Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Nowski]

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.

Given that others are clearly using the term as simply a shorthand for direct player-on-player combat, and you are taking them to be talking about "team level" PvP, i.e. a much larger class of action, it absolutely is equivocation on your part, believe or not. Equivocation is where two distinct meanings of the same term are conflated to produce a false conclusion.

For example:

• You do not enjoy PvP (combat with players)
• PowerPlay is PvP (competition against other players using a variety of actions in multiple game modes to achieve conflicting aims)
• Therefore you cannot enjoy PowerPlay.

 

[Robert Maynard]

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.

.... or maybe it's as simple as many players don't find the prospect of itsiPVP sufficiently appealing to bother to participate in a trade CG in Open, whether there's a second opposing trade CG running or not - as those seeking weaker targets like to congregate in the destination system waiting for a stream of players in non-combat ships.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Given that others are clearly using the term as simply a shorthand for direct player-on-player combat, and you are taking them to be talking about "team level" PvP, i.e. a much larger class of action, it absolutely is equivocation on your part, believe or not. Equivocation is where two distinct meanings of the same term are conflated to produce a false conclusion.

For example:

• You do not enjoy PvP (combat with players)
• PowerPlay is PvP (competition against other players using a variety of actions in multiple game modes to achieve conflicting aims)
• Therefore you cannot enjoy PowerPlay.

Powerplay PvP is you dealing with others you come across. That can be you shooting them, you running away, me running away, groups doing a mix.

A large part of powerplay is hauling and being able to move about unhindered or quickly- and also trying to mess up others doing the same so they fall over.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Given that others are clearly using the term as simply a shorthand for direct player-on-player combat, and you are taking them to be talking about "team level" PvP, i.e. a much larger class of action, it really is equivocation on your part, believe or not. Equivocation is where two distinct meanings of the same term are conflated to produce a false conclusion.

For example:

• You do not enjoy PvP (combat with players)
• PowerPlay is PvP (competition against other players using a variety of actions in multiple game modes to achieve conflicting aims)
• Therefore you cannot enjoy PowerPlay.

I can see where you're coming from, but we are discussing specifically powerpoint play in this thread which is why I am trying (despite everyones desire/willingness to go off into the usual talking points, which is where the broader definitions of it are starting to blur in) trying to keep my points relevant to PvP within the context of PP.

 

[CMDR Daiyus]

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.

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.

So where does risk based reward start and end?

If flying in Open is inherently riskier, therefore deserving of more reward, surely so must flying a weaker ship? The truth is that being in Open guarantees nothing, it only creates a chance I might face another human. Same with flying a weaker or stronger ship in any mode; there's a chance I may get to my target unmolested, or a chance I'll have to fight some kind of enemy, of which difficulty scales based on a number of factors.

I have a choice in this game to determine where I want to be on the risk scale, through various elements, mode being one of them. I don't get rewarded for taking on optional risk in Solo or Private by flying weaker ships, so where does it track that taking the optional risk of meeting a human in Open gets a reward?

 

[Darkfyre99]

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.

Which is hilarious, because most people would define PvP as direct combat between players. Your definition is so broad, you’d be able to say that in a pure PvE game, with no PvP at all, the fact I could kill mobs in an area faster than another player, means I’m engaging in PvP.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I can see where you're coming from, but we are discussing specifically powerpoint in this thread which is why I am trying (despite everyones desire/willingness to go off into the usual talking points, which is where the broader definitions of it are starting to blur in) trying to keep my points relevant to PvP within the context of PP.

In which case different sub-categories of PvP should be considered - as it is clear that, if simply playing the game with its mode shared game features that can be used as a form of competition, all players engage (deliberately or not) in asynchronous indirect competitive PvP as all players affect those features by simply playing the game whereas only some players engage in in-the-same-instance PvP.

It's like comparing Ice Hockey with Curling. Both are team games. Both are competitive. Both take place on ice. One allows player-to-player contact, one does not.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Which is hilarious, because most people would define PvP as direct combat between players. Your definition is so broad, you’d be able to say that in a pure PvE game, with no PvP at all, the fact I could kill mobs in an area faster than another player, means I’m engaging in PvP.

Not at all, because your killing of those PvE mobs is not in competition with the other player in the example you laid out.

If however, there was a 'prize' for killing more mobs than the other player, or your dominance over them in terms of killing PvE mobs impacted on their game in some form then by extension, it becomes a PvP interaction.

 

[Nowski]

I can see where you're coming from, but we are discussing specifically powerpoint in this thread

I guess we all need to work on our presentation.. (bum-tish)

which is why I am trying (despite everyones desire/willingness to go off into the usual talking points, which is where the broader definitions of it are starting to blur in) trying to keep my points relevant to PvP within the context of PP.

I get your view, that PowerPointPlay PvP (competitive actions in the broadest sense) should be able to be countered directly by PvP (as in combat/evasion in Open) and that the two things are related, but viewpoints will be clearer if we don't mix up the two distinct notions. It's mostly clear what is intended from context anyhow.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Which is hilarious, because most people would define PvP as direct combat between players. Your definition is so broad, you’d be able to say that in a pure PvE game, with no PvP at all, the fact I could kill mobs in an area faster than another player, means I’m engaging in PvP.

The definition of PvP is subjective, in Elite even selling explo data into a station could have PvP implications (for what is worth).

 

[Rubbernuke]

.... or maybe it's as simple as many players don't find the prospect of itsiPVP sufficiently appealing to bother to participate in a trade CG in Open, whether there's a second opposing trade CG running or not - as those seeking weaker targets like to congregate in the destination system waiting for a stream of players in non-combat ships.

Powerplay is a CG for each control system where collective loss of too many triggers turmoil. Its far removed from a CG where there is no real ongoing strategic objective- its all narrative.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The definition of PvP is subjective, in Elite even selling explo data into a station could have PvP implications (for what is worth).

Even more so in V2 going by the livestreams.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

So where does risk based reward start and end?

That is the gregorian knot some folk are trying to unpick in these discussions, amongst other issues.

 

[Darkfyre99]

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.

Exactly, which is why potential “risk” shouldn’t be rewarded, but actual risk should.

Right now, players are voluntarily choosing Open because it’s fun, “efficiency” be damned. I respect that.

Under weighted Open, you’re going to get players who would’ve normally chose Open, but chose Solo due to “efficiency,” like another poster admitted to above, take steps to reduce any potential risk to increase their efficiency. Which is very easy to do in this game, because Frontier has surrendered control of hosting instances to players.

Which is great for the bottom line, but terrible for the kind of gameplay you desire.

 

[WhiteHaulerMan]

Exactly, which is why potential “risk” shouldn’t be rewarded, but actual risk should.

Being slightly facetious, we all know that if 'potential risk' was touted, we'd be dealing with a slew of 'gold-mining-fear'-esque threads about how those damn OO players would just be interdicting their mates to inflate their rewards.

 

[Rubbernuke]

So where does risk based reward start and end?

If flying in Open is inherently riskier, therefore deserving of more reward, surely so must flying a weaker ship? The truth is that being in Open guarantees nothing, it only creates a chance I might face another human. Same with flying a weaker or stronger ship in any mode; there's a chance I may get to my target unmolested, or a chance I'll have to fight some kind of enemy, of which difficulty scales based on a number of factors.

I have a choice in this game to determine where I want to be on the risk scale, through various elements, mode being one of them. I don't get rewarded for taking on optional risk in Solo or Private by flying weaker ships, so where does it track that taking the optional risk of meeting a human in Open gets a reward?

You have risk and risk mitigation backwards.

Open is riskier against other players who have the same ships, skills, modules and have better tactics than NPCs. You mitigate that risk by flying better, being somewhere else, flying a faster ship and so on.

I don't get rewarded for taking on optional risk in Solo or Private by flying weaker ships

Because NPCs are not peer adversaries and are not as sneaky as players. Solo and PG takes away problems rather than adds to them.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Exactly, which is why potential “risk” shouldn’t be rewarded, but actual risk should.

Right now, players are voluntarily choosing Open because it’s fun, “efficiency” be damned. I respect that.

Under weighted Open, you’re going to get players who would’ve normally chose Open, but chose Solo due to “efficiency,” like another poster admitted to above, take steps to reduce any potential risk to increase their efficiency. Which is very easy to do in this game, because Frontier has surrendered control of hosting instances to players.

Which is great for the bottom line, but terrible for the kind of gameplay you desire.

I agree totally it should be results based- and it partially is / will be now. In V2 there are rewards for commander destruction which is a result based outcome. Haulers should also have rewards based on outcome when they land- and they could (via BGS hooks for activity in that system). Whats needed is rules that maintain PPs integrity as far as possible- for example logging out during combat loses cargo, block lists.

Under weighted Open, you’re going to get players who would’ve normally chose Open, but chose Solo due to “efficiency,” like another poster admitted to above, take steps to reduce any potential risk to increase their efficiency. Which is very easy to do in this game, because Frontier has surrendered control of hosting instances to players.

Thats up to players if they want to game the system- in the end that only becomes an issue if the vast majority do that- and they don't. I expect you'd actually have the reverse, where people want to try open because it has rewards not present in solo along with gameplay thats different.

 

[Wily Rites]

Are the rewards that folk are asking to get more of for playing in open, a euphemism for more power?

 

[Darkfyre99]

I agree totally it should be results based- and it partially is / will be now. In V2 there are rewards for commander destruction which is a result based outcome. Haulers should also have rewards based on outcome when they land- and they could (via BGS hooks for activity in that system). Whats needed is rules that maintain PPs integrity as far as possible- for example logging out during combat loses cargo, block lists.

On this, and increasing the difficulty of PvE in general, we agree. I'm pretty sure that it'll be pretty rare for me, but I continue to hope that "fight" will become a viable option on my decision matrix whenever I see an opposing player. Right now, that option is a terrible one.

Thats up to players if they want to game the system- in the end that only becomes an issue if the vast majority do that- and they don't. I expect you'd actually have the reverse, where people want to try open because it has rewards not present in solo along with gameplay thats different.

I've played many MMOs of this nature, so I know that for a certain segment of the community, "gaming the system" is the norm, not the exception. Which why is the biggest line item on the budget for most MMOs is in-game moderation, and why most MMOs decide that open-PvP, in a primarily PvE game, isn't worth the cost. Frontier has chosen an extremely low cost way of dealing with that particular problem, and from my point of view it's worked wonders.

If players are choosing Solo to "game the system," then I'd rather they stay in Solo and have Frontier elimiate whatever PvE loophole they're using. Trying to coerce them into Open is just going to frustrate everyone else, and will do nothing to solve the actual problem.

YMMV

 

[Robert Maynard]

Powerplay is a CG for each control system where collective loss of too many triggers turmoil. Its far removed from a CG where there is no real ongoing strategic objective- its all narrative.

Indeed - however the basis of the decision of each player as to which mode to affect it from is no different.