OK Frontier, You Win

OK Frontier you win, you proved your point beyond any doubt, no matter what you do there will be an accusation of incompetence or rigging or just general moaning.

CG 1 - 'Lets make sure it completes' - Response - Thousands of players miss out, lots of complaints its didnt last long enough. - So balance needs adding artificially.
CG 2 - 'Lets make sure it doesnt complete by cancelling solo FC owners and limiting the supply through rares / lets really encourage team FC usage and tea-bagging' - Response - Players complain about not finishing, about 20% not 25% discount, about limited supply and why bother going for anything but Brandy and then Cigars when Boom, about losing out to team players tea-bagging. - Artificial balance is unfair / every CG should complete and be 'won' and not that hard at the end.
CG 3 - 'Lets try and introduce the 1st new unique weapon to try and balance it and see how players respond to this first example of a type of new reward we mentioned on the LS' - Response - Its RIGGED! How many threads? Obviously rigged against the Empire. Probably most complaints so far. - So no more unique weapons ever. no more unique rewards, thats a very bad idea...but not credits as they are meaningless.
CG 4 - 'Lets balance it purely by numbers expected' - Response - Its RIGGED. Im not even playing / participating because its rigged.

Overall. Frontier only want one outcome. Its always rigged. Its always wrong. It shouldnt complete until the final hours and should be a proper race but it cant be balanced artificially as that is RIGGED! It cant offer unique weapons and credits are meaningless. Not enough PVP at any of them. All of them should be Open Only or penalties for not doing it in Open. Wheres the Thargoid one, we've had 4 now and still no Thargoid one! it isnt good enough, it wont be good enough, it will never be good enough. The story or setup will be rubbish anyway.

So Frontier, you have proven beyond doubt that no matter what you do it will be wrong. You have tried no balancing and balancing and both are wrong. Credit rewards and Unique Rewards and both are wrong. So knowing that, please just continue exactly as you planned with all the new stuff you have planned. May as well as get complaints about new stuff as old stuff. May as well get complaints because of a new weapon or unique rewards as because of lack of meaningful rewards. May as well get complaints for trying something as for not trying anything new. The CG numbers will back you up.

Personally, I like the new CGs and the balancing attempts. This latest one is spot on so far and could be the closest one in Tier outcomes (which after only 3 weeks stats I have to say Im impressed how close this one is, could be beginners luck ofc :) but hope it continues) and look forward to participating in CGs that interest me and doing something else in game for 7 days if they dont or I need a break, not really an issue, I have a to do list that just keeps growing.
 
Personally, I like the new CGs and the balancing attempts. This latest one is spot on so far and could be the closest one in Tier outcomes (which after only 3 weeks stats I have to say Im impressed how close this one is, could be beginners luck ofc :) but hope it continues) and look forward to participating in CGs that interest me and doing something else in game for 7 days if they dont or I need a break, not really an issue, I have a to do list that just keeps growing.

I agree with this. Certainly the most recent one is the most exciting (or at least, engaging) so far and I think they got the balance (as far as percentages) about right. Even when I'm not contributing, I'm catching sly looks at inara every so often to see how it's going.

#3 would have been better (IMHO) had the Empire had something tangible on the line though - even just a decal - but that one compared to this one certainly demonstrates the power of unique things. Not saying the outcome would have been different, but would have given people something to think about rather than just FOMO. But what I like is that FDev appears to be learning as they go rather than just having a simple faction vs faction identical goal, identical tier slog which is usually decided after 24-48h.

Looking forward to seeing how this one ends and what we get next week (fingers crossed...) :)

EDIT - added quote to show what I'm agreeing with. :)
 
Last edited:
Totally agree
I think it's human nature to moan but not so to praise
1st time round playing this game I never got involved with the CG's, hell never took much notice over anything happening story wise in-game
Came back in July and the majority of opinions was that it was all too quiet, nothing was happening, no feedback or interaction
within a month of returning I have been so engrossed in Galnet, which pointed me to the lore, which is given me a proper interest in the CG's, watching the streams, I'm more invested now than I have ever been
recon we as a player base need to praise more and not feed the moaners
 
I can't quite tell - is this an anti-Frontier or pro-Frontier thread?
:D lol ... yes, exactly this I asked myself too, after I have re-read OP few times :)

Personally I think that so far it all were nice CGs and I like how are/were they implemented. Just alone the existence of CGs offers players chance to have goal or change of usual routine if they are in the mood to do so. I also like global rewards which were given and also how especially for 2nd CG was achieved 4/5 lvls despite quite high set requierements. Different form of rewards and limits change (probably after "feedback" on previous CG participation) are telling that there is/was effort to make these restored events interesting. Is obvious that no one can please all, especially not in game with such diverse community like here, but counts of participating cmdrs alone is telling good enough how much was this part of game missing to players ...
 
I should maybe highlight this bit:

So knowing that, please just continue exactly as you planned with all the new stuff you have planned. May as well as get complaints about new stuff as old stuff. May as well get complaints because of a new weapon or unique rewards as because of lack of meaningful rewards. May as well get complaints for trying something as for not trying anything new. The CG numbers will back you up.

Because Frontier can never do a Dev post called 'I told you so, just let us get on with it!'.
 
Last edited:
My favourite "evidence of Frontier bias" in a CG is an old one.

"Frontier are biased because the tick is at 1200 but the CG starts at 1600"

The reason I like it so much is that:

1) It sounds, reduced as I have above to its salient points, like the tinfoilest excuse ever for why two absolutely identical CGs were biased.

2) But ... it was also entirely true that the interaction of the tick time with the CG time with a number of other in-game events with the geographic distribution of supporters of each side did give one side a slight (though not decisive) advantage.

3) But ... the idea that Frontier had deliberately set all that up - some of it weeks in advance - just so their "preferred side" could win is clearly complete tinfoil.

May as well as get complaints about new stuff as old stuff. May as well get complaints because of a new weapon or unique rewards as because of lack of meaningful rewards. May as well get complaints for trying something as for not trying anything new. The CG numbers will back you up.
This especially. I've been really interested to see just how much "new" stuff the first month or so of storyline has provided that's never been done before - not all of it major, but it's showing a lot of inventive use of existing capabilities.

- replacement rather than addition of stations
- per-tier CG rewards (not new as such, but this is the first time for a very long time that they've been used regularly and advertised up-front)
- CZs containing strategic objectives so it's clear why the CZ is there
- CGs having wider economic effects on prices
- asymmetric but still balanced CGs
- non-credit individual CG rewards with in-game use
- integration with BGS indicators and local news articles for a bit more "something is happening" status (again, not completely new as such, but much better integration with the story this time round)

Definitely looking forward to seeing how this continues to develop.
 
The system of tying the CG's to the story and making it feel imbalanced adds a great factor to it -- seriously. Realistically speaking, the pilot's federation completely united wouldn't be able to swamp a concentrated Empire initiative easily so this really adds to the whole 'living, breathing universe' vibe.
 
It's a good post, not just for CGs but for software games in particular and life in general.

I've been thinking about feedback for a while now and it is difficult to decide when and how to respond to things, in the end I usually can't decide so don't do anything but I'm starting to think that may be just as problematic.

After I had played for two weeks I discovered CGs and loved them because it gave me something to do and look forward to. I didn't care about the a story or some cause, I just liked going to new systems and finding out about the system and surrounding area. Every week opened a new area where I gained a bunch of faction reputation and opened new markets. Do I care about these CG stories, too early to tell but I might, or at least I'm starting to think I might.

Jane Espenson in an interview said something like "but I've learned you have to be careful with feedback because a lot of times what readers say they want isn't actually what they want". So if I had any feedback for Fdev on this game it would be - I think you sometimes implement changes based on feedback that would be better ignored. But they have also implemented a staggering amount of changes based on what I think is good feedback so... IDK.

Which is basically what I think you said: "So knowing that, please just continue exactly as you planned with all the new stuff you have planned."
 
nce it purely by numbers expected' - Response - Its RIGGED. Im not even playing / participating because its rigged.

The ratios were actually about right, but the tier thresholds were way off so the monarchists had a huge <sexual fornication>ing advantage. If it was just tiers or just progress ratios, I think it'd be more fun, but there was practically no way for the Marlinists to win this one. And in a game about "Forging your own path," situations that feel rigged or railroaded are antithetical to the very core of the game play. Like, what's the point? We wanted to progress the thargoid narrative with the Gnosis, that got shot down in the stupidest way possible (Like they could have just said "sorry, that's a bug, have a free relocation"). Now much more effort is put into trying to get the Marlinists to hand the empire another defeat, but the numbers are so skewed it's impossible.

FDev feels like a really <excrement>y dungeon master who only will accept the right outcome for his group.
 
Last edited:
Personally I liked the unique weapon reward from last week.
The rare goods one was quite meh if you ask me, due to the nature of the goods, but it is what it is/was. I think a wing of tea baggers definitely took the cake on that one.

If you ask me: More unique rewards!
Unique paint jobs, weapons or even modules.
Credits are no motivation for me, as an hour of mining yields more credits than one week of CG participation. Besides, there is only so much one can buy, even with 100b credits.
 

Deleted member 110222

D
I've been saying for years that us players have zero impact on the game's story.

I am surprised it's taken people this long to realise.

I'm fine with it TBH. it's always been rather obvious that outcomes are fixed in this game's plot.
 
Having the win condition be easier for one side makes sense to me, but I also recognise that trying to estimate the activity and average contribution of both sides in opposite CGs like the Ackwada one must be near-impossible. They can try to use a previous combat CG as a benchmark, but obviously the Eurybia CG had some extra factors promoting activity. People care about protecting their engineers and getting free loot.

There wasn't anything that stopped the Marlinist side from having 500 more contributors or working harder to get more combat bonds, for example. In hindsight we can see that players lose hope when it becomes obvious that tier 3 is out of reach, but this also goes the other way: People work harder if they know that they are close to reaching a goal.

Basically, balance is difficult, but I don't think the core idea of skewing the balance in one side's favour is bad. Independent pilots against oppressive Empire shouldn't be an easy fight. There wasn't a FDev conspiracy to make sure that the Marlinist side never reached tier 3 either.
 
I've been saying for years that us players have zero impact on the game's story.
Last time they did, we ended with a dead ambassador at the hands of Harry Potter.
Understandable that Fdev wants to protect their world and not let it burn just because some people do like to stir things and watch the world burn.

Having the win condition be easier for one side makes sense to me, but I also recognise that trying to estimate the activity and average contribution of both sides in opposite CGs like the Ackwada one must be near-impossible. They can try to use a previous combat CG as a benchmark, but obviously the Eurybia CG had some extra factors promoting activity. People care about protecting their engineers and getting free loot.
Also bear in mind that the participation in a CG needs some kind of incentive:

Roleplayers: They will do it for immersion. Rewards are a nice bonus but not required.
Materialists: They will do it for rewards. They might or might not care who wins.
RP'ing materialists: Torn between reward and outcome.
Explorers: Will not participate as it will take them 2 weeks to get back to participate.
Bounty hunters: They are in for the money and rewards.
PvP'ers: Pick a side and start shooting. Good fun.
Miners: Most likely to join with the materialists.
Traders: In for the credits or rewards.

Looking at this week's participation vs last week's:
Euribia CG
Reward unknown: 2391 contributors
G5 engineered missile launcher: 8871 contributors
Total: 11262

Ackwada CG:
RP reward plus credits: 3907 contributors
RP reward plus credits: 3161 contributors
Total: 7068

50% more contributors overall if you have a tangible reward vs some RP text wall.
400% more interest in contributors if you have a reward that is interesting to the participants.

You want people to participate? Make it a juicy reward. An RP text wall will only the the RP'ers going. Numbers don't lie.
 
Last time they did, we ended with a dead ambassador at the hands of Harry Potter.
Understandable that Fdev wants to protect their world and not let it burn just because some people do like to stir things and watch the world burn.
That one doesn't count either - both Salome reaching Tionisla safely and Salome dying before then were pre-defined potential outcomes of the event [1], and what players got to do was collectively choose which one and the details of how it happened.

Now, if someone had ambushed Salome, given her an escape pod to scoop, forced her to scoop and dump it to simulate ejecting, and then ran off to the Formidine Rift with her before dumping the escape pod in low orbit of an uncharted ELW? That would have been players acting outside the predefined story boundaries. (I guess they just accepted the risk of that sort of thing happening, and I'm sure they could have done something with it)

I think the only time that players have successfully done something genuinely outside the planned boundaries was the UA-bombing of Jaques - though there have been a few other cases where players have done something sufficiently interesting that Frontier have incorporated it into the plot in some way: most recently the attack on the AEGIS faction forcing it to relocate to Sol, or the Gnosis Cone attempt.

[1] With lots of speculation before the event that it was clearly rigged in favour of one of those outcomes, about half of which quietly disappeared and was never seen again as soon as it ended...

Also bear in mind that the participation in a CG needs some kind of incentive:
Depending on the CG type a bit as well - warzone CGs have generally been less popular than trade ones.
The incentive on the warzone CG only brought participation up to "decent but not unusual trade CG" levels.

In hindsight we can see that players lose hope when it becomes obvious that tier 3 is out of reach
I'm not sure if that's quite true - looking at Factabulous' graphs the ups and downs in Marlinist progression just seem to be normal daily changes.

What you do lose in that case is the opportunity to get late-arriving mercenaries choosing your side - the Empire got a noticeable boost in participant numbers in the last couple of days, which was part of what opened up that final gap. But I expect consideration of that to have been part of why the Marlinist mid-tiers were higher up.
 
Back
Top Bottom