As someone who used to write risk assessment's for some of Europe's largest events, Risk can be pretty much mitigated to 'so remote you would need a telescope to see it'.
O7
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
O7
If weighting were applied it would have to be in proportion to the probability of failure.
Eg; if there was a 50:50 chance of failure the bonus would be 100%. Whereas if it was 1:19 the bonus would be 5% and outliers such as Shin Dez would have to be excluded from the calculation.
As such you should have some idea of what to expect by comparing a your merits to your rebuys since Ascendency excluding any incurred at Shin Dez or any other system not involved in PP2.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It would also need to take into account the severity of failure, i.e. what does it cost.
Noting that as Poweplay 2.0 rank increases the cost of rebuys tends to zero, what is being "risked" approaches zero over time regardless of probability of failure - for ships not carrying anything that is lost on destruction anyway.
Last edited:
I mean... Im kinda gonna be blunt in such that I don't think Private or Solo modes were ever a good idea regarding effecting the rest of the playerbase.
Open should be the only mode in which your actions affect wider spread game systems. Why you might ask?
Really very simple. They effect the gameplay of others, sometimes in a minor way, other times in a more major way, and in some cases, totally remove sects of the playerbase from even taking part in said systems to begin with.
Having systems set-up in such a manner as to be manipulated from behind what is essentially "closed doors" if you will, sort of makes the system a self-defeating thing.
Players working against one another, is inherently a PvP based activity, be it BGS with factions working to take ground, or indeed with Powerplay.
Push and pull is necessary to give these systems weight. If you want to take over another player faction's territory, they should have the means to stop you through any means they see fit. If that means direct confrontation in PvP combat, then so be it, if it means working to take over one of your factions/powers systems in rebuttal, so be it, but due to the nature of solo/PG the options become limited and or impossible to compete with on a realistic level.
You would see a lot less in the way of "gankers" and "greifers" if fighting for ground was actually a relevant activity for them to take part in, for examples sake; If a PvP orientated commander cannot blockade a system to stop players taking it over because their opponents are essentially in a parallel universe to them, why would they waste the time engaging in such activities? They will keep on murder-hoboing because there is no gameplay feature supporting their playstyle, they cannot take part in meaningful BGS activity, they cannot fight for ground in Powerplay effectively, so what do they do? Hang around in populated system stomping on people who come by.
Exclusion is one of the biggest contributors to why emergent gameplay is the way that it is and why many of us feel like its time to let go of solo and PG. We want to fight for something, like the olden days where there were multiple PvP factions fighting one another over a system. Not this, quite frankly, terrible system now where the only place is for us to murder randoms because we have zero ability to influence the galaxy.
It's an uncomfortable truth noone on here likely wants to hear, but thats how it is.
Open should be the only mode in which your actions affect wider spread game systems. Why you might ask?
Really very simple. They effect the gameplay of others, sometimes in a minor way, other times in a more major way, and in some cases, totally remove sects of the playerbase from even taking part in said systems to begin with.
Having systems set-up in such a manner as to be manipulated from behind what is essentially "closed doors" if you will, sort of makes the system a self-defeating thing.
Players working against one another, is inherently a PvP based activity, be it BGS with factions working to take ground, or indeed with Powerplay.
Push and pull is necessary to give these systems weight. If you want to take over another player faction's territory, they should have the means to stop you through any means they see fit. If that means direct confrontation in PvP combat, then so be it, if it means working to take over one of your factions/powers systems in rebuttal, so be it, but due to the nature of solo/PG the options become limited and or impossible to compete with on a realistic level.
You would see a lot less in the way of "gankers" and "greifers" if fighting for ground was actually a relevant activity for them to take part in, for examples sake; If a PvP orientated commander cannot blockade a system to stop players taking it over because their opponents are essentially in a parallel universe to them, why would they waste the time engaging in such activities? They will keep on murder-hoboing because there is no gameplay feature supporting their playstyle, they cannot take part in meaningful BGS activity, they cannot fight for ground in Powerplay effectively, so what do they do? Hang around in populated system stomping on people who come by.
Exclusion is one of the biggest contributors to why emergent gameplay is the way that it is and why many of us feel like its time to let go of solo and PG. We want to fight for something, like the olden days where there were multiple PvP factions fighting one another over a system. Not this, quite frankly, terrible system now where the only place is for us to murder randoms because we have zero ability to influence the galaxy.
It's an uncomfortable truth noone on here likely wants to hear, but thats how it is.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
It's certainly an opinion - one shared by some players but, notably, not by all players.
Noting that those who profess to enjoy PvP seem to have no difficulty proposing that others should be forced to play the way they want them to but are seemingly unable to accept it when they can't and therefore players can affect the game while playing without them.
Last edited:
Its not about forcing you to play our playstyle, escaping a PvP encounter is very simple if you have a half-decent ship and don't bull-headedly think you can win every interdiction. In fact, its largely irrelevant to the point.
We want GAMEPLAY in which we have a relevant position and can be hired as mercenaries or the like to defend players who can't defend themselves and be able to take part in said territory mechanics as a result, which we cannot currently do due to players being able to have as much, if not more influence via solo and PG.
Tying these systems to open both builds a community effort behind certain factions and includes the entire playerbase in how it functions rather than leaving a bunch of people with essentially no input regarding them.
Again, you would see a lot less random murder-hoboing if we had stuff to actually apply our skills to, which we do not currently have, and thusly the problem is perpetuated.
No pain, no gain!
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
No-one needs to play the ganker mini-game in this game, if they don't want to.
While some seem to want to be hired as protection against player attackers that only satisfies two of the three groups involved - and the third needs neither the attackers nor defenders. So it's not just about what some players want. Trust also comes into play - as players hiring protection would need to be able to trust that their protectors would actually fulfil their obligation competently - and players have shown that they can't always be trusted, noting that betrayal of trust is a favourite for a particular type of player.
Given that other players, and therefore ITSI-PvP, are optional extras in this game, and have been from the very beginning, to suggest that forcing players to play in Open would "include the entire playerbase" is at best disingenuous - as there are players with no interest at all in PvP, which may be to them a tedious waste of their gametime - and their gametime is just as valuable as that of players who enjoy PvP.
Last edited:
Attackers and Defenders are inherently part of territory based mechanics. As are "politics" as i suppose you could put it.
Yes, sometimes you might hire a group and they're insiders who will decimate your forces instead, sometimes they won't, such is how people in the real world operate. This is called emergent gameplay. Again, Powerplay and BGS even, are inherently PvP based mechanics, and thusly "politics" should have their place amongst it. If you don't foster good relations with players who can do you harm in that situation, then they will screw you over, you know, kinda like how the powers vying for territory and influence already do in the lore, even against people within their own overarching factions.
Right, so they want to take part in mechanics that we have established are competitive ones, but with no risk to themselves? And thusly anyone who is willing to take the risk and or fight against or help should just not be involved? No, I'm sorry, thats disingenuous.
It's about time FDev strapped on the big-boy pants and realize that to truly capture a larger audience, competitive mechanics need to work properly and fairly for everyone, not just those who want to influence the system and do it from their own little bubble, which is currently the state of affairs we're dealing with. The number one reason SC has received as much money in backing and the attention it has, is because it promises an entirely emergent gameplay loop at every single turn. Everyone is welcome, but the universe is built entirely for player interaction between each other. Be it traders, pirates, factions, you name it. Thats why its done so well despite never even reaching a full 1.0 release.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
This is a PvE* game with entirely optional (in-the-same-instance) PvP - and the fact that some players can't accept that is neither the fault of the game nor those players who do accept it.
*: where affecting the game's mode shared game features using PvE actions may result in indirect asynchronous competition, otherwise known as "playing the game".
Putting aside your 'griefer fear' by assuming the attacker is a ganker, this is why Powerplay, as a group based mechanic, is going to fail again in its current form. Which as someone who was heavily invested in it, and wetted my lips at the prosepct of returning for another go at it, I really didn't want to see.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The common conflation of "fear" with disinterest is as inaccurate in this instance as it is in the many others. Powerplay, like the rest of the game, does not force players to play in Open to affect it - that's a consequence of the design of the game that every single player bought, even if they can't accept it.
In which case, rather than seeking to take something away from other players (who quite understandably oppose the proposals to PvP-gate existing pan-modal game content that forms part of the base game), put some weight behind the "new permit locked bubble" proposal - as that would give those seeking Open only a volume of the galaxy unaffected by those in the other two game modes.
Last edited:
Nothing like a shining beacon of conflict of interest.
It absolutely is a fault of the game design. No two ways about it.
Thats a terrible way of wording it, and again, is disingenuous. There is nothing "asynchronous" about players having a distinct advantage in one mode than another, not a single one. That is anything but an equal system.
Vermin, thank you for such a cogent and succinct argument.
According to some everyone who engages in PVP is a griefer/ganker. they're inherently biased for irrational reasons.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Whether, or not, the optionality of PvP "is a fault of the game design" or an attractive game feature that brings players to the game is a matter of opinion.
No-one was forced to buy a game that they don't like the design of and can't accept that other players don't need to play with them to affect the mode shared gameworld.
A matter of opinion, it might be, but logic has to be applied. If one mode makes more sense for inherently competitive systems, thats the mode that should support them. Its really that simple. And as the game is still under active development, thats why we're having the discussion.
Again, thats not a relevant point. People play this game for many reasons, in the case of the PvP community, because the flight model is so good. I refer you to the point above this for the rest of it as why someone purchased the game, is again, irrelevant to the topic at hand.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which depends upon the perspective from which the logic is applied. Noting that there seems to be an assumption that competition requires PvP and that PvP should automatically be an unavoidable aspect of the game. On the contrary: players in all game modes have equal access to the PvE levers that affect pan-modal game features, none of which require any player to engage in PvP.
By all means play it for the flight model - but don't expect those disinterested in PvP to support changes that would adversely affect the game for them.
The perspective is one of pure logic. You cannot have a system that functions on players competing with one another, whilst also locking out specifically those who would compete in a more direct means. That doesn't make sense on a rational level.
As for the latter point, I have no care whatsoever if people who don't want to touch direct PvP side with it or not. I'm posting so the developers have a coherent argument as to why it shouldn't remain as is.