequences to face.
You dont have any control, as soon as the background sim does something the devs didnt plan they hand crank it back to path,like this ALD disaster wich is a product of rapid expansion without much strategy. ALD rose quickly to rank 1 and crashed and burned to hell, lets hand crank it back because we have a storyline planned with ALD soon. So much for that.
Total posts on this forum by Sandro: 1048
Total posts on this forum by GluttonyFang: 678
Thank you for your response Sandro,
If I might attempt to help by providing constructive feedback, one way that we could get the BGS updated is to somehow make PP and the BGS more compatible. Currently it feels like 2 completely incompatible systems. PP feels like a wrapper around the faction system that is designed to replace the BGS. The process of expansion and control and what-have-you in PP is implemented in a way that, naively speaking, doesn't depend on the BGS at all. In order to prioritize the BGS, perhaps it should be thought of as a future enhancement to PP. I realize that I'm in a minority here and as such my priorities are not likely to be matched by the direction of development. Still, I think we're missing out on an incredible potential for emergent gameplay. I just want to see that potential realized.
If I might attempt to help by providing constructive feedback, one way that we could get the BGS updated is to somehow make PP and the BGS more compatible. Currently it feels like 2 completely incompatible systems. PP feels like a wrapper around the faction system that is designed to replace the BGS. The process of expansion and control and what-have-you in PP is implemented in a way that, naively speaking, doesn't depend on the BGS at all. In order to prioritize the BGS, perhaps it should be thought of as a future enhancement to PP. I realize that I'm in a minority here and as such my priorities are not likely to be matched by the direction of development. Still, I think we're missing out on an incredible potential for emergent gameplay. I just want to see that potential realized.
Last edited:
I agree that "hand cranking" should not occur, if a power fall due to whatever it should do just that fall. My guess is that because there is not enough candidates in the background to take over its a problem.
Too bad there isn't a timeline for forum activity though.Total posts on this forum by Sandro: 1048
Total posts on this forum by GluttonyFang: 678
Last edited:
Let me paraphrase for you: "Particular modules are problematic, being poor, some OP, and inappropriate, we'll make adjustments if the community reflect on the issue"
If what I paraphrased is not what you mean, all you are telling us is that:
"As long as we don't feel like buffing/nerfing, we won't do it, who cares about the community and those that actually play the game."
Thank you for your kind words and appreciation, also heading into the direction of allowing better in-game communication in terms of faction communication.
I believe compiling a list of the issues/concerns that you actually acknowledge would be a good start, this will at least tell the community you care and are listening to the community.
And of course, it's not a crime to disagree with us! We can't all like the same things - life would be very boring
Hope this helps!
I'm glad I won't be banned soon for disagreement.
An analogy:
If whoever is handing you your paycheck by the end of a month gives you a dollar with a troll-face drawn on it, instead. Then proceed to hold up a sign that reads "if you have the slightest attitude that I don't like, I'm just going to ignore you no matter how convincing your argument is and who you're appealing the subject to."
What will your reaction be?
Imagine being not a part of the development team and being actually a customer, a player, perhaps you will better understand the amount of frustration you've allowed the community to build up.
No one gets angry overnight (most people), but when you stack that vehemency and ultimately hold up a sign that reads: "I'm gonna ignore you like I've always done, but now my excuse is because you've started to lose patience after more than half of a year straight of me not communicating meaningfully with you (the community), I don't have to take you seriously anymore."
I really cannot see the logic behind this other than "I don't want to address certain issues and I need an excuse to not do it."
- - - Updated - - -
Total posts on this forum by Sandro: 1048
Total posts on this forum by GluttonyFang: 678
Sandro Join Date: 26/09/2012
Gluttony Fang Join Date: 01/02/2015
See what kind of a game we're playing here?
Also I post here not because I work here, I post here because I'm passionate about Elite, and that passion is slipping day by day if proper communication between the playerbase and FD isn't established. Of course this thread revived some of the lost faith, and I sincerely hope this is a turning point for FD.
Last edited:
Listening to feedback and design by committee are two different things.
I think that FDev makes many indications that they are listening to our concerns, and none that they are relying on us to steer the answers to the issues we bring up.
Frankly, that's how it should be. I don't want the people in this thread designing my game. I want Frontier to design it.
I think that FDev makes many indications that they are listening to our concerns, and none that they are relying on us to steer the answers to the issues we bring up.
Frankly, that's how it should be. I don't want the people in this thread designing my game. I want Frontier to design it.
Last edited:
Nonsense. As devs explained, downfall of power will have to be much longer and tailored than that. No power would disappear just because it's supporters overreach while power still amassing massive support base. Just doesn't make any sense.
I have always said and I can repeat again - they will tweak PP as they go. Why not tweak it in beta? Because it's impossible to do so on such short terms.
If you feel hurt because devs are tweaking game as they go, then sorry. But that's how they will keep doing for some time now (hopefully with less and less changes though).
Hey Sandro, Is it possible for you guys to potentially looking into a CQC Power Play related event or something?
Tweaking for unintended consequences (bugs) is one thing, tweaking to offset players' actions who do not follow an invisible script is another.
It seems this tweak was to fix the latter, not the former.
Last edited:
I agree in the sense that yes, development should ultimately fall on the burden of the developers. But the magnitude of their attention to the community is abysmal at best.
There are three stages:
Stage One:
Many people took their time and wrote very constructive thoughts and ideas for game mechanics, suggestions, proposals, etc. Developers almost never write any commentaries for them (yes they are busy, but a few words of acknowledgement can't possibly take that long, also it just shows how much passion a developer has for the game's community. If we are a living, breathing universe, I would like to think this community should be the center of development, since without us, there's just NPC). Again, Sarah is a rare exception, and any other developers that actually took their time to read the forum and reply not because it's a job, but it's something they take pride and interest in.
Stage Two:
The forum start to show an alarming amount of discontent from the player, that gets compiled/merged for moderation purposes of the forum. (which is fine, it's the moderators' job. But, if there is indeed a hot topic, it deserves the attention and priority placement of people in development of the game. Why would anyone ignore what the community see as crucial and controversial?)
Stage Three:
The forum become flooded with player dismay, where the developers have no choice but to address the issue to do proper damage control.
We are in that third stage, and it's unfortunate that we are in it. For that it just shows how developers only reply when they see serious damage in the community and only reply for the sake of stopping the complaints, instead of actually interacting thoroughly. Of course, I can be wrong, this may be the turning point for FD to seriously start paying attention to the community.
But why do we have to go through these stages to get developers to listen and communicate, is my question.
Last edited:
To me, this is the question; the failing by the players could been repeated by every player no matter what faction they are pledged to. At the same time, if many other objectionable methods of game play are acceptable; such as the deliberate murder of new players, then a 'fifth column' strategy should be as well.
The one where you indicating that devs never communicate falls flat on its face. That their post per day ratio isn't as big as yours is irrelevant. Frankly, if I was their boss and found them posting on the forum that much instead of doing the things they are suppose to I would fire them.
Honestly, how often do people have the opportunity to talk to the lead designer of a game like this? I would bet that there is absolutely nothing in their contract that says that they should interact with the community in this way...just be glad they choose to do so.
But it was former. Devs clearly defined that. They gave reasonable arguments why it was done too.
Yes, I can see how some people coming from EVE background might feel a bit uptight about this, but really, joking of 'Empire bias' is one thing and claiming they are tweaking game because they want right power to win is completely another.
- - - Updated - - -
Sandro communicates a *lot* and his answers are always meaty and give some solid data to understand design decisions. Not always I agree with them, but overall, that's one person you want to post more, not less.
Thank you for your reply! It's always interesting to see the devs' thoughts behind design decisions. I understand interacting with the community like this is both time-consuming and just a little bit frustrating at times, but I hope you keep it up, it's greatly appreciated.
Wouldn't you agree that if mercenary concerns are the deciding factor behind which Powers receive a lot of support and which receive less, then it's not entirely the players who choose the geography of human space? One could argue that it's you, the designers, who indirectly choose the "winners" and the "losers" by giving great, useful perks to some Powers, and more questionable bonuses to others. Besides, if some Powers are clearly "better" from that mercenary point of view, that leaves players backing the underdogs (Antal, Archon etc) feeling they are putting in the effort and not getting the rewards. It's fine if rewards are not the focus of Powerplay (I like that design decision) but wouldn't you agree that it's somewhat unfair that followers of some Powers get useful perks and others don't? I don't think anybody is asking for perfectly balance, since that's both boring and hard to achieve, but if every Power had at least reasonably useful bonuses I think PP would be a bit more interesting. It's just more fun to have varying choices rather than "right" (e.g. Arissa, Torval) and "wrong" (e.g. Antal, Archon) ones.
In any case, even if you're unable to respond to this post thank you again for taking the time to post here. I'm looking forward to hearing more from the team.
Good point, and agreed 100%
For those wanting a dev to reply... devs only build what was designed. They work by functional descriptions and specifications setup by design. Thats why comms is done by **drum rolls** the lead designer, and not a dev. What is there to communicate for a dev here other than to say, "but the designer designed it this way?!". There is no point in venting his own opinion here, as he prolly will agree with both parties.
Last edited:
I don't know where you get your info from, so i'll quote the source for you.
Last edited:
The one where you indicating that devs never communicate falls flat on its face. That their post per day ratio isn't as big as yours is irrelevant. Frankly, if I was their boss and found them posting on the forum that much instead of doing the things they are suppose to I would fire them.
Honestly, how often do people have the opportunity to talk to the lead designer of a game like this? I would bet that there is absolutely nothing in their contract that says that they should interact with the community in this way...just be glad they choose to do so.
No one is robbing you of your right to be FD's white knight. At the same time it grants me the right to criticize FD. Let's get that out of the way first.
Please do not play strawman with me, I never indicated that the developers "never" communicate, therefore do not misinterpret my posts on purpose to strenghten your argument.
Again, I never mentioned anything about "post per day," the join date is to indicate when did I become a member of the community on the forum.
"If you were their boss." Well, if I were their boss and I found them communicating so little with the community with a forum full of player complaints, I would fire them. See what we are playing here?
If you want an example, check out Warframe. Livestream every other Friday for an hour to provide details on progress of development and what is to come. Lead developers of different department and the community manager are present. Also, Prime Time where the developers/community managers play their own game.
While on livestream, developers constantly speak of and mention forum posters and their twitter/social media accounts and the message they receive from them and their emails.
I'm certain no contract says anything about the magnitude of player interaction mandatory to a developer. But there are certainly companies out there that have the common sense to realize their community is a priority.
Also, I don't believe doing the minimum of what is a part of the contract is a healthy attitude for any developers to have. It's equivalent to saying "as long as I have your money, I don't care." Is that what we should expect?