Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Robert Maynard]

Because specifically right now in our wee flurry of back and forths we have been discussing the concept of what defines PvP, a players interest/involvement in it and how that relates to Powerplay within the framework of Elite Dangerous.

To what end, given that this is a game where every player can affect all in-game features without engaging / being engaged in "normal definition" PvP?

 

[Nowski]

Because specifically right now in our wee flurry of back and forths we have been discussing the concept of what defines PvP,

I don't think there's a discussion about the definition of "PvP". All I see is some people using the term in the normal sense of player-on-player combat and others deliberately or otherwise confusing that with any player action that affects other players - a reasonable but still quite obviously different sense of the same term.

As pointed out, this is the fallacy of equivocation.

 

[Rubbernuke]

To remove the wing bonus from only Private Groups would be unreasonable as it is not a risk based reward, it's a co-operative reward - one that arguably rewards reducing risk by being in a wing.

So why then is having a bigger wing bonus in open (where risk of others is real, and incentivizes teaming up in a team based feature) bad?

 

[Darkfyre99]

Is this strictly true? That's the only thing you can do to oppose the powerplay activity of Solo haulers? At the very least that assumes a lot about how PowerPlay 2 will work at this stage I think.

Only in the sense of me doing hauling in Open forces then to move to Chicago, find a job where they’re either off on Monday, or at least works the night shift, and successfully guesses when I don’t have some kind of appointment that day.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Players are free to choose whether they want some spicy, direct PvP incorporated into their session, or not.

And in that situation it warrants a reward given its more difficult, because its an explicitly confrontational feature in Open- unlike CGs which have one goal alone.

 

[Robert Maynard]

So why then is having a bigger wing bonus in open (where risk of others is real, and incentivizes teaming up in a team based feature) bad?

For the same reason that defining "risk" is tricky - the four players in the wing may face next to zero risk from either NPCs or other players unless they are in equal numbers in similarly engineered combat ships.

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Direct PvP

Indirect PvP

 

[Rubbernuke]

Only in the sense of me doing hauling in Open forces then to move to Chicago, find a job where they’re either off on Monday, or at least works the night shift, and successfully guesses when I don’t have some kind of appointment that day.

Powerplay in Open is opportunistic, with certain places and times (such as the leadup to the cycle end) being busy regardless of time.

For example Harma gets opportunistic Imperial raids, Imp allied PMFs, hostile PMFs in all timezones. You simply don't know when or where someone will appear.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

To what end, given that this is a game where every player can affect all in-game features without engaging / being engaged in "normal definition" PvP?In

In relation to your assertion that "they (players) simply don't find PvP to be fun in a game where PvP is optional".

Said players do find PvP (in the context of PP) 'fun' (or are at the very least willing to participate in it), as they have 'opted' into it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

For the same reason that defining "risk" is tricky - the four players in the wing may face next to zero risk from either NPCs or other players unless they are in equal numbers in similarly engineered combat ships.

But again- why is co-operative play rewarded in PG and Open the same, when the modes are not used or even conceptually the same?

Are you arguing that wing bonuses in PG should go too?

 

[Darkfyre99]

Do any of the OO crowd have actual data regarding how often their haulers reach their destination Vs how often they don't?

I’m not an Open Only proponent, but I’ve done both PowerPlay hauling and hauling CGs in Open. So far, I’ve delivered my cargo 100% of the time. But then again, I fly like I value my time, so I’m not a representative sample. Though you’d think that the PvP crowd would be better than I am.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

I don't think there's a discussion about the definition of "PvP". All I see is some people using the term in the normal sense of player-on-player combat and others deliberately or otherwise confusing that with any player action that affects other players - a reasonable but still quite obviously different sense of the same term.

As pointed out, this is the fallacy of equivocation.

The term PvP is a very broad church to myself (and I imagine most folk who engage in this discussion on this topic). To clarify, basically the moment you have two (or more) players competing against one another, it becomes PvP regardless of how those players are competing against each other, no doubt based on my online gaming experiences.

I would not consider the above to be a fallacy of equivocation.

 

[Robert Maynard]

In relation to your assertion that "they (players) simply don't find PvP to be fun in a game where PvP is optional".

Said players do find PvP (in the context of PP) 'fun' (or are at the very least willing to participate in it), as they have 'opted' into it.

Which hinges on the definition of PvP - which makes the insistence that indirect asynchronous competitive game features are PvP much clearer. Whether or not we enjoy "normal definition" PvP we can enjoy engaging in mode shared game features which some may consider to be PvP but clearly don't have any requirement for "normal definition" PvP as part of that engagement as other players remain optional in this game.

To avoid further misunderstanding more care will be taken when referring to "normal definition" PvP, e.g. itsi-PvP.

 

[CMDR Daiyus]

And in that situation it warrants a reward given its more difficult, because its an explicitly confrontational feature in Open- unlike CGs which have one goal alone.

There have been conflicting community goals. They were rare for sure, but they have happened. The reward for playing in Open is the gameplay you enjoy, no more, no less, as with every other activity in the game. As has been discussed at length, defining actually faced risk is next to impossible given the myriad of variables involved, and providing any kind of bonus against an activity in Open is equivalent to a penalty in PG/S. Should a player doing PowerPlay in a Sidewinder get bonuses because it's more difficult than doing so in a fully engineered Corvette? Or should they do it, simply for the fun and thrill that they can?

 

[Robert Maynard]

But again- why is co-operative play rewarded in PG and Open the same, when the modes are not used or even conceptually the same?

Because it's not a reward for risk, it's a reward for co-operation.

Are you arguing that wing bonuses in PG should go too?

Only if they are removed from Open.

 

[Darkfyre99]

There is a weird disconnect in that open is a hellscape of ganking killsquads while simultaneously not being dangerous enough to merit rewards

That’s because people are terrible at accessing their actual risk. You’re orders of magnitude more likely to in a car crash, compared to a plane, and yet planes are considered the more dangerous form of travel.

It doesn’t help that most players actively cooperate in their own destruction, by flying as if they don’t value their own time. Which is pretty funny, because they then turn around and complain about how Frontier doesn’t value their time.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Because it's not a reward for risk, it's a reward for co-operation.

Only if they are removed from Open.

And you'd think that FD would reward more in Open, given its co -operation between or against potentially hostile groups.

 

[Rebel Yell]

That’s because people are terrible at accessing their actual risk.

Then better don't engage into things putting them at risk = that seems fair enough.

 

[Rubbernuke]

There have been conflicting community goals. They were rare for sure, but they have happened. The reward for playing in Open is the gameplay you enjoy, no more, no less, as with every other activity in the game. As has been discussed at length, defining actually faced risk is next to impossible given the myriad of variables involved, and providing any kind of bonus against an activity in Open is equivalent to a penalty in PG/S. Should a player doing PowerPlay in a Sidewinder get bonuses because it's more difficult than doing so in a fully engineered Corvette? Or should they do it, simply for the fun and thrill that they can?

Rare as in very rare. Powerplay has been going on consistently for over eight years.

In games, doing more generally rewards more- as it should be in Open in Powerplay considering Open has a strategic penalty not present in other modes.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

There have been conflicting community goals. They were rare for sure, but they have happened. The reward for playing in Open is the gameplay you enjoy, no more, no less, as with every other activity in the game. As has been discussed at length, defining actually faced risk is next to impossible given the myriad of variables involved, and providing any kind of bonus against an activity in Open is equivalent to a penalty in PG/S. Should a player doing PowerPlay in a Sidewinder get bonuses because it's more difficult than doing so in a fully engineered Corvette? Or should they do it, simply for the fun and thrill that they can?

And those competing goals (from my experiences) suffered the same problem (assuming two players are competing against other using the exact same build), with the same gameplay time available to them, the 'meta' (god I hate that word) skews significant advantage to those carrying out their activities in Solo or PG modes as opposed to Open, with significantly less attention needing to be paid to the game itself.