Starbase Player Council Report - Q1 2022

[Distuth]

We need to be some transparency for player driven councils that are specifically speaking for the entire community.. Not having it would be insanity.

No, we do not need transparency. These people aren't getting paid to deal with the community as large. They are not advocates for special groups. They're not there to act as a mouthpiece for everybody. They're there because Frozenbyte picked them as being useful sources of input. That's it.

That said, there is an argument to be made for having certain roles on the council set to be a spokesman. Having clear people to talk to would be nice, I agree! If someone on the council volunteers to do that, Frozenbyte should absolutely make that publicly known.

 

[ZombieMouse]

To just talk about something other than who is on the shadow council for a minute and look at what is in the report...

There was a bunch of interesting stuff mentioned, but the thing that still has me most concerned is "Risk vs reward of sieges"

The report seems to recognise that players should not lose everything in one go, but at the same time says players will be limited to Origin or must live on board a civilian capital ship to secure themselves.

The inability to build outside the Origin safe zone without risk of losing everything you have built is going to be a drag on how much time and effort people are generally willing to put in to making nice stations for players to visit. I'd love to build a nice looking place outside of Origin with an open safe zone for anyone to visit. But station siege just hangs like a dark cloud over everything.

Similarly, I see talk of ship insurance to help new players not quit when they lose their ship, but no firm conclusions on how to do that.

I like PvP, but I can't escape the fact that it is not fun to spend hours building up a ship or station just to helplessly watch someone with a bigger corp come along and knock it down. The players could build the Starbase universe and fill it with amazing beautiful things, but I worry they will not do that with these mechanics as we have seen so far.

The game certainly needs mechanics to demolish inactive stations that are in the way of active players who want to do stuff. Areas of resource value should be things to fight over. But I don't see the utility of allowing senseless destruction of active players creations if they are not blocking key points.

 

[Recatek]

I'd love to build a nice looking place outside of Origin with an open safe zone for anyone to visit. But station siege just hangs like a dark cloud over everything.

Agreed, yeah. The objectives of "stations as social hubs for trade and interaction" and "stations as PvP objectives for siege and conquest" are very much at odds with one another, but I don't think they're completely irreconcilable. Handshake siege mechanics are already designed to help promote construction more than destruction (something critical for any player-driven world economy to function), and I think that there's more that can be done here to actually make that dream of the player-built social hub trade station a reality in-game. It's something I'd very much like to see happen.

 

[pavvvel]

I see that the idea of the possibility of creating points of interest where players would fly (for PVP and pve) was rejected. this means that there are hardly enough players in the Players' Council who adequately perceive PVP. this will lead to the fact that the players' council will negatively affect the development of the game. it is necessary to add to the board of players those who treat PVP adequately.

creating points of interest where miners could take risks and mine expensive ore, and warships would attack others - that's what this game needs. what is the point of a completely destructible universe if players are not given the opportunity to find and destroy each other's ships? the players' council rejected the idea. this means that the game will risk becoming casual and insipid

 

[IronGremlin]

As the council is now, I agree that witch hunting down the unknown council members is terrible. FB made a decision to let the council members dictate their own publicity. And while that doesn't fit my idea of a player council, it is what it is. Best we can do is respect FB's and the council member's decisions and work with what we have.

This can still work out well, and I see no reason to sabotage it. I encourage council members to embrace the role publicly. Being a community advocate is going to have its ups and downs. You'll have to deal with crazy players, angry players, nice players, and helpful players... but in my opinion that's just the nature of the role. It's an exciting position to fill with a ton of opportunity to help the game develop. Don't let the few crazy people scare you away from being a driving force of good representation.

I want to 'yes and...' some of this a bit, because I feel like this thread went in kind of a shifty direction and I want to do my part to put it back on track:


As much as I dislike the idea of anonymous community representation, I do not support pressuring any of the current members of the council into revealing themselves.

My beef is with the policy, NOT with the people, some of whom no doubt entered into this agreement with FB on condition of anonymity.

The internet can be an intense place, and that kind of shield of anonymity means a lot to people - I get that, and I don't want to see that taken from anyone, nor do I want to gaslight anyone into thinking that this position wouldn't carry with it a serious risk of getting dogpiled into oblivion.

There is a difference between "I think this POSITION shouldn't be anonymous" and "I want to know who these PEOPLE are," and I think we need to respect that nuance here when we're talking about what the community wants out of a council.


All that having been said -

I think for my part it's really about the communication.

I don't see how, as a community member, I can engage constructively with this council if I can't address them and they can't address me without going through FB.

I don't expect (or even endorse) a democratic process here, and I understand there is some need for obfuscation and comms control - but if the player council is unreachable for comment independent of FB, then from where I sit, there is no difference between what we had before and what we have now.

My preferred solution to that problem is obvious, but maybe there's a third option here.

 

[Recatek]

I see that the idea of the possibility of creating points of interest where players would fly (for PVP and pve) was rejected.

As someone who very obviously wants lots of POIs and similar PvPvE activities added to Starbase, I don't read that paragraph as being a rejection, just more of an inconclusive discussion of how to go about adding them in a way that isn't too "gamey". Though, FWIW I think concerns about things being gamey in a video game are typically overrated -- it serves nobody to be too boring for the sake of immersion.

 

[pavvvel]

As someone who very obviously wants lots of POIs and similar PvPvE activities added to Starbase, I don't read that paragraph as being a rejection, just more of an inconclusive discussion of how to go about adding them in a way that isn't too "gamey". Though, FWIW I think concerns about things being gamey in a video game are typically overrated -- it serves nobody to be too boring for the sake of immersion.

This means that the people on the council either cannot correctly describe the idea, or most of the people on the council are not interested in pvp. This needs to be fixed. It is necessary to add people interested in the development of PVP to the council

 

[Oobfiche]

well given the members are very much likely veterans, few of them are already pvp oriented just for the sake of it that the devs know of in a instant.

 

[Lukas04]

This means that the people on the council either cannot correctly describe the idea, or most of the people on the council are not interested in pvp. This needs to be fixed. It is necessary to add people interested in the development of PVP to the council

No, what it shows is that both parties are presented, otherwise the topic wouldnt even have been brought up in the council.
The Report mentions how its brought up and discussed, with some people for elements of it and some people against other elements of it.
Personaly im all for it, but just because there were some people that argued against elements of it, it doesnt mean that there is no PvP Crowd represented.
Not being in perfect unity on a topic doesnt mean that there is a lack of representation, in a community with such a divided community on topics it shows that the enviroment atleast somewhat works. Though it could for sure require a larger sample-size of players.

 

[pavvvel]

No, what it shows is that both parties are presented, otherwise the topic wouldnt even have been brought up in the council.
The Report mentions how its brought up and discussed, with some people for elements of it and some people against other elements of it.
Personaly im all for it, but just because there were some people that argued against elements of it, it doesnt mean that there is no PvP Crowd represented.
Not being in perfect unity on a topic doesnt mean that there is a lack of representation, in a community with such a divided community on topics it shows that the enviroment atleast somewhat works. Though it could for sure require a larger sample-size of players.

Yes, it could for sure require a larger sample-size of players

 

[Zarenno]

well given the members are very much likely veterans, few of them are already pvp oriented just for the sake of it that the devs know of in a instant.

What do you mean "they are [most] likely veterans...," you are on the council, they either are vets or arent, its not that hard; however, being a vet doesnt make them special, you can have a lot of experience in either the SSC or mining asteroids and that wont magically give you PVP experience or make you inclined to talk about it.

No, what it shows is that both parties are presented, otherwise the topic wouldnt even have been brought up in the council.
The Report mentions how its brought up and discussed, with some people for elements of it and some people against other elements of it.
Personaly im all for it, but just because there were some people that argued against elements of it, it doesnt mean that there is no PvP Crowd represented.
Not being in perfect unity on a topic doesnt mean that there is a lack of representation, in a community with such a divided community on topics it shows that the enviroment atleast somewhat works. Though it could for sure require a larger sample-size of players.

I love how you talk about this like you werent there at the meetings and how would you know "with such a divided community" when you guys dont speak for the community (as some of the council members have mentioned, contrary to the devs), you speak for yourselves right? I think this council is meaningless until its either fully transparent or we just abolish it because in parts that actually matter it requires a larger sample size anyway.

 

[Lukas04]

I love how you talk about this like you werent there at the meetings and how would you know "with such a divided community" when you guys dont speak for the community (as some of the council members have mentioned, contrary to the devs), you speak for yourselves right? I think this council is meaningless until its either fully transparent or we just abolish it because in parts that actually matter it requires a larger sample size anyway.

1. There are no meetings. the Council literally is just another Forum Section, but private.
2. If you are active in the community, you would know that there is a pretty big divide in what each player wants from the game.
Some players want more PvP, Some players want More PvE, Some want less PvP.
Some want more artificial game elements, some want even less.
Some want a game solely for factions, some want a game approachable by solo players.
You yourself even fit in to this picture.

Im fine with them closing the council if they want to or see the need to, but with thread just shows more why they did create it in the first place.
They wanted a controlled enviroment where discussion was more civil and with less witch hunts and spam and focused on the Topic.
Seems to work, since this odd "we VS them" (in this case your weird obsession with the council members) sentiment that you emit on any discussion about the game doesnt appear there as much from what i recall. Discussions are a lot more productive when its about the topic, and not what kind of gameplay group they are appart of.

Since you seem to have a hard time to grasp what the council is, here it is explained to you:

1. Someone (Dev or Council Member) makes a new Forum Post on the Council. They describe their Suggestion or Topic
2. People Discuss the topic further, add suggestion or mention concern about how something might have an effect. Occasionaly a dev themself mention their opinion too.
3. FB can now form an image of what some circles in the community want, what the concerns of some players are with that demand and the variation of how people think about that topic.

As an example of this, you can take a back look back at the point we talked about earlier. You complained that there was bias against the introduction of Points of Interests, however it can pretty easily read out of it that there were people for it, and that there were people with some concerns, and for transperency FB included those Concerns in the report. As the report states, its also not in a phase of development based on just this discussion, just that FB now is aware of those opinions that flow around. For extra transperency and broader discussion, they then release the report, in which they can see if people disagree with the sentiment on a topic or not.

So if i were you, instead of trying to Witch Hunt Council members (like you clearly try to for some reason), i would rather formulate a well written response to why you think those Concerns arent actually problem. If you focused on that, maybe FB hears your feedback.

 

[Kenetor]

the sheer numbers of posts saying why have a council when they can just use public discord and public forums yet have maybe 10-20 posts total themselves are really missing the point, if it worked that way we wouldn't need a focus group.
You may not like it but public threads just turn into chaos, 1 line replies, people not backing up their concerns or queries with any data. not to mention the bitching and arguments that come from people not accepting anothers point of view without picking a fight.
And all that before we get to the point people just not interacting on these platforms, then wondering why they weren't picked or why its not just done here.

This is why FB set up the focus group and if you all cared this much you would be commenting and posting a LOT more than you obviously have been.
oh and discord is entirely not the place to track suggestions and in-depth conversations, like, at all!
Just searching posts from few people each week is a long task, trust me, I do it every week myself...

 

[dustyFB]

While I appreciate the investment in this topic, please remember to keep your commentary respectful and focused on the topic itself. Targeting your fellow users with vicious ad hominems is not conducive to constructive feedback.

 

[pavvvel]

i would rather formulate a well written response to why you think those Concerns arent actually problem. If you focused on that, maybe FB hears your feedback.

And how do we know which Concerns arose? )))
All we were shown was that the idea was entered in "Speculations".
what specific objections do we have to work with..?

Give us a basis for dialogue.
If there's a problem that the player council couldn't solve, present the problem to the rest of the community.
I play Starbase every day and would like to participate in the life of the project. And I'm not the only one.
Locking the players in "Council office" won't improve your interaction with the community.


P.S.
I can't help but tell the truth - the players have concerns about the intentions of those people on the players council. I don't think some players are better than others.

 

[DivineEvil]

While I don't really against the Council conceptually, I still feel like it would be better for FB to use polls and feature-focused discussions more frequently if they're actually interested in the community opinions - at least from those members, that are invested enough to keep track of the official forums. There's no real reason of any degree to limit it to fewer unspecified members, that would allegedly be capable to represent me or any other member of the community.

For about half of the cases presented by the given report, I may have an opinion or feedback to make, which I might have expressed given there would be a CM-created discussion thread (with a rule template that warns people to only respond with one post, and without responds to other posts, i.e. standalone personal opinion), or via a poll. Alas, my opinion apparently doesn't matter, because there's people who are better than me which know better and don't even have a need to ask others.

 

[Lukas04]

And how do we know which Concerns arose? )))

By reading the report? Those topics where there were concerns about an implementation, like Points of Interests, have them mentioned. That was the conversation starter of the topic afterall.
Though i think FB could give a bit more detail to those in the future.

 

[shado20]

This is why FB set up the focus group and if you all cared this much you would be commenting and posting a LOT more than you obviously have been.
oh and discord is entirely not the place to track suggestions and in-depth conversations, like, at all!
Just searching posts from few people each week is a long task, trust me, I do it every week myself...

why would we bother, the devs have not been very forthwith with anything for a year now! they suppressed us all on launch day with total garbage and cant seem to figure out how to talk to the community or focus the development on the items needing to be fixed NOW to make a game of this playable!
again a total joke!
and now they over play this circus show! who exactly are they listening to, cause there not listening to us!

 

[Distuth]

why would we bother, the devs have not been very forthwith with anything for a year now! they suppressed us all on launch day with total garbage and cant seem to figure out how to talk to the community or focus the development on the items needing to be fixed NOW to make a game of this playable!
again a total joke!
and now they over play this circus show! who exactly are they listening to, cause there not listening to us!

I've been quite content with how the devs have been talking to the community. Launch was absolutely a disaster. However, they've been quite clear on what they're doing, and why. It sounds to me like you're just upset that the things you want now aren't available now.

Just a quick reminder. Us does not equal you. Us also does not equal you plus your group of people who think like you.

 

[shado20]

I've been quite content with how the devs have been talking to the community. Launch was absolutely a disaster. However, they've been quite clear on what they're doing, and why. It sounds to me like you're just upset that the things you want now aren't available now.

Just a quick reminder. Us does not equal you. Us also does not equal you plus your group of people who think like you.

well who are they listing to? cause the only thing the game needs to have working to get more than 200 players loging in is working stations. but i supposed you believe otherwise. its common sense, players need to get out and make something there own, we still cant do this and live in it! but what do i know, i only talk to my gaming community, we where looking at having over 200 players coming but was like "F" this , will be back after we can live in own station! i only repeat what my friends say in our discord!