(info) First bonus for playing in OPEN under consideration for PP
- Thread starter Abil Midena
- Start date
- Status
What about pinning some faction decals on our ships?
Been waiting a LONG time for that.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Both multi-player game modes enjoy these benefits - as well as, from what I have read, Powerplay merit "multiplication" for players in Wings, i.e. they all receive the full value rather than a share of merits earned from destroying opposing NPCs.
This is going to be a very interesting morning
Why today ?-
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
True point!
Ahh, I didn't realize that was OPEN only also. While not tangible, in game bonuses may be considered a significant reward to a heavily invested and passionate group. It also reinforces that modes are indeed not equal, or decoupling for a contest would not be needed. This is an interesting topic.
once PP is boosted in open, then the door is then open, and you just intimated yourself that you MAY consider pushing the concept wider. ...... If so then..... well, its a bad day for me in ED news
Once the floodgates are open that will pretty much signal the end for equality across all the modes. It would also pretty much signal the end for me playing the game.
It does seem to be an FD thing. Identify a problem, think about the solution, then implement something over complex that nobody wanted.
hell maybe you *should* just drop all modes other than open. at least it would being upfront and open about it and send a clear message to all
At least that way players would know where they stand. Open would probably gain a few heads, but overall, FD would likely lose a lot of customers.
On the matter of perception I'll risk making an obvious RL analogy: when a person with a handicap receives benefits from the government, what is the general reaction? From a certain perspective, since there is a limited amount of wealth out there, if a handicap gives you the right to benefits that means the govt is pulling down other, able-bodied and minded people. But of course the vast majority of us use a different, positive perspective and accept for the sake of fairness that pulling up the people who most need it is the right thing to do.
Balance and striving for fairness, in RL or otherwise, is a zero-sum game. As such it can always be perceived, if you have a negative way of looking at it, as punishing someone. But really there aren't necessarily any negative moral undertones, so seeing it that way is needlessly making things harder for oneselft. Of course you have to be careful with what qualities (and to what extent) you want to even out and which ones you want to keep. If you go over the top with it, any competition will turn into either a tie or a dice roll with individual merit playing no part. There are qualities which deserve to be rewarded, and then there are facts of life which don't. Just as we don't consider there is any merit in being born without a handicap, there is no merit worthy of note in being able to pick one game mode over the other. So if we're interested in a fair game, we must accept that some will need a head start.
Now the analogy isn't perfect of course: you don't usually choose to have a handicap, while picking between solo and open is still mostly voluntary thing. But certainly it's hard to have a change of mind and decide that in fact you're fine with solo or open if your previous inclination said otherwise.
Save for those on the extreme ends of the carebear/raving-PVPer spectrum, most people will fall in the middle and have no strong feelings either way. Most players wont be specifically looking for PvP but at the same time wont feel like their experience of the game is being negatively affected by it if it happens (with various degrees of acceptation depending on how far they are on the spectrum).
And because of the currently skewed situation, these people who are driven by rational risk/reward calculations rather than ideology, choose to avoid open, because open is all risk (because of pvp) and little to no reward. There's two obvious solutions: remove PvP or fix the skewed situation. Removing PvP would be non-sensical, since the whole point of PvP is to add some excitement to the experience, if only via the risk of it and the interactions that arise around it. So all that's left is incentivize it, or rather the environment in which it takes place. Yes some people enjoy PvP for the sake of PvP so these don't need any incentive, but the players in the grey area, who would enjoy the game more with a healthy dose of it (and Powerplay, as a competitive feature by nature is more likely to attract players on the PvP side of the spectrum) do need a little push because they're naturally risk averse.
Last edited:
Aigaion
Banned
Hello Sandro.
You have two ways to deal this situation.
1- Keep your positions with no difference between open and solo/group mode and gradually lose your PvP community.
2- Apply a decent nerf to all solo/group mode incomes to push players to the open mode.
You made the guess, I am a pirate, my gameplay primarily orbits around PvP interaction. As a pirate, I agree myself that it is way too easy for pirates and way too risky for traders. I would really like to see an Eve Online system (yes, we always get back to the same exemple, but it's the best exemple), where pirates were rare in high-sec systems because of the security, but also were in number in low-sec systems because of anarchy. But I agree with this system ONLY if there is a way to make a living from low-sec activities such as piracy, plundering, raids, etc.
My perfect vision of Elite is the following. Traders have two choices, trading standard commodities (gold, silver, consumer techs, machinery, minerals) while being heavily protected in high-sec systems, but to a lower benefit, or, they can choose to risk the low-sec systems with more valuable commodities (slaves, palladium, battle weapons, narcotics, drugs, alcohol), but at the price of little to no protection due to low-secs. So traders basically have two choices, make a decent living while being protected, or try to make bigger incomes at the risk of being attacked.
I would like to hear from you about this Sandro. Thanks to reply if you don't mind.
Or push them out of the game all together - as Frontier stated for the last 3 years all mode are equal, so nerfing Solo / PG will just annoy people and destroy their trust / faith in FD.
Let me add some equality to your suggestion as you seem to be under the misapprehension that adding a nurf to solo/group is going to drive players to open.
1- Keep your positions with no difference between open and solo/group mode and gradually lose your PvP community.
2- Apply a decent nerf to all solo/group mode incomes. AND lose your solo/group community.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... which rather begs the question: given that it is unlikely that both "sides" in the debate will be satisfied with the outcome and that it will probably be a least worst compromise at best, which portion of the community can Frontier afford to lose?
I'd love to see the in-game analytics that could be used, with simple rules applied, to roughly categorise players as PvE; PvE&P or PvP - and the relative populations of each. Similarly which game mode players predominantly play in....
Aigaion
Banned
What a shame to push players in open-play on a game that has not less than 400 billions of systems with small instances, people would risk to be butchered by ruthless murderers, quick, let's use the Mobius Drive !
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I gave solutions to satisfy either the PvP and the PvE side of the game, it worked for Eve Online, why shouldn't it work for Elite: Dangerous ?
I know it's hard to believe, but some people just don't want to play with "you".
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I doubt that Frontier will copy-paste from a different game. Also, your solution does not mention the modes at all - it seems to be all about traders.
Exactly.
I wouldn't actually mind buffs to open. Doesn't interest me, don't care about it.
Make Solo/Private group the baseline of the game and then add whatever necessary to increase the popularity of open.
Nerfs to solo or private group in order to "push open"? How about no? Making things like Eve Online? Need I state the obvious that I played about 2 weeks of the 4 week free trial I had some time ago and then quit never to look back, waiting for another Elite, which Eve Online is not?
In the end, it is a pure numbers game. All that talk about risk and such .. poodle.
I don't really have the numbers, but FD can get them to tweak things as they see fit.
If player in solo mode can gain x merits in y time .. say rank 5PP requiring 20 hrs of dedicated PP play a week as upkeep, that can be taken as baseline and in open play add z% bonus merits to make open a more appealing option.
If the solo player's returns get nerfed and he'd need something like 25 or 30 hours to maintain the same level, it bears a much higher risk of driving someone out of PP as "too time intensive activity for the reward".
It's a matter of balancing, so setting the correct baseline is kinda important.
And while you're at it .. please add an increasing timer on the mode-switching.
First logout to menu/desktop - 5 minutes til you can use another mode .. 2nd 10 minutes, 3rd 20 minutes .. and so on.
We need to give Open players an incentive not no abuse solo/group play to bypass game mechanics like blocked landing pads or the refresh on the Bulletin Board.
Last edited:
I'm sorry but that analogy is so, so very far fetched it might as well be in an other galaxy and what's worse it's an insult to people whit a real handicap. The level of "discomfort" people in Open experience doesn't even close to what it is like to being for instance paralized from the waist down or blind.
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
Thread closed for cooldown and moderation action.
Ian Phillips
Volunteer Moderator
Things got a bit heated for a while.
Please remember to be courteous when postsing - it actually improves the discussion!
Please remember to be courteous when postsing - it actually improves the discussion!
- Status