Community goals as story telling device and alternatives

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

FD has been using CG as moving story forward with as many player's involvement as possible. It isn't perfect, I see it as rudimentary at current form, and don't get involved much although I like story pitches written for them lately. There is valid criticism as more players get involved CG they tend to become grindy as players want to get their reward level to make it worth while. Also players with less time might feel not being able to contribute in any meaningful way.

I personally see community goals - I would like to rename them as pledge campaigns or something less outside of the game, but that's not a deal breaker - solid way to bring players together for galaxy changing story. But there are many issues - both low and high lying fruits - to solve before it becomes sort of favourite thing to do for everyone.

My wish list for CG improvements in general are:
* Better user interface - current spreadsheet UI approach for it does not feel good at all. I would like to see round pie competition widgets, more emphasis on story behind goal, less on rewards;
* Make rewards more interesting - this is tricky one, but allow for various different rewards and reward levels. Allow someone who plays a bit more casually for some lower reachable reward tiers with less monetary but more interesting rewards;
* I guess it would make sense to play different types of goods play different role in reaching tier of CG and possible outcome. I would like to note that current results of tiers are not visible in interface at all. Make them visible and well explained;

Also for CGs as part of overall game's story - way FD raises story is that we are part of it. CGs are direct way to make us involved. Only one commander will discover Guardian ruins. It is quite impossible to make millions of small mini discoveries as part of the story. That's why I believe that heavily improved CGs can certainly play good role of moving story forward.

I know people still eager to discuss more classic, very single player oriented story telling methods, and it seems FD plans to introduce some of it - although they will be more of mini narratives than game changing stories.

What's your pragmatical ideas for CG improvements?

 

[Apos]

The problem with CGs is that the galaxy seems to be functioning under some unwritten law that only a couple projects can be ongoing at a time. Also, all construction materials seem to be booby trapped and if you don't build that station within a week they self destruct.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

CGs are a poor device for story telling.

I hope that as part of the core updates, that they are rolled into and auto-generated by the BGS, with far more flexibility on their duration, and how their requirements are met.

 

[Knightshark]

Good post! I agree with your suggestions, and i like the idea behind CGs.

Most of all i would like much more complex and diverse objectives and strong integration with the mission system and the BGS, maybe even PP. Say, flipping a system or inducing a change of the state (eg help with outbreak or famine, induce boom, trigger and win a civil war). This could be done by spawing CG-specifc missions which pay a premium as a replacement of the final payout and only show up to those that pledged. I don't like this big fat bar. It's clumsy, too "meta", and screams grind. I also don't like the Top x% kind of payment.

So, in short, i would like to see CG that are "campaigns" of missions with a specific major goal.

 

[Drelthar]

They aren't being used as a storytelling device though, they are being used to introduce new equipment. That's all.

The storytelling devices are INRA bases and space installations and datalinks.

 

[Shanaeri]

They work better as a story exposition method. BUT they are not really interactive. Once they pass tier 1, they have "succeeded" so there is zero chance of failure.

There are also no consequences attached so in effect they are like pressing pause on a movie which then carries straight on afterwards.

Case in point The Aegis CG's. It would have been so much better if they had gone something like this

"The Thargoids are adapting to our tech, we calculate we will only have enough time to complete ONE project. The project that has gained more resources will progress, while the other will be delayed. Commanders will however still receive the credit rewards for participation"

That way we would get to choose.. E.g Scanner or missiles. Multi-Cannon or Anti-shutdown etc etc. Basically we would decide what weapons we use and when.

 

[Deleted member 38366]

CGs have a very foul taste in my view.

Arguably, mostly because of some severe Central-Planning screwups in the past (which is a huge understatement, but my preferred words wouldn't be PEGI-7).
As a mechanic, they're old. Very very old and almost obsolete.

Still, the underlying idea is a good one.

If anything, I'd ponder about the following thoughts :
- how to clearly separate "Central Planning" Projects which must succeed at all cost due to internal requirements (Storyline or anything else Frontier must feed in) from "Players actually get to decide"
- how to properly place and implement them without steamrolling existing Players and their hard work, as in : thorough checking, pre-coordination/Information exchange and if needed proper Plan B alternatives
(no more attempts to create the fake/false illusion of Player actions having any effect here)

- how to add small/medium scale lower-tier CGs spinoffs (Player Groups, nice ideas, anything that fits in) in larger numbers in parallel and with less overhead; preferably initiated via an in-game Tool
(I'd call them "Regional Goals", accessible i.e. via a GalMap Filter and separate from Central CGs. Pure Player actions decide only, no 2nd thoughts. Opposing Interests must have suitable means to interfere, other than the primitive Lockdown mechanic)

- how to modernize them, so they're no longer i.e. unfailable/24hr Completed and instead dynamically balanced (Tiers auto-adjusting instead of manually set)
-> give them much more flexibility (any Combination or Commodities/Elements/Materials/Data/Exploration Data)
-> make Exporation CGs specific to their stated goals (no more same 1 "Point" for a scanned Brown Dwarf as for a ELW the CG supposedly searched for; instead high Points should be given for scanning what is required)

But most of it all : Absolutely guarantee that whatever is promised will be delivered.

PS.
There's still alot of Damage done in the past by CGs screwing Players over big time - which Frontier would have to a) acknowledge and b) Repair or at least Redeem first.
And that's quite a bit of reparation needed to restore the lost trust.
Until that happens, I personally boycott any CGs. Categorically. Enough is enough, learned my lessons the hard way.

 

[5 Puppis]

CGs are underutilized for story telling. I would like to see sequential CGs that are chained and advance a major story objective over several weeks. The AX weapon CGs kinda had this going for them, but drop the ball due to mission monotony.

Perhaps they should get professional writers involved to help with plot pacing and setting up more varied campaigns.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

CGs are a poor device for story telling.

Could you give your reasons why? I always kinda like their wide approach which allows many people to take part in whatever their goal is.

It can be more nuanced but I think concept is solid.

edit: after reading overall comments I guess what I meant is story advancing mechanism. Story telling is more of 'discovering things, getting logs, getting journal entries, video trailers or galnet articles'.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

CGs are underutilized for story telling. I would like to see sequential CGs that are chained and advance a major story objective over several weeks. The AX weapon CGs kinda had this going for them, but drop the ball due to mission monotony.

Perhaps they should get professional writers involved to help with plot pacing and setting up more varied campaigns.

There's need to be improvements in CG mechanics as well, but I agree with overall sentiment here. Repped.

 

[Pumabear8]

CG's, where I can sink time and earn credits(the latter I can do faster with some normal missions), I stopped doing anymore CG's after the Liz Ryder one, it was just the usual slog back and forth with a not terribly good story attached to it.

 

[MadDogMurdock]

Could you give your reasons why? I always kinda like their wide approach which allows many people to take part in whatever their goal is.

It can be more nuanced but I think concept is solid.

edit: after reading overall comments I guess what I meant is story advancing mechanism. Story telling is more of 'discovering things, getting logs, getting journal entries, video trailers or galnet articles'.

Because...
they give the pretense of being binary branch points where the community determines the story-line when actually they never fail.
they are anything but dynamic - any God-like insertion into a supposedly player-driven environment is inevitably disruptive.
they reinforce repetition as the method of progression.
they reinforce every significant fracture line in the community.
they have such limited variation.
they lack any subtlety or complexity.

As far as story-telling goes, they are a weekly "here's what's going to happen". Enjoy or don't enjoy, participate or not, this is what's going to happen.

Apart from that they're fine - I often do them.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

There's a few different types of CG which all could be handled somewhat differently, and a few different types of outcome.

Type 1: Resource collection (trade, mining, materials/data, salvage)
Outcomes: plot advancement, colonisation, station construction or improvement, terraforming commencement or completion, station economy upgrade, none.

Type 2: Bounty hunting
Outcomes: generally none (can indirectly protect a simultaneous type 1 versus Lockdown) but it's a way to get bonus payouts for bounty hunters.

Type 3: War
Outcomes: plot advancement, none.

Type 4: Exploration
Outcomes: plot advancement, colonisation, none.

So, looking at that, I think there's a way to improve things by splitting things into two tiers. Unfortunately, it requires a lot of implementation work, both as a one-off "feature" piece, and in ongoing support.

Tier 1: Major CGs
Any CG hand-authored by Frontier for plot advancement. In general these should have tier levels with defined and pre-advertised benefits for each level. The likely existence of these CGs should be hinted at in Galnet at least a few weeks ahead; the outcome of them should trigger "consequences" in Galnet or elsewhere for a few weeks. The number, duration and type of these might vary - some weeks might have several running, others might have none at all.

Ideally these would have choices for players to support - obviously a War CG can have people take both sides, but competing supply CGs, or a hunting CG versus a smuggling CG, or similar. The choice wouldn't necessarily need to involve direct conflict - as suggested above, it could be multiple trade CGs which can't all be completed in time.

Tier 2: Minor CGs
These would be automated through the BGS for station/system improvements, and would be triggered by particular BGS states being maintained for several days [1]. A lot of these would be expected to fail. The exact improvement on offer would be influenced by the BGS state and recent activity in the system, as well as the type of faction (e.g. dictatorships might go for military improvements, whereas corporates might go for permanent trade production increases). Success would lead to the improvement being made.

(Colonisation of new systems could be started by a trigger on the Investment state, but this would need some careful balancing and probably an expensive goal)

A possible way to implement this would be that once a controlling faction has maintained (e.g.) a Boom state for 7 days, it goes into an Improvements state which can only be interrupted by a conflict, and allows an attempt at a minor CG while it's active. (failed Improvements could, if they were 'close' to success, give a lower threshold for the next attempt, so factions could get there a bit at a time with patience, too; the "override by conflict" gives a BGS-friendly way to oppose these CGs)

[1] Smaller factions would have an easier job of maintaining BGS states, and the decision to expand to multiple systems or stay small and develop what you have would be intentional. (The few factions which are able to maintain precise control over multiple systems at once would of course not be faced with quite so tough a decision...)