Perceived unfairness, or how to make people angry.

[Ralph Vargr]

In all honesty, it's probably a lot easier attempting to herd a pack of rabid feral cats than it is contemplating cooperation

Welcome to Gaming and Geekdom, and The Internet. Enjoy your stay.

 

[Cosmo]

Can we please get more mission types to make it less of a repetitive grind?

What about more decorations inside stations for each power?

 

[Quineloe]

The power play weapons were always meant to be alternative weapons with unique traits that were not objectively better, just different. From a pure statistical point of the view the DPS and effectiveness of them have been tuned to ensure they're in line with similar sized normal weapons. I think the biggest gripe is that these weapons are actually on the smaller size which was by design. If there were large and huge versions of these things then I bet there wouldn't be such a backlash but then we'd also be making horribly game breaking weapons of god like proportions because their unique traits become too powerful at that level.

Can we ever expect some new weapons for the large and huge hardpoints? Or Class 2 burst lasers?

BTW small weapons are a non reward. Just like tiers 4 and 5. Some rewards in Power play would be nice, because currently the players benefitting the most are unpledged players riding the money train of those insanely profitable routes that the "effects on systems" of the various powers create.

Except the mining lance. That one might actually have purpose, if only by accident.


While we're at it. Huge Mining laser please. So powerful asteroids come to the forum demanding a nerf.

 

[veryinky]

There's two main problems to Powerplay that were highlighted in the ADL collapse.

First, there's no actual in game leadership. The players are asked to rally around figureheads who never actually do any leading. If the FDevs are impressed with the cobbled together Reddit and Forum threads maybe they should try implementing something similar in the game? Like tier 3+ get to write 100character long newsletters "news" that other pledges can see? Even minimal in game "/p for power chat" chat would help a lot.

With the lack of leadership there's no way to "inform" the players who are grinding randomly for merits that their efforts are actively harming the faction. A "leadership caste" of players being able to make some actions more profitable while others less would be a huge change. No need to actually tell the players what to do, moving resources here are only worth 0.1 merit per ton because you're actively hurting the faction while over there in that one urgent critical system 100ly away they're worth 5 per ton. Same amount of merits handed out overall by the power but players get to decide by profit motive.

As for rewards, only 2 fed leaders and federation is the high tech faction, splitting the resources of the galaxy's megacorporations should result in amazing technological wonders. Like an authentic Asp Mk2 fed military grade with it's thermoptic camo intact and some Elite+ era "Fed Military Laser" which burn through Pythons and Fer-De-Lances in less than a second. Then there's the empire, which is split into 4 factions and relies on the best technology it can steal from the feds. After that there's the Alliance who might include a few high tech worlds. Finally independents and that pirate faction. Pirates are unlikely to rival megacorporation R&D labs or the resources the feds could muster, maybe if it "fell out of the back of a hauler". It's only my opinion of course but fed rewards should be amazing and have US military level prices. Imperium would be space china or north korea, alright but cheap.

 

[lefty1117]

At last, some response from FD about powerplay. This is all that many of us were asking. As soon as you can provide some specifics, it would be good to get that info out there to ease some minds. Of the things Sandro posted today I'm most interested to hear more about his thoughts on improving player communications and enabling them to coordinate better in-game. This alone could completely change the powerplay dynamics.

And with that, looks like it's time to wrap up my exploration trip...

 

[Soon(TM)]

Just everyone do the exact same next week that they did this week to make her crash, and then the week after and the weeks after.
FD will keep having to manually bring her back, thus proving that not only is the background sim borked but the power play mini game also.

Is anything in this game not broken?

 

[Cosmos]

Hello Commander Cadoc!


If the player base runs purely off of mercenary ideals, that's fine, they'll get the kind of galactic geography it leads to. If some powers die and others become enormous, that's fine - it's players affecting the geography of human space for the interest of all.

Hold on a minute Sandro .. Really dont agree with this point. More than happy to see powers die or fade away, based upon strategy and gameplay (skill) but to simply accept that its all about who is the FOTM (or year) as the case maybe, seems to reduce the value of the powers and the whole system. As it stands PP seems more of a popularity contest.

We can't play a fair game when some powers have more pieces and moves than others.. Come on dude, this is just meh. Arissa has a cute behind.. this is going to secure her future? I am at a loss and as it stands my interest in power play is ultimately at an all time low. Actually, come to think of it have the powers even said a word since this system was introduced?

I'm sure Patreus wouldn't go down with a fight, yet who knows what he is doing atm. :/

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Just everyone do the exact same next week that they did this week to make her crash, and then the week after and the weeks after.
FD will keep having to manually bring her back, thus proving that not only is the background sim borked but the power play mini game also.

Is anything in this game not broken?

They can't crash her anymore, expansion is restricted if that threatens to bankrupt power.

 

[EUS]

Hello Commander EUS!

I can fairly categorically say that you would be incorrect with the assumption that we' made a change to Powerplay based on an invisible script for powers or story.

To try and be brief: we had a formula that kicked out undesirable results, only manifesting when powers became large. We've hopefully addressed it, and effectively rolled back the undesired effect it had caused.

Perhaps it's easier to say: we found a rule we really didn't like and thought was bad for the game (affecting any power that got big enough), so we changed it. Not to save a particular power.

If more players had chosen to side with Hudson (or been more effective with Hudson) then it would be Hudson that would have been rolled back.

There was no invisible script for powers beyond the starting conditions for them.

Thanks for the clarification, Sandro.

 

[Rubberboots]

Thank you for being accurate, yes, almost never.

This one, ridiculous reply to Tinman typifies your behaviour in this thread, and especially in that specific reply.

The criticism of your "oh boy, devs replying? I must be daydreaming!" comment was that you were mischaracterizing how often the devs interact on these forums. And you're going to focus your rebuttal on the fact that, grammatically, the criticism implied you said they NEVER communicate, and that this isn't true? Really?

You're happy with the rewording "almost never" and miss the fact that even with this phrase substituted, you're *still wrong.* But good for you. You scored those easy semantic points.

And then there's the howler: "Since post count is nothing but E-peen contest. "

So the whole conversation starts from your complaint that the Devs *almost never post*, then you dismiss the evidence of a substantial post count as irrelevant "E-peen" competing? What are you even talking about? You'll say literally whatever comes to mind to rebut each individual sentence, and give no thought at all to contradicting yourself from one reply to the next--or even one sentence to the next in the same reply.

For instance, this exhange:
You:
"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."
Tinman:
I have [often criticised FD] So if you think I am always "defending" them you are way off [...]

You can of course also say whatever you want and I have never said anything else..."
You:
"Right... because you replied to me for that you agreed with me... Oh wait, you disagree with me and you are complaining about it..."


I don't even know where to begin with how meaningless a reply this is. You posted insinuating that he was "White Knighting"--i.e., defending FD uncritically. He replied that he often criticises FD. You gloss right over this salient detail and focus instead on where he states the obvious: that you have the *right* to say whatever you want. And your brilliant reply is to suggest that his *disagreeing* with what you said is somehow in contradiction with his believing that you have the right to say it? Again, what are you even talking about? Are you even thinking about the things you are saying?

You complain that the devs don't listen to you. Perhaps it is because you don't listen to others and think about whether what you're saying is actually right.

/endrant

 

[GluttonyFang]

This one, ridiculous reply to Tinman typifies your behaviour in this thread, and especially in that specific reply.

The criticism of your "oh boy, devs replying? I must be daydreaming!" comment was that you were mischaracterizing how often the devs interact on these forums. And you're going to focus your rebuttal on the fact that, grammatically, the criticism implied you said they NEVER communicate, and that this isn't true? Really?

There's this thing called literary device... I think you can figure out what it was...

You're happy with the rewording "almost never" and miss the fact that even with this phrase substituted, you're *still wrong.* But good for you. You scored those easy semantic points.

Hah... are we back to the vague usage of the term "right" and "wrong" again? You're free to support Tinman's argument, but let's steer away from vague usage of diction. Also, points? Are you hosting a debate contest? When did I sign up for one? Can I see my signature? Can I call this a tight-case?

And then there's the howler: "Since post count is nothing but E-peen contest. "

So the whole conversation starts from your complaint that the Devs *almost never post*, then you dismiss the evidence of a substantial post count as irrelevant "E-peen" competing? What are you even talking about? You'll say literally whatever comes to mind to rebut each individual sentence, and give no thought at all to contradicting yourself from one reply to the next--or even one sentence to the next in the same reply.

Hah... subtract Sandro's join date from my join date (No disrespect to Sandro), use the mean and multiply it by my post per day, then add my current post count. I believe you know what that number provides...

For instance, this exhange:
You:
"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."
Tinman:
I have [often criticised FD] So if you think I am always "defending" them you are way off [...]

You can of course also say whatever you want and I have never said anything else..."
You:
"Right... because you replied to me for that you agreed with me... Oh wait, you disagree with me and you are complaining about it..."

I don't even know where to begin with how meaningless a reply this is. You posted insinuating that he was "White Knighting"--i.e., defending FD uncritically. He replied that he often criticises FD. You gloss right over this salient detail and focus instead on where he states the obvious: that you have the *right* to say whatever you want. And your brilliant reply is to suggest that his *disagreeing* with what you said is somehow in contradiction with his believing that you have the right to say it? Again, what are you even talking about? Are you even thinking about the things you are saying?

Hah... yes, leave out the crucial context relevant to my reply to strengthen your argument... great ethics.

To:
"Don't complain if people don't agree with you. And please don't try to label people. This doesn't help the discussion in any way whatsoever."

I replied:
"Right... because you replied to me for that you agreed with me... Oh wait, you disagree with me and you are complaining about it... "

To:
"First of all...I have plenty of things I would like FD to do differently in terms of prioritization and in regards to specific aspects of the game and I have many times talked about these constructively. So if you think I am always "defending" them you are way off...not that this has anything to do with anything..."

I replied:
"Ah, it doesn't have anything to do with anything, yet it was mentioned...
Good to know that you are contributing to the diversity of the community, much appreciated."

Please read elaborately before jumping the gun...

I expressed my gratitude for Tinman's contribution to the community...

Allow me the spoon-feed the following, open up wide now...

When Tinman expressed that I should not complain when people do not agree with me, that it does not help the discussion in any way, I replied that a discussion is basically two sides complaining about points by the opposite party and bringing to the table supported points to strengthen one side's complaint over another. Which is why I utilized the term of "hypocrisy" to express how he is doing exactly what I am doing.

Of course, the other interpretation is that Tinman believes I am complaining about his right to disagree with me, which I dismissed by referring to the first sentence in my reply:

"The first thing I wrote in my thread is that you are allowed to defend FD on the subject while I am allowed to voice my opinion for that they are of equal intrinsic value, did I not? So what is this about?"

You complain that the devs don't listen to you. Perhaps it is because you don't listen to others and think about whether what you're saying is actually right.

/endrant

Great, the vague diction, again. Give me an objectively standardized definition of "right" and "wrong" before you continue abusing those terms, please. Also, I think I'm reading the input of others, considering I am replying actively...

Also, I complain that devs don't listen to the "Community," please avoid omitting crucial details to strengthen your argument. (Oh dear almost a trend by now...)

You are free to voice to discontent toward how I express myself, but please keep it relatively civil. For that this is the first time we encountered one another. Of course, if you have a personal issue with me, PM me in private or report me to the Moderators if you feel so strongly about my "wrongness."

Thank you for your time, also, try to format your paragraphs a little bit more, it is a little difficult to read. And if you truly respect your debate partner, quoting complete quotes in appropriate areas might be a good idea.

I see you are just starting out in the forum by the look of your post count(9/0.06), just providing some helpful hints...

 

[Rubberboots]

There's this thing called literary device... I think you can figure out what it was...

So, more of the same evasive nonsense? Yes. It was a "literary device." But it doesn't change the fact that what you meant by it--that the devs "almost never" post or interact with the community--was not true. Plain and simple. And rather than acknowledging this when it was pointed out, you retreated to complaining about what was literally said--or to the fact that your false complaint took the form of a "literary device."

Plain English, since you seem to have trouble with definitions and semantics: you have criticized the dev team for "almost never" posting in these forums--first as an implication from a "literary device" and later in agreeing with someone's clarification of your meaning. You have doubled down on this criticism in your self-defense of the suggestion that you're rude, by claiming it was the result of frustration from the fact that the players are "ignored" when they post criticism.

But this thing you implied and later stated explicitly ("the dev team almost never posts/interacts with the community") is not true. The devs post here frequently and interact frequently with the community, and the post-count citation you dismissed as "e-peen" competing was proof that it is not true. This means you were *wrong*--in the common sense of having said or thought something that was incorrect, not true, not in accordance with the facts, not representing the actual state of affairs. Etc. Etc.

But of course, you know exactly what "wrong" meant in this context, because it was obvious--and this was just another hand-waving dodge on your part. I'm starting to doubt your sincerity. Are you just a troll who likes to argue?

As for the rest of it, your interpretation of the whole "he's complaining that I'm complaining that he's complaining" thing is almost too absurd to even comment. You were complaining about the fact he was defending FD ("white knighting"). He wasn't complaining about the fact you were disagreeing. At all. He was just disagreeing. That you continue to fail to see the difference is on you.

As for my formatting? Seriously? My post was not difficult to read or understand because I didn't use the block-quotes because there was nothing wrong with the actual formatting of the paragraphs. So give it a rest. Yes, I don't post often (now who's post-count comparing?) and so am not familiar with the tools. It didn't make my post "difficult to read" at all. You're engaging in the lowest form of posturing and nit-picking.

 

[GluttonyFang]

So, more of the same evasive nonsense? Yes. It was a "literary device." But it doesn't change the fact that what you meant by it--that the devs "almost never" post or interact with the community--was not true. Plain and simple. And rather than acknowledging this when it was pointed out, you retreated to complaining about what was literally said--or to the fact that your false complaint took the form of a "literary device."

You may interpret the devs to be active to the forum however you wish, it does not make it an imperative for me to believe your conclusion. Do you understand my standard of semantics? You do not, and you cannot. The same applies to me, but I do not attempt to understand, or pretend to understand your standard/evaluation of what you believe is logical/sensible/appropriate/"right". Then call you out for not having similar/identical standards as I do. You took offense to my standards are trying to oppress your standard upon mine, can we avoid that? Since discussion is about bringing a convincing argument, not about going at one another's throat for not agreeing with a certain opinion.

Plain English, since you seem to have trouble with definitions and semantics: you have criticized the dev team for "almost never" posting in these forums--first as an implication from a "literary device" and later in agreeing with someone's clarification of your meaning. You have doubled down on this criticism in your self-defense of the suggestion that you're rude, by claiming it was the result of frustration from the fact that the players are "ignored" when they post criticism.

Hah... You clearly do not understand the idea of tolerance of diversity. I criticize certain devs for almost never interacting with the community on hot topics. I did not admit to being rude or insulting. The original context you are reading from utilize the conditional phrases of "if" and "might." Again, please read my posts elaborately if you really want to criticize me. My communication has been consistent, if anything.

But this thing you implied and later stated explicitly ("the dev team almost never posts/interacts with the community") is not true. The devs post here frequently and interact frequently with the community, and the post-count citation you dismissed as "e-peen" competing was proof that it is not true. This means you were *wrong*--in the common sense of having said or thought something that was incorrect, not true, not in accordance with the facts, not representing the actual state of affairs. Etc. Etc.

As much as I feel compelled to use the meme "You must be new around here." This thread is a remarkable expression of Devs taking the initiative to extensively interact with the community (Besides the Q/A). Hah... spoon feed time again... open up...

Right and wrong are very subjective and relative terms. What is right for your may not be right for another person, etc...

Value assumptions and background assumptions are inevitable when making "judgment call" of right and wrong, thus one should always contemplate of them and be aware that one's judgement cannot be objective.

But of course, you know exactly what "wrong" meant in this context, because it was obvious--and this was just another hand-waving dodge on your part. I'm starting to doubt your sincerity. Are you just a troll who likes to argue?

I can say the same to you, but I don't, because I am trying my best to respect you despite your opinion polarizes from mine drastically...

Also, I can't read minds or be perfectly in another person's shoes, so no, I didn't and don't know what you mean by "wrong" because of the vagueness of the diction and personal standards.

You can decide for yourself, I am telling you I am a very sincere person, but of course, perception and self-cognition can be drastically different.

As for the rest of it, your interpretation of the whole "he's complaining that I'm complaining that he's complaining" thing is almost too absurd to even comment. You were complaining about the fact he was defending FD ("white knighting"). He wasn't complaining about the fact you were disagreeing. At all. He was just disagreeing. That you continue to fail to see the difference is on you.

Hah... great, I will repost this I guess... please read more elaborately... I gave two interpretations and appropriate answers to them both...

Let me just add a few more sentence just to help...

I labelled Tinman as a "Whiteknight" for that I was ignorant of his(her?) frequent criticisms of FD. This isn't a complaint against his disagreement with me, but rather mere deduction at work. I merely realized the information I used for that deduction was inaccurate, thus I appealed to induction to create an exception from this case.

Again, no one can perfectly understand one another due to the inaccuracy of personal perception and cognition. Which is why I compensated with two interpretations.

By your logic, Tinman misunderstood me when I called him a "Whiteknight." I was not complaining about his disagreement with my post. But if we play that game, it's another endless strawman, so I would rather stay away from that.

---

To:
"Don't complain if people don't agree with you. And please don't try to label people. This doesn't help the discussion in any way whatsoever."

I replied:
"Right... because you replied to me for that you agreed with me... Oh wait, you disagree with me and you are complaining about it... "

To:
"First of all...I have plenty of things I would like FD to do differently in terms of prioritization and in regards to specific aspects of the game and I have many times talked about these constructively. So if you think I am always "defending" them you are way off...not that this has anything to do with anything..."

I replied:
"Ah, it doesn't have anything to do with anything, yet it was mentioned...
Good to know that you are contributing to the diversity of the community, much appreciated."

Please read elaborately before jumping the gun...

I expressed my gratitude for Tinman's contribution to the community...

Allow me the spoon-feed the following, open up wide now...

When Tinman expressed that I should not complain when people do not agree with me, that it does not help the discussion in any way, I replied that a discussion is basically two sides complaining about points by the opposite party and bringing to the table supported points to strengthen one side's complaint over another. Which is why I utilized the term of "hypocrisy" to express how he is doing exactly what I am doing.

Of course, the other interpretation is that Tinman believes I am complaining about his right to disagree with me, which I dismissed by referring to the first sentence in my reply:

"The first thing I wrote in my thread is that you are allowed to defend FD on the subject while I am allowed to voice my opinion for that they are of equal intrinsic value, did I not? So what is this about?"

As for my formatting? Seriously? My post was not difficult to read or understand because I didn't use the block-quotes because there was nothing wrong with the actual formatting of the paragraphs. So give it a rest. Yes, I don't post often (now who's post-count comparing?) and so am not familiar with the tools. It didn't make my post "difficult to read" at all. You're engaging in the lowest form of posturing and nit-picking.

Here we go again... perception... please understand that everyone has one, and diverse.

You are free to be confident in your formatting, I am merely giving you tips and suggestions from my perspective (which I really do not see being respected at this rate). If that somehow offended your self-esteem, I apologize.

Your mentioned post count as a strengthening argument to your belief that some of the devs are meaningfully interacting with the community, how does your own medicine taste? Also, I am bringing your post count to the table as record to your possible lack of experience on the forum, and you admitted yourself that you are not familiar with the forum tools. That is used as a foundation to provide my assistance, nothing more. I feel that you are becoming quite sensitive with my every post.

Somehow my suggestions out of the good will to help out new forum users are now nit-picking and the lowest form of posturing... Great, thank you for your consideration of my perception and perspective.

You see, I can easily claim all of your criticisms to be non-sensible and nit-picking of my argument. I don't, because I am trying my best to respect you as a converse partner.

Hah, it appears you have a personal issue with me, please contact me in PM if you wish to continue on this subject out of the consideration for this thread.

 

[Jenner]

Let's stop the personal bickering please. Stay on topic and let's be respectful. Thank you.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Let's stop the personal bickering please. Stay on topic and let's be respectful. Thank you.

Understood, thank you for your presence.

 

[Lanz]

I haven't read through the whole 12 pages yet, but in case it hasn't been mentioned, QA test groups rarely are anything close to the size of the target audience for the game. While most conventional interactions can be tested and balanced around, stuff that potentially involves and affects a substantial portion of the entire playerbase is almost impossible to fully test before implementation, so some things are usually missed in the form of small-occurrence bugs and remote/tiny calculations. As with anything, the further along you get, the bigger a tiny error becomes.

Assuming that the math balance behind PP is imperfect, the full realization of that imperfection would only be realized when the players have pushed it to the point that these imperfections stand out. Naturally, in this case, it would first crop up in whichever case has been pushed the furthest. As far as I know, ALD is the most popular power right now with the most pledged members and the most activity, so obviously the breaking point where the math starts to do things that aren't expected would crop up with ALD first.

So this is nothing more than the fact that ALD is the most popular and thus highlighted the problem most strongly, thus is most affected by the change. If it had been any other power, they would have had the same result.

 

[GriM_AoD]

I don't see how the 'resurrection' was unfair, from what I've read the brick wall into a crash isn't how PP was intended to play out. And I fully expect it to keep receiving tweaks to the limits/overheads as we progress so that it's possible for the top ranked powers to maintain their lead instead of the inevitable crash.

 

[znôrt]

I haven't read through the whole 12 pages yet, but in case it hasn't been mentioned, QA test groups rarely are anything close to the size of the target audience for the game. While most conventional interactions can be tested and balanced around, stuff that potentially involves and affects a substantial portion of the entire playerbase is almost impossible to fully test before implementation

neither did i, but i did speed through the bug lists on 1.3, see for example: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=147485

the list is astonishingly large, and most issues are naive. while both fdev's transparency and effort in fixing them are noteworthy, these unending lists also leave little doubt that fdev's qa is flimsy at best by any standard, if they do any serious qa at all.

Assuming that the math balance behind PP is imperfect, the full realization of that imperfection would only be realized when the players have pushed it to the point that these imperfections stand out.

this one was pretty easy to test, you don't need any players actually undermining/carrying goods/whatever at all. just prepare some test data fixtures for different scenarios with the total figures and run them through the cycle formula. this is standard procedure, and in this case you even would want do that on a proof of concept to confirm the design is sound before bothering to code it into the game. again, pretty inoperative or nonexistent qa here.

no bashing here, i actually admire those guys, but this is very much objective: e-d's qa is reactive and mostly carried out by beta testers and regular players in production. i'm not even saying this is fundamentally a flawed strategy, it might even work (if users are ok with that *and* you have fast dev response, which seems to be the case) but don't see the point in denying it either, and powerplay has been an obvious big leap of faith.

 

[Amos Vee]

. <removed> was missing the quote I was responding to

 

[fergal]

I don't see how the 'resurrection' was unfair, from what I've read the brick wall into a crash isn't how PP was intended to play out. And I fully expect it to keep receiving tweaks to the limits/overheads as we progress so that it's possible for the top ranked powers to maintain their lead instead of the inevitable crash.

The brick wall crash was because of the player distribution. Most of the players went with ALD and Aisling, and because they are both Imperial Powers they can't really fight each other the way the in game mechanics work.
ALD has been able to expand and grow at the maximum rate, while Winters and Hudson have been attacked by the larger number of Imperial players and not been able to expand very fast.

Because the overhead formula cubes a number, it just suddenly becomes massive.

Resurrecting ALD was the right thing to do, but the method used is seen to be (and I think) unfair.
They had 0 money, so went into turmoil and lost 2 systems. But at the same time the game allowed 7 new systems to be expanded into.

The overhead cost of these 7 new systems caused the massive deficit. All that needed to happen this week to fix it is not allow the 7 expanded systems to be added to their total.

One of the devs has already said thats how it will work from now on, they should have just done that and not made a separate cheaper overhead cost just for ALD.