Answers from the devs #2

[PeachingTony]

Usually such bickering means that people asking this want FD to change their answer.

I don't necessarily want FD to change their answer, as I may have missed some aspect to the argument which would alter my view.
I do want them to at least show they acknowledge the various sides of the argument, and to explain their position *in that context*.

Unless they do that, my view is that they don't have a good explanation for their position, and they are just being pig-headed having decided on it a long time ago,
maybe they didn't foresee some of the issues and viewpoints that would arise with CG and PP, they find themselves between a rock and a hard place and would rather just dismiss it as per the OP.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

So, you guys believe that rewarding undermining is a great way to push players interaction.
But on the other hand you give a way to do that in solo, resulting in no player interaction...and making the efforts of those, who try to oppose other players or who dare taking the risk to face other players, worthless.
I really appreciate the work your team is doing but as some may point...*facepalm*

It was never meant that you fight undermining directly.

 

[Iskariot]

So "walking around" will not be the announcement and Thargoids have also been described as a long way off...doesn't leave much wiggleroom for what this thing "you have been working hard on for a long time" could be then, does it?

It doesn't have to be planetary landing, if that is what you are so sneakily suggesting .
The game also desperately needs more assets to add diversity to the ED universe.
I mean stuff like more station types, prison installation, military fortresses, mining installations, industrial complexes etc. etc.etc.
Personally I hope they will add that before planetary landing... well... uhm I would like planetary landing to be honest, but no, no lets be strong...
More diversity first, would be better..

 

[Huggy]

Q: Currently it's more "profitable" from a merit-earning perspective to commit hostile actions in the territory of other Powers than to support your own Power's growth - unless you're willing to spend substantial credits on non-combat Powerplay actions. Are there any plans to change this, or is this working as intended?

A: Powerplay allows the background simulation to dynamically change on a much larger scale than interactions with minor factions. These changes are generally at their most interesting when they involve conflict – that’s partly why the premise of Powerplay is about territorial control; conflict is a great way of generating drama. With this in mind, we’re happy that hostile actions are incentivised.






IMHO I think merit earning could do with a few tweaks!!! For example, I can't understand why no merits are given by your Power when you have destroyed an enemy Powers ship in one of your own Powers exploited or controlled system, surely you should be rewarded!!!

 

[GluttonyFang]

Yeah, ok, combat logging is a problem for pvp.

Instancing is part of the design of the game and as that was defined prior to the game being released. I've not experienced the issues with instancing although that may be because my link to my ISP is good, my router is a decent Cisco and I understand how to optimise my network and PC network settings so don't fall foul of the matchmaking issues. Come to think of it, that can be said of most of the people I play with which could explain why we don't see any issues with instancing.

Please tell me what major PvP battle have you participated in that pushes up toward the 32 players supposed instance limit without exceeding it.

Hacking is definitely a problem.

Competing with players you can't see is the same as instancing. As MANY people have stated, this isn't EVE, it was never intended to be EVE and it won't be EVE. Get used to having some people you can't see because you're not in their instance. That is working as intended.

Instancing does inevitably filter some players out, but at the same time, they can easily fall into another group of players' instance, but Solo doesn't do that at all.

I never claimed that this is EVE, but MP falls under the category of coop and competition, while PvE potentially works in a small number, PvP is utterly broken.

So, in conclusion, you have a point regarding combat logging and hacking and potentially a point with instancing if it turns out that the issue really is with FDev code rather than with people's incompatible p2p network performance.

If it is a net code issue, that is something FDev had more than enough time to deal with. The only reason that it still is a problem is... you guessed it... it wasn't and isn't one of their priority, or perhaps even an agenda item at all.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

It doesn't have to be planetary landing, if that is what you are so sneakily suggesting .
The game also desperately needs more assets to add diversity to the ED universe.
I mean stuff like more station types, prison installation, military fortresses, mining installations, industrial complexes etc. etc.etc.
Personally I hope they will add that before planetary landing... well... uhm I would like planetary landing to be honest, but no, no lets be strong...
More diversity first, would be better..

More diversity is awesome, I need that.

Gamescon spotlight however would be wasted if that would be only that. Also considering David's comment that they have been working on it for long time....Tailoring of ED is hugely needed, but it's clearly not long term task, it's something they can and will do day-by-day.

 

[FrodoHobbits]

Maybe the condescending tone comes from the fact that you've been given a clear and concise answer to this question over and over, but childishly you continue to ask the question. It's like my two year old demanding an ice cream and being told no. He keeps asking, over and over. The adults aren't going to change their minds just because you stamp your feet over 800 pages. The grown ups said no. Now deal with it.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

 

[Cosmos]

Maybe the condescending tone comes from the fact that you've been given a clear and concise answer to this question over and over, but childishly you continue to ask the question. It's like my two year old demanding an ice cream and being told no. He keeps asking, over and over. The adults aren't going to change their minds just because you stamp your feet over 800 pages. The grown ups said no. Now deal with it.

Is there really any need for this? I talk about the issues and low and behold, its the same old tired story where I get personal sniping back in return. I'd call in the mods but.. oh wait.. and actually he was responding to someone else's post..

Question for you though.. How much of your time is spent playing in the Open?

 

[PeachingTony]

Indeed. And ironically, the 'sniper' accuses the other of behaving childishly.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Why I need to do that? It's massive, it's multiplayer, it's online. And it's clearly has lots of multiplayer elements going on.

By multiplayer elements going on, you mean people complaining about how broken multiplayer is? Well, yes there is a lot of multiplayer elements going on.

There's no dishonesty. FD has never tried to hide how game works actually. It has been known 2 years *before* release of version 1.0

I would love that the FDevs look me in the eye and tell me they truly believe MP/MMO aspect of their game is what players that purchased the game for the multiplayer aspect came for. Also that they believe Open players are satisfied with the current circumstance (if the advertisement pulled in so many like-minded players that complain about the mechanism of the game itself, I think it's the advertisement that should be called into question). If none of them start laughing/stuttering half way through explaining, I will nod my head and walk away with my lips pressed together.

As for hacking and combat logging - these issues will be tackled in time I believe.

Again, a problem since day one...Either not a priority, or not even an item on the agenda for them to address.

 

[Cosmos]

There's no dishonesty. FD has never tried to hide how game works actually.

Hahahahaahaha! No dishonesty.. OMG take off the blinkers dude. Seriously! LOLZWAT!

 

[Commander Pickle]

With this "Answer from the Devs," I quit Powerplay.

In every post I make I try to be courteous and respectful, but your theory about balancing Powerplay simply sucks. And it kills me because I was looking forward to Powerplay more than anything else in this game. I am so disappointed. It makes for terrible role play, and I'll tell you why.

I quote:

"Currently it's more "profitable" from a merit-earning perspective to commit hostile actions in the territory of other Powers than to support your own Power's growth - unless you're willing to spend substantial credits on non-combat Powerplay actions. Are there any plans to change this, or is this working as intended?

Powerplay allows the background simulation to dynamically change on a much larger scale than interactions with minor factions. These changes are generally at their most interesting when they involve conflict – that’s partly why the premise of Powerplay is about territorial control; conflict is a great way of generating drama. With this in mind, we’re happy that hostile actions are incentivised."--- FD

I did not join Senator Petraeus because I want to shoot at Hudson or Winters. I JOINED SENATOR PETRAEUS BECAUSE I'M FOR SENATOR PETRAEUS! I want to BE for somebody--that's the HEART of roleplay. I don't want to simply be AGAINST someone and that's what dominates my roleplay. Why do I only get 1 merit for shooting down an enemy ship in an invasion area that is valuable FOR Petraeus.

Please take a step back and think about this proposition for a minute.

You get 15 merits for shooting down an enemy Adder in a random hostile system. You get 1 merit for killing an Anaconda in an invasion area that's highly valuable to the expansion of your power.

You get the same reward for killing 15 Anaconda's in the service of your Power that you do for merit farming in a random system. Who could POSSIBLY think that even enters into the realm of common sense?!

Are you SERIOUSLY going to argue to me that the adder I killed in the random hostile system was 15 times more important to destroy than the Anaconda in the system we are taking over? And you're going to argue that this balance system is an INCENTIVE for meaningful combat experience?

But let's be fair--the reason FD cited this balance choice was "we are happy that hostile actions are incentivized." In other words, who cares that it's senseless? It's more fun with hostile combat incentives. I'm sorry but Roleplay is more than PEW PEW. Frontier, if you want Powerplay to be fun without it making sense, it will be neither. You have to BELIEVE IN WHAT YOU'RE DOING to make roleplay fun. And how could someone believe in something so senseless?

Besides, please do tell me how getting 1 merit for killing an Anaconda in an invasion area incentivizes combat?

*sits back with popcorn and waits*

No? Oh, maybe you mean PVP combat? So what about the overwhelming majority of undermining farmers that are sitting in "Solo" mode to make bank off the system? Have you ever spent time trying to "catch" the underminers in the act? I invite you to try.

*sits back again*

Still nothing?

Maybe you mean conflict between the Powers? That's gotta be it. FD wants the drama of the Powers fighting over the same turf.

Turf that can't be invaded? Turf that can't be "warred" over because of the fictional cold war? Turf that players simply use to stage hit run run attacks on NPC eagles and haulers? That's the FD concept of a dramatic struggle between powers? Newsflash: 80% of the undermining being done is not to benefit a power--its for merit farming.

Weak. And also not roleplay. And the worst part of all? Working as intended.

 

[Brandon31]

With this "Answer from the Devs," I quit Powerplay.

In every post I make I try to be courteous and respectful, but your theory about balancing Powerplay simply sucks. And it kills me because I was looking forward to Powerplay more than anything else in this game. I am so disappointed. It makes for terrible role play, and I'll tell you why.

I quote:

"Currently it's more "profitable" from a merit-earning perspective to commit hostile actions in the territory of other Powers than to support your own Power's growth - unless you're willing to spend substantial credits on non-combat Powerplay actions. Are there any plans to change this, or is this working as intended?

Powerplay allows the background simulation to dynamically change on a much larger scale than interactions with minor factions. These changes are generally at their most interesting when they involve conflict – that’s partly why the premise of Powerplay is about territorial control; conflict is a great way of generating drama. With this in mind, we’re happy that hostile actions are incentivised."--- FD

I did not join Senator Petraeus because I want to shoot at Hudson or Winters. I JOINED SENATOR PETRAEUS BECAUSE I'M FOR SENATOR PETRAEUS! I want to BE for somebody--that's the HEART of roleplay. I don't want to simply be AGAINST someone and that's what dominates my roleplay. Why do I only get 1 merit for shooting down an enemy ship in an invasion area that is valuable FOR Petraeus.

Please take a step back and think about this proposition for a minute.

You get 15 merits for shooting down an enemy Adder in a random hostile system. You get 1 merit for killing an Anaconda in an invasion area that's highly valuable to the expansion of your power.

You get the same reward for killing 15 Anaconda's in the service of your Power that you do for merit farming in a random system. Who could POSSIBLY think that even enters into the realm of common sense?!

Are you SERIOUSLY going to argue to me that the adder I killed in the random hostile system was 15 times more important to destroy than the Anaconda in the system we are taking over? And you're going to argue that this balance system is an INCENTIVE for meaningful combat experience?

But let's be fair--the reason FD cited this balance choice was "we are happy that hostile actions are incentivized." In other words, who cares that it's senseless? It's more fun with hostile combat incentives. I'm sorry but Roleplay is more than PEW PEW. Frontier, if you want Powerplay to be fun without it making sense, it will be neither.

Besides, please do tell me how getting 1 merit for killing an Anaconda in an invasion area incentivizes combat?

*sits back with popcorn and waits*

No? Oh, maybe you mean PVP combat? So what about the overwhelming majority of undermining farmers that are sitting in "Solo" mode to make bank off the system? Have you ever spent time trying to "catch" the underminers in the act? I invite you to try.

*sits back again*

Still nothing?

Maybe you mean conflict between the Powers? That's gotta be it. FD wants the drama of the Powers fighting over the same turf.

Turf that can't be invaded? Turf that can't be "warred" over because of the fictional cold war? Turf that players simply use to stage hit run run attacks on NPC eagles and haulers? That's the FD concept of a dramatic struggle between powers? Newsflash: 80% of the undermining being done is not to benefit a power--its for merit farming.

Weak. And also not roleplay. And the worst part of all? Working as intended.

This is the exact reason I do not bother with Power Play, it just does not seem to make any kind of real sense to me at all.

 

[MahdDogg]

Is there really any need for this? I talk about the issues and low and behold, its the same old tired story where I get personal sniping back in return. I'd call in the mods but.. oh wait.. and actually he was responding to someone else's post..

Question for you though.. How much of your time is spent playing in the Open?

Most of it, when I'm not streaming. The relevancy of your question? Is this an appeal to authority? Implying that if one doesn't play in open one shouldn't comment on the validity of Open vs Solo/Group? You threw out your toys at the Tin Man's response to the same tired question being raised when the devs have answered the question with clarity and conciseness. You tried to tone police, when Tin Man's response was valid and like a lot of us who ACCEPT the answer given are ready to concede that the point is now moot. It's not happening, deal with it.

 

[Ben1ss1m0]

Will Gutamaya ever make an Anaconda sized ship (Small frigate in my books)?

 

[Cosmos]

Please take a step back and think about this proposition for a minute.

You get 15 merits for shooting down an enemy Adder in a random hostile system. You get 1 merit for killing an Anaconda in an invasion area that's highly valuable to the expansion of your power.

You get the same reward for killing 15 Anaconda's in the service of your Power that you do for merit farming in a random system. Who could POSSIBLY think that even enters into the realm of common sense?!

Its for this and many other reasons that I say that the devs dont actually play their own game. When my clan and I were engaged in PP we quickly realised that 1 merit for a ship for expansion was poor not just in terms of time and effort but wasted against 15 merits for group killing others elsewhere.

Ugh.. I don't wanna be nasty to FD, never did, and got to say I really like Sandro.. but dude, you are not playing this game. Where did the passion go from the devs? When did this all turn into a business? Coz if you just make a great game and concentrate on that then you'll be rewarded.

Who was that guy.. forget the name, Johnny Watts? I remember him saying he would give anything to work on the game, where is he? I don't know whats going wrong at Frontier but something isn't working. You guys have an awesome base to build upon and could create a masterpiece. What happened? All we are getting is grind upon grind. Its painful to see.

And FD please stop taking your queues from the white knights, flatterers and sycophants amongst the community. They are never going to give you the feedback you really need to make ED wonderful.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

And FD please stop taking your queues from the white knights, flatterers and sycophants amongst the community. They are never going to give you the feedback you really need to make ED wonderful.

Just classic. "I know teh best" claim. I just keep loving these "you don't play your own game" claims too.

Don't fret, they don't take queues from anybody, even from us.

 

[Poseidal]

Will Gutamaya ever make an Anaconda sized ship (Small frigate in my books)?

There's the Imperial Cutter in the supporting fiction.

 

[simulacrae]

Thanks Zac

Great to see these !

 

[Cosmos]

Just classic. "I know teh best" claim. I just keep loving these "you don't play your own game" claims too.

Don't fret, they don't take queues from anybody, even from us.

Well its a personal theory of mine based upon how things have worked out. I don't believe the devs play the game in the sense that it was originally explained - 'we are creating a game we want to play'.

Now then, I could be really wrong. This could be quickly cleared up, FD could show us ranks and progression from the devs personal accounts. I'd be particularly interested at this time in understanding how many CGs they participated in and how they ranked in that. Its understandable that they won't have the same as I, or others who have more time to play, but still.. If all these things are so great, and they are indeed playing the game they wanted to play, then the numbers should be respectable.

So then.. gauntlet laid.. lets see the info.

I want to point something out here that might not be obvious to many since I am so often in conflict with others. I have Elite in my DNA. Its a game I wholeheartedly wish to see be an amazing success. Thats my drive and my focus and I do apologise if I upset people along the way but hurt feelings are not my concern. ED being great is my focus.