On Saturday the 9th June 2018 Frontier attended the annual Lavecon meet and showcased some features coming in the Beyond Quarter 4 updates, as well as some things coming in the soon to be released Quarter 2 update.
At 3.15pm on the 7th June 2018 Frontier updated the situation regarding the Mining Focused Feedback.
“We have an update regarding the Focused Feedback forum schedule. The topic on Mining will arrive approximately around the 18th of June and, as a result, we will push back the topic on Exploration to a later date (still pending at this time.)
“We apologise for the delay of these topics and hope to have some more information for you soon!”
The reason given for this was,
“It’s a case of that there are ongoing internal discussions surrounding the features, and we want to polish and review them a little more before opening them up for community feedback. We can assure you that those threads are still planned!”
On the 1st June at 3:45pm Sandro Sammarco made a brief update to the Powerplay proposals suggested in his original post, here. You can see them below or on the official forum.
“Hello Commanders, a quick update.
“First, thank you once again for your participation in this thread. Your feedback is greatly appreciated!
“Clearly the Open Mode question is important, so we want to spend a good amount of time examining all of the options and collecting feedback before we come to any decision. To reiterate, nothing is set in stone. This is still an investigation.
“I will be posting a new, follow up thread next week, I hope you will be able to spare a moment or two to check it out and contribute.”
Frontier will be re-opening CG submission process on the 29th May (TBC). Submissions won’t be via the forums, but by a form with templates to fill out via the website. In the future this form could be implemented into the Frontier website, but at the moment it will be via Google documents. Frontier will then look at submissions by types of submission to select ones that they want to implement. There are no new types at the moment, but with some of the mechanics being re-visited in Q4 they will be looking at improving exploration CG’s. They are hoping to do one or two a month. Player run community events will continually to be run separately. Only successful CG applications will be contacted about their submission being accepted. If you wish to see details about how to fill in the form, and further details you can watch it by clicking the link, here. Further information will appear on the Frontier forum shortly.
On the 17th May 2018 at 7pm (BST), Frontier will be discussing Community Goal submissions during a live stream.
“Player-submitted Community Goals will be coming back very soon! We’re changing a few things up, so join me and, Principal Designer, Steve Kirby to talk about the old system, the new system, why we’ve changed and how it works!
We’ll be going live tomorrow night (17/05) at 7PM (BST).
Tune in here
“See you there, Commanders!”
At 12:58pm on the 15th May 2018 Frontier opened up the feedback forum to possible changes to Power Play. You can see Sandro Sammarco’s suggestions below and contribute to the discussions here. These suggestions will be reflected on the The Future? “It’s on the list….” page in due course.
“As well as having a good old chew on Squadrons, we’re loading up a side order for the Focused Feedback Forum, because, frankly, we want to get more feedback! Importantly, this is an additional topic and does not replace the line-up announced earlier for Squadrons, Mining and Exploration.
“We’re considering a package of tweaks to Powerplay and we’d like your thoughts on them. Note that this is not a fait accompli, just something we’re investigating.
“The concept behind these changes is not to completely change Powerplay, but address a few important issues as efficiently and nicely as possible. Some of these changes are subtle, others very significant. The idea is that as a whole they form a rounded update that provides improvements to the core experience of Powerplay.
“As a flash topic, this will be the only thread, so all relevant replies can live in it. Please use the headings listed below with your replies to make it easier for us to process the thread, and of course, please remember the golden rule: your replies should be to us only. Feel free to debate with each other in non-sticky threads.
“What we’re looking for are your thoughts as to the ramifications of these changes based on the way you involve yourself in Powerplay, both positive and negative.
“With that in mind:
POWER PLAY PROPOSAL
Preparation Cycle Split
• The first half of the cycle is available for preparation
• The second half of the cycle locks the current preparation values and enables voting
Vote to veto preparation
• Each player can vote to veto or support each preparation
• If a preparation ends the cycle with more veto votes than support votes it is removed from preparation
• Voting requires minimum, rolling time spent pledged and active for a power, somewhere into rank 2
Reasoning: these two changes in tandem are meant to make it easier to prevent bad systems from being prepared with minimal effort. Rather than use consolidation, which must be chosen blind in terms of both the final preparation for systems and the final resting place for the consolidation marker, here Commanders are voting on a fixed list and can choose precisely which systems they want to attempt to veto.
Vote to withdraw from system
• Each cycle players can vote on the 5 least profitable systems, to withdraw or support
• At the end of a cycle if a system has more withdraw votes than support votes it is removed from the power’s control
• Voting requires minimum, rolling time spent pledged and active for a power, somewhere into rank 2
Reasoning: currently there is no way to lose a bad control system other than hoping or colluding with opposing powers that it will end up being forced into turmoil. We think this vote is a legible and relatively safe way of allowing powers to shed chaff, as only systems that at a base level would be unprofitable would be eligible for withdrawal.
Profitability modifier applied to votes and preparation successes
• A system’s base profitability modifies preparation votes, withdraw votes and preparation successes
• Votes and successes for profitable systems are increased by a factor of 10
Reasoning: we think this modifier acts as another barrier against internal sabotage, forcing the saboteurs to work many more times harder to get the same effect as a Commander who has the power’s interests at heart.
Guaranteed undermine if 100% more than fortification
• A control system that is undermined by 100% more than the fortification value will be undermined even if the fortification trigger has been successfully met
Reasoning: We feel that Powerplay rules tend towards stagnation and status quo, which is not something we intended. Despite all the effort in the world, a power that fortifies enough, against values set by the game rather than in opposition to attack, can remain safe. This change allows sheer force of effort (or numbers) to guarantee systems end up being undermined, making deficit more likely. And to stop this happening, a power must directly compete against its enemies.
Overhead removal and slight increase to distance cost modifier
• Overhead upkeep costs are removed making a system’s base profitability static
• Distance modifier to upkeep is increased to maintain some sense of expansion “gravity”
Reasoning: Overheads are a way to prevent rampant expansion of powers. However, the cost is very high, as they cause an unavoidable amount of uncertainty when calculating CC at the cycle change, as well as just being another level of complexity. We think it would be better to remove them, increase the distance modifier to upkeep a bit, and live with powers that can expand more, as with the other changes in this package we hope that the result will be much more direct attack and dynamism caused by powers fighting each other.
• Ethos is only checked for the control system and the power
• If the power and controlling faction share the same superpower the power is always strong against the faction
Reasoning: this is a fairly straight forward override to ensure that – for example – Federal powers are always strong against federal factions. The other part of this change, to focus ethos on the control system only, is to make the process legible and focus Commanders in the same place, increasing the chance of conflict.
Missions give Powerplay successes
• Missions for factions in a system that share a power’s superpower award a number of Powerplay successes when completed
• The mission type determines how many successes are given
• Successes can be applied to expansion, opposition, fortification and undermining
Reasoning: one of the complaints of Powerplay is the limited actions available to support your power. We think that liking, in a very simple manner, missions for aligned factions and Powerplay successes allows Commanders increased variety in an efficient manner. The idea is not to replace the standard Powerplay activities, but to compliment them.
For clarity: Open only is being considered for Powerplay. Not anything else. Also, Open only would still be limited to platform, so no instanced crossplay.
• Powerplay contacts are only available to players in open
• Powerplay vouchers and commodities are destroyed if a player enters solo or private groups
Reasoning: We’ve saved the biggest change for last, as making Powerplay Open only goes way beyond the remit of a tweak. We’ve seen this topic discussed many times and we think it’s time we addressed it directly to get as much quality feedback as possible.
Powerplay is fundamentally about consensual player versus player conflict. We think that pretty much all of the systems and rules would benefit from being played out in Open only, as it would dramatically increase the chance of meeting other pledged players and being able to directly affect the outcomes of power struggles.”
Thanks to all round good egg Stuart GT on Reddit, here is a summary of the details taken from last night’s live stream with Adam Bourke-Waite. A summarised version of this information will appear in due course on the Beyond: Chapter 4 page. Please note: This is just the first part of the discussion on Squadrons, more will follow in due course.
- Squadrons ≃ “guilds”, and a multiplayer organisation tool, to enhance and organise existing gameplay
- Not being designed around Solo CMDRs, being designed around groups of CMDRs
- Leaders/Officers will not gain benefits (credits, resources)
- Minimum requirement for creating a Squadron = 1 CMDR
- Minimum requirement for many Squadron features (e.g. getting a Carrier) = “a number of CMDRs”
- Squadron names can be reserved for existing player groups, to prevent name-sniping
- Squadron name will be permanent upon its creation, and must be unique
- Will a deleted-Squadron’s name be available again = don’t know, will check with server, gameplay teams
- Will rank be a requirement for Squadron creation = no
- Custom decals/logos for Squadrons = not at the moment
- Squadron-creation fee hasn’t been set yet – want to prevent Squadron-creation spam yet still allow smalls groups to create them
- Invitations can be disabled, i.e. “this Squadron is not accepting new members”
- Squadron page will be accessible in-cockpit, and similarly sized to Starport Services
- While creating a Squadron costs a credit fee, joining one is free
- 250 cap increase being discussed amongst the devs (design, server, gameplay teams)
- Squadron alliances/connections being discussed amongst the devs (design, server, gameplay teams)
- Potential for both the cap increase and alliances/connections to be added
- Minor faction and Powerplay allegiances/ties not being talked about yet, but aren’t a no
- Squadron bank is not being discussed now (will be during main Carrier feedback)
- Wings will stay the same
- Plenty of Squadron selectable “tags” available to help filtering/searching (e.g. search & rescue, PvP, timezones, Conlonia) and want more suggestions
- Each Squadron will have a 4 character ID to appear *somewhere* with CMDR names for identification
- Instancing will not be changed to allow 250+ CMDRs in same instance, but…
- …will be easier for members to join the same instance as they’ll have high matchmaking priority
- Squadrons and notoriety? Will be discussed at a later point
- Will Squadron chat have a back history, to read when you go online = no
- Squadron “rank” count (3 so far – Leader, Officers, Pilots) increase being discussed amongst the devs (design, server, gameplay teams)
- Officers privileges are fully-customisable anyway, so different officers in same Squadron can have different roles
- Those ranks will not be renamable
- Carrier is a very large ship that members can dock with
- Carrier can jump if a large enough amount of a “resource” is collected
- Carrier movement not restricted to weekly server tick, can jump whenever enough “resource” is collected
- Can have a Squadron without a Carrier
- Squadron “beacon” for pointing members to a place/meetup is being discussed amongst the devs (design, server, gameplay teams)
- Stickied Squadron chat message-of-the-day can contain instructions/details/whatever
- Squadron comms will be text
- Squadrons and their comms are not cross-platform
- Non-members can visit and see another Squadron’s Carrier, visibly identify its upgrades, but cannot dock at it
- Nobody can create more than one Squadron
- Edge-cases of Squadron leadership (inactive, wiped save, etc) being discussed by the devteam
- Squadron-created missions = no
- Squadron comms might be cross-gamemode, i.e. messaging across Open/Group/Solo
- Will Squadron members be visible on the Galaxy map, cross-gamemode = being discussed amongst the devteam
- Squadron page will contain statistics, roster, Carrier details, info & chat feeds, etc
- Can you hide your Squadron ID = don’t know, will discuss amongst the devteam
- More information on Carriers in the future
- Will it be possible to walk around in the Carrier = no, it will not be introducing SpaceLegs
- Carriers can be customised, details to be announced in future
- Carriers are of Megaship scale, and cost will be paid for by the Squadron, not specifically the Leader
- Edward Lewis keeps sabotaging the stream: first no audio, and the lights keep switching off
- Will Squadrons be able to have a description = no (initially), hoping the tagging system will be enough
- Will the feed contain news for bragging rights, PvP kills, etc = give your feedback on what you want in the feed