This. So much this. I can't give you anymore rep, I must spread it more liberally.
(info) First bonus for playing in OPEN under consideration for PP
- Thread starter Abil Midena
- Start date
- Status
This. So much this. I can't give you anymore rep, I must spread it more liberally.
So? Why so, I provided two reasons above.
Do you understand what I'm getting at?
Say..
In the name of balance Sandro looks at it and says to balance requires applying a bonus of (say) 50% to 100% of players PPing in open.
And it's then later decided the bonus must only apply to people attacked, then that percentage becomes 50% but only applied to say 5% of folk PPing in open. (for sake of argument assuming 1/20 are attacked)
50% bonus for 100% of people is waaay different to 50% for 5% of people. Remember the whole point of the change is to add BALANCE.
As a result the 50% bonus then has to be increased in order to retain balance.
In the example above the 50% bonus has to become a massive 650% bonus to retain balance between these two *completely different systems*. (I think my maths is right there =p)
Under your suggested system the bonus would have to be increased.
And the second already supplied reason for your "so?" was it then encourages PPers trying to deliver items to involve themselves in combat for a bonus. Why on Earth would a smuggler do that? The idea is to deliver the goods with as little risk as possible (which is why people go solo!)
Last edited:
So how does that make it better to reward the entirety of the players rather than those that face the risk? The extra risk that is used as the basis for the bonus is implicitly PvP combat. There can be no other reason for '...open having it harder...' than the threat of being blown up by a PC because, there is simply no other difference between Solo and open. Being able to isolate the risk, why not isolate the reward?
Those that don;t want to PvP and are pledged will still be rewarded for the risk if they are attacked. Those that do avoid an extra risk shouldn't benefit for not facing the risk. Unless, of course the reason for the bonus isn't to recognize risking an extra threat.
Last edited:
But that's the added "risk" that is brought up to justify greater rewards, isn't it?
Well and that the system closest to your HQ might be clogged with cutters who mindlessly dump thousands of fortifying material into the gutter that could have been put to good use 2-3 jumps further.
Said that some pages ago.. if they generally want to buff open, they need to make it special. GM events and somesuch, exclusive to open. Not a bonus to the grind.
Will achieve absolutely nothing and most certainly not get people more educated on power play.
Last edited:
Let him, or his agents take care of what he says. You're just another opinionated poster as far as I'm concerned. They, and I don't need your help. Report the post and busy yourself with something else.
I guess I'm still missing it. From my POV, the game modes are currently equal (they each have one box). One groups view of the game is obscured (for their own self imposed reasons), but the same tools are there for everyone to use.
Giving open an extra box, to more clearly see the field makes all three modes more equitable by making them unequal (treating one differently than the other two).
I'm not trying to ague if either equal or equitable is "better," just that what we have now *IS* equality, and what Sandro is proposing, while equitable, is inequality.
Again, not making a comment on whether I think that's good or bad.
The entire nub we've been rubbing for days now.
Should the modes be equal or equivalent (equitable). Plain and simple.
This "self imposed reason" you are describing is the spirit of the mechanic known as PP, it's competitive.
I am arguing that what we have now is inequality in the most blatant form where incentives are clear to not utilize a certain mode under the scope of the competitive mechanic.
Last edited by a moderator:
Did you read that as you wrote it? You literally just advocated for the fix Sandro proposed....dude, wait..what?
The reward IS isolated to those who are facing the greater risk, but it's not a personal reward, it's a Power reward, the player gets nothing extra from the risk.
The proposed idea isn't to make Open more appealing or to buff it, it's to deal with an actual imbalance in how PP functions between the modes. The players get no personal reward, only the Powers do, this offsets the imbalance without making Open more appealing than Solo or Group.
You quoted the wrong quote of Kristov's that I was virtual repping. But anyway, I see what you're saying. Each mode is equal in that anyone can join what ever mode they like and make the same contribution. But they are not equal to each other. Sorry, my mind is melting from spending too much time on the forums.
I frame it slightly differently.
There's higher risk in open, should taking that risk return higher rewards?
On your framing I'd answer yes (equivalent). On the grounds that people are currently actively choosing to switch to a more advantageous mode purely for Powerplay. (by a significant margin it seems)
In the name of balance I think the aim should be that you want it balanced such that people NEVER choose to switch modes for Powerplay, they just stay right where they are.
I think that sort of balance is unlikely to fully happen since ultimately the two modes are asymmetrical to a degree, but I do think it's what Sandro should be aiming for.
Last edited:
The modes are both equal and equivalent because of the freedom of access all the players have. That one group of players has chosen to only use one mode doesn't logically imply they need to be compensated for that decision. Because one group of players decide to limit their options, I can see no reason to balance things over this course of action.
Free decision implies lack of coercion, which is clearly not the case.
Last edited:
What? Can you clarify that?
Did you look at the screenshots from my own power 3 pages ago?
There is nothing to mathematically balance in that mess by adding anything to a mode.
We are losing 900 points and half a dozen systems because people are dumping stuff in the next system instead of where it would make a difference.
Free decision means there is no rational inclination toward a certain decision, but clearly there is incentive to pick certain modes under the competitive scope.
So giving an arbitrary advantage to one mode would be "lack of coercion"?
It is to balance out the existing coercion toward private and solo.
If that is the case, why don;t they just reward PP aligned players for actually facing the risk, rather than the threat of a risk. You can isolate the risk, PvP Combat, why not reward that directly? Open doesn't need a bonus, the players that face the risk do. Why would we want to pay a bonus to players that don't face the risk, PvP Combat, just for being in the area?
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Why is coercing towards open, ok then? There go the goal posts again. The perceived advantage to players in open is not coercion, it's a justification for favoritism.
I just wrote about that literally the post above yours. It's to rectify favoritism for solo and private under the competitive scope.
- Status