Powerplay Powerplay "meeting" with FD
- Thread starter CMDR Sergeant Jezza
- Start date
- Status
How could you possibly know what's on the agenda? There has been zero word on that from the organisers or FD.
They could do this by spending a couple hours today just reading this subforum. Nobody's been secreting away all the issues with powerplay over the year. If anything the issues have been quite vocally debated. Anything specific to the last cycle is pointless to debate. If they could have fixed it they would have and now that they didn't pause the cycle, they would do even more damage doing anything but continuing on the path that they've created.
This forum is too censor happy with too many nanny rules to have honest discussion and strategize as needed, so whether FD encouraged reddit or not, they would have been forced into existence anyway. This is a huge miss in the game because we shouldn't have to rely on third party services to do basic things in the game like communicate in organizations that is necessary for in-game activity.
While yes, some people would like guilds i dont think that's necessary. We've self regulated without any control for a year now. The problem isn't not being able to have control so much as the game mechanics being either broken or half baked mechanics that are necessitating the need for that control. It wouldn't take much to make the current non-controlled group situation to work vastly more effectively, but since that stuff isn't on the table for this 'meeting', i still dont see the point of it.
If it's not about changing powerplay and fixing the mechanics of it then I can make the meeting very easy for them. Pass. Nothing you do now to fix cycle 52 will improve anything, it will just make matters worse. You've waited too long and didn't pause things and now we're invested in cycle 53 as-is and no amount of rolling back is going to effectively correct for what people would have done and how things would have been if the issue never occurred. Especially now that we're passed the half way point of this cycle.
Utopia doesn't have a leader. We do not discuss power-wide things in private. I can't speak for others but I dont have an issue with the selection process...but more about the need to have a selection to begin with. I think it would look pretty bad on FD if they are honestly coming to us saying they need insight into what we have an issue with in powerplay. That just tells the players that they are unaware of a year's worth of forum posts that largely are repetitive in what people are not happy with. And I dont see any point in having a meeting about correcting what just happened in the last cycle, it's way too late now. So my only issue is that if you're not meeting to decide on near-term actual fixes to actual PP problems, then why are you meeting at all?
To make FD better understand their own creation so that their own long-term and short-term planning and decision making actually starts making sense.
They dont need people to tell them what is already being said. And the agenda keeps getting suggested to only be in regards to freezing powerplay - which is now a disastrous idea.
I would hope that the meeting is not about understanding their own creation. If so then we all might as well abandon PowerPlay because it means in 52 weeks they have managed to ignore this subforum, ignore basically all of the reddit communities and apparently have only had support tickets as feedback. It's all publicly viewable. You dont need me or 9 other people to regurgitate what has been repeatedly posted about ad nauseam. Isn't that what the Community Manager (not sure if that's the specific title) supposed to be doing?
If you want to meet with some reps to discuss role playing stories and decals and characters then I can understand a need to meet with major reddit powerplay groups. For everything else, it's not needed.
And you know perfectly well that what you're asking for is an equally viable solution, because that will become the same kind of mess that we have with live streams. A thousand people asking the same stupid questions over and over again, complaining about "bugs" that aren't bugs, wanting changing that only benefit themselves etc.
You've made a suggestion for a solution, I've rejected it as being impossible and impractical. I've made a suggestion for a solution, you've rejected it. How about instead of trying to make sure that absolutely nothing happens to solve this mess, you try to do something constructive about it, like coming up with an actual viable solution?
jezza,
this is just observational, i'm not trying to make a direct comparison, just trying to explain the thinking behind those observations.
sitting reading through this i am reminded of my youngest daughter when she was 11 or 12, sometimes, no matter what was said, or how rational it was explained, all she could see was something being manipulated to exclude her.
the way you are presenting your argument in this thread is very much in the same vein. all you seem able to see is how this presents an opportunity for some to make gains for their respective groups. they say that fear of betrayal is either birthed in guilt, or birthed by type. ie people tend to view others relative to how they understand themselves.. actually it goes a lot deeper than that, but that's a different discussion for a different forum.
much like my young daughter in her situation, you are sweetly trying to twist and turn your way through every point that is made with the hope of being able to legitimise your opinion, while also attempting to discredit individuals already involved. in what i can only imagine is an attempt to garner confirmation that suits your bias. you really do appear to be using this thread as both a podium for expressing your displeasure at not being involved, no matter how much you say '"that's not what this is about"' and an attempt to attract attention, to the point of not realising that your actions may sabotage the process.
this is, at its core, an attempt to initiate a dialogue with the aim of protecting PP, by discussing and highlighting its problems from a players perspective, and the best way to represent the players perspective, is by putting forward the individuals who spend most of their time researching, sifting and gathering data, compiling spreadsheets, and producing the meaningful direction that allows PP to prosper. this dedication alone, has allowed groups of all sizes, coalitions that have formed, and the powers they support, to operate in an organised, productive manner, that has advanced PP beyond the disarray and chaos it could easily have become. i understand, and respect, the mindset and ability of the nameless individuals, who week in - week out, do the number crunching, they are by nature, reserved and unassuming individuals, who very likely put more time into PP than most others.. its almost a full time job. it also makes sense that other senior members of groups that work closely with the analysts are there as well, as they have the pulse of the players enacting the actual operations.. this isn't about ego, its about common sense and convenience.
others know you better than i, so i may be a mile wide of the mark, but if this how they read you, i can certainly understand why there would be concern about your involvement.. this proposed meeting isn't a power play, it is about power play.. as differences go, that is huge.
regards
this is just observational, i'm not trying to make a direct comparison, just trying to explain the thinking behind those observations.
sitting reading through this i am reminded of my youngest daughter when she was 11 or 12, sometimes, no matter what was said, or how rational it was explained, all she could see was something being manipulated to exclude her.
the way you are presenting your argument in this thread is very much in the same vein. all you seem able to see is how this presents an opportunity for some to make gains for their respective groups. they say that fear of betrayal is either birthed in guilt, or birthed by type. ie people tend to view others relative to how they understand themselves.. actually it goes a lot deeper than that, but that's a different discussion for a different forum.
much like my young daughter in her situation, you are sweetly trying to twist and turn your way through every point that is made with the hope of being able to legitimise your opinion, while also attempting to discredit individuals already involved. in what i can only imagine is an attempt to garner confirmation that suits your bias. you really do appear to be using this thread as both a podium for expressing your displeasure at not being involved, no matter how much you say '"that's not what this is about"' and an attempt to attract attention, to the point of not realising that your actions may sabotage the process.
this is, at its core, an attempt to initiate a dialogue with the aim of protecting PP, by discussing and highlighting its problems from a players perspective, and the best way to represent the players perspective, is by putting forward the individuals who spend most of their time researching, sifting and gathering data, compiling spreadsheets, and producing the meaningful direction that allows PP to prosper. this dedication alone, has allowed groups of all sizes, coalitions that have formed, and the powers they support, to operate in an organised, productive manner, that has advanced PP beyond the disarray and chaos it could easily have become. i understand, and respect, the mindset and ability of the nameless individuals, who week in - week out, do the number crunching, they are by nature, reserved and unassuming individuals, who very likely put more time into PP than most others.. its almost a full time job. it also makes sense that other senior members of groups that work closely with the analysts are there as well, as they have the pulse of the players enacting the actual operations.. this isn't about ego, its about common sense and convenience.
others know you better than i, so i may be a mile wide of the mark, but if this how they read you, i can certainly understand why there would be concern about your involvement.. this proposed meeting isn't a power play, it is about power play.. as differences go, that is huge.
regards
Last edited:
Thank you for an amazing explanation of what is actually going on here. You said it far better than I could have.
Last edited:
I'm not going to say this again.
I have semi-retired from powerplay.
I am no longer particularly interested in what happens with it, except so far as how it affects me and my group.
I will not be attending any "meetings" regarding powerplay.
Stop making this about me when it clearly isn't.
If people continue doing this I am going to report your posts to the moderators for derailing the thread. This thread was created for discussion of the powerplay meeting, and repeating the same anti-jezza arguments over and over is simply a way for people to avoid answering the questions and change the subject.
I have semi-retired from powerplay.
I am no longer particularly interested in what happens with it, except so far as how it affects me and my group.
I will not be attending any "meetings" regarding powerplay.
Stop making this about me when it clearly isn't.
If people continue doing this I am going to report your posts to the moderators for derailing the thread. This thread was created for discussion of the powerplay meeting, and repeating the same anti-jezza arguments over and over is simply a way for people to avoid answering the questions and change the subject.
Last edited:
See, here I thought that's what the forum was doing for the past year and that they had people who sifted through and generally monitored things, basically making reaching out unnecessary as the forum gives a much much larger sampling of players than 10 or so people.
lets see what we can find in 10 minutes:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=239455 about 94 cmdr's involved in that discussion which is a major problem area that needs solving initiated by a lead developer. So no excuse there.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=237773 about 153 cmdr's here talking about the other aspect of 5 col activities that need some love, again initiated by a lead developer.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=260327 This is just the latest one, but basically read every weekly thread and you'll get a decent picture of powerplay
So many manifestos and idea threads that basically say the same thing even on page 1 of the current subforum that it's pointless to pick one.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=257818
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=259324
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=257998
And this just repeats as you go further and further back in time. Even if you spent only 1/5 of your time you spend reading the forum as a community leader in the powerplay subforum, you should have picked up all the info you need to understand how the players feel about powerplay and have a good idea of what solutions would actually work.
So once again, the need for meeting with anyone at all seems moot. Are you saying "Hey, we can't be bothered to pay attention to the forum we created, nor anything on reddit so could you 10 people summarize a year's worth of issues and solutions for us that we'll in no way suggest that we'll actually act on anytime soon?" Or are you saying they are looking for something else that hasn't been mentioned in the thread yet?
This is unfortunately what happens in public forums. As has been restated multiple times by various people, making this "PowerPlay meeting" a public meeting will result in a roughly the same productive conversation as this and nearly every other thread on this forum. It's the nature of the Internet. Unstructured public conversation is highly inefficient, ineffective, and often unproductive.
By narrowing the participants to a small collection of people chosen by their respective communities to represent them, there is a greater chance for productive conversation. You'll find that happening even here on the Frontier forum, with private sections where selected members take place in more focused discussions. It's not guaranteed to produce results, but it's far more likely than "the horde."
And really, at the end of the day, Frontier Developments is well within its rights to reject every suggestion made through any means. It's their product, and they can do with it as they wish. Our voting power as customers is done with our wallets. If we don't like where Elite is going, we will simply stop playing and stop investing in additional seasons of content.
because as great as all that information is and how many ideas there are, it is a very public, 1 sided, conversation which is very speculative, in that as players we have no idea of how frontier have, or want to develop PP. this problem wont be solved by throwing ideas at a wall in the hopes that something valid sticks, because we have no idea what valid is. on top of which this offer isn't about developing PP, its about trying to resolve and prevent the current issues from happening in the future. so how exactly are ideas about the direction PP should go and the content it needs to add, relevant to this process of repair and prevention?
this is about creating a formal, detailed conversational level dialogue between frontier and a small number of players, all of whom understand PP in great detail, and are actively involved in PP and its community. it also allows frontier to create, control, and coordinate the entire process, with set guidelines and any other requirements that are needed to protect the game.
tl&dr
with this idea, they can emulate the kind of dialogue you find in a board room, including confidentiality, between 2 companies, with a much higher level of relative detail and information being shared and discussed, than in other environments, this is productive, and cost effective in terms of time vs gains..
alternatively
they can try and do the same via reddit or the forums, which is like like having a free for all conference with 1000's of people, all with varying levels of understanding or appreciation for PP and the community, with the addition of some hostile attendees just for fun. this is wholly unproductive.
again, its just a genuine offer, not some crazy demand
Last edited:
First off, this thread has considerably less to do with PP and much much more to do with giving Jezza a pot to stir for a few hours. It's clear that this thread exists more for her personal amusement than any true desire of hers to help with Power Play.
Second, this meeting is not about fixing PowerPlay. It is about making the outcome of cycle 52 fair to the many major powers that were affected by the bugs that cropped up after Engineers was applied. As a member of Mahon, it would be in my best personal interest to just keep my mouth shut because the outcome hurt other factions significantly more. However:
Every faction probably got screwed to some degree, but what happened to Patreus, Winters and Torvald is just downright unfair. I remember Mahon being up in arms when we lost a dozen systems to the Fed snipe because what happened contradicted the PP documents that FDev had published. In that case we were told that PP was working as intended and the documents were wrong (sorry!) In this case, it was just bugs on top of bugs. So there is no 'working as intended' excuse. Billions of credits and hours of game time down the drain. I cannot imagine how the players in these factions feel - I would suspect worse than I did after the Mahon snipe!
This meeting is to explain to FDev why their merit carryover 'fix' does not fix anything at all. It would only be remotely fair if Patreus, Winters and Torvald were allowed to prepare this week. I don't believe the developers really grasp this because I don't think they pay too much attention to PP.
Second, this meeting is not about fixing PowerPlay. It is about making the outcome of cycle 52 fair to the many major powers that were affected by the bugs that cropped up after Engineers was applied. As a member of Mahon, it would be in my best personal interest to just keep my mouth shut because the outcome hurt other factions significantly more. However:
- Patreus was put into turmoil, by a bug, and cannot get their preparations
- Winters is now in turmoil and cannot get the preparations they fairly acquired as well
- Torvald has three preparations that they can no longer get becuase this week they do not have the required surplus.
- Combat factions could hardly expand or undermine because buggy NPCs could kill players at a whim
- Nominations did not work unless you physicially travelled to the system you wanted to nominate
- Merit collection from killing PP ships was bugged and combat players could not rank as usual
- The display values for fort and undermining in every system was wrong for over a day after the tick, meaning fort heavy factions had no idea what to do.
Every faction probably got screwed to some degree, but what happened to Patreus, Winters and Torvald is just downright unfair. I remember Mahon being up in arms when we lost a dozen systems to the Fed snipe because what happened contradicted the PP documents that FDev had published. In that case we were told that PP was working as intended and the documents were wrong (sorry!) In this case, it was just bugs on top of bugs. So there is no 'working as intended' excuse. Billions of credits and hours of game time down the drain. I cannot imagine how the players in these factions feel - I would suspect worse than I did after the Mahon snipe!
This meeting is to explain to FDev why their merit carryover 'fix' does not fix anything at all. It would only be remotely fair if Patreus, Winters and Torvald were allowed to prepare this week. I don't believe the developers really grasp this because I don't think they pay too much attention to PP.
I think you're really stretching for straws here. For a year the mantra hasn't changed much in what isn't working and what needs to be changed and ideas of how to change it. It's only been one sided because FD has decided to allow it to go unanswered by not doing anything to PP for the year. A meeting isn't going to change that. Nothing 10 people are going to say is any different from what the forum has said and is in many ways going to be worth less in terms of representative than what FD has been given in hundreds of posts over the course of the year that they should be knowledgeable of.
I expect more from a developer than to need to be told how to handle their own troubleshooting process. You dont need a meeting to be told that if you have such a screw up like they did last week that you need to decide either they stay offline until it's fixed or they freeze it until they are pleased with the state of things. You dont half fix things just to get the game back up as quickly as possible and carry on like everything is cool and leave the option open to actually correct things for later in a live cycle. I'm not sure what's so hard with understanding that aspect of how to not allow this to happen again. You need 10 more people to tell them that?
EDIT: it seems more and more likely that the reason why the main reddit groups are being called together is to organize a treatise of sorts where FD is offering each group some kind of reparation that the others agree is fair to offset the screw up that occurred last cycle and they'll get far less fallout over this manual manipulation if they have the main reddit groups on board. I think that's far more likely than FD needing to be told how to handle a similar situation next time. At least I hope it is because it's got to be incredibly obvious by now.
Last edited:
You're just mad you weren't invited
No, Patreus went into turmoil deliberately, with the intent to shed two of our worst systems and block a rubbish expansion. We don't want the prep. They can burn it with fire and bury it deep, deep down.
However, the buggy cycle results robbed Patreus of his ability to rid himself of those two systems by putting his CAPITAL in turmoil, and kindly restoring his rubbish preps/expansions for another day.
- Status