(info) First bonus for playing in OPEN under consideration for PP

[GilliganTX]

The entire nub we've been rubbing for days now.

Should the modes be equal or equivalent (equitable). Plain and simple.

That's what I thought, but I was confused by Kristov's assertion that what Sandro is proposing would bring equality that the game modes currently lack. I was disputing that per my understanding of equality vs equity and how they related to the mechanics in question regarding different game modes. Kristov seems like he has an extensive background with various games and gaming communities, and I feel his opinion on the matter (and clarification there-of), would be nice to have in the ol' mental library for consideration.

This "self imposed reason" you are describing is the spirit of the mechanic known as PP, it's competitive.

I agree, it's why I'm not opposed to the proposed measures [yet]. I'm still forming an opinion.

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.

Attempt to paraphrase: So, because it is generally accepted that playing in a certain mode is more difficult because of the aforementioned, "self imposed reasons," that can be taken as "The game modes are unequal since there is no incentive to Power-Play in open."

The mechanics are the same across all three modes, I'm not sure it gets more equal than that. Everyone gets the same tools. The tools all the the same effect.

That's not to say that all game modes have equal incentive to play. That would require the game modes to be fundamentally different, like we're discussing now. The same tools having a different effect. That is not equal.



I agree that the modes are not equitable at present.

If you have such an issue with it, then report me, I'm not going anywhere.

I went ahead and reported both of you, so it's taken care of.

 

[bitstorm]

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.

Heh, you realise that's an argument for making the change? =p

You're saying players have a free choice as to modes and they should not limit their options, so it doesn't matter if Sandro gives open a bonus?

 

[GilliganTX]

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.

No incentive, or substantial disincentive?


(And are they really that different?)

 

[Boomer Kay]

Heh, you realise that's an argument for making the change? =p

You're saying since players have a free choice as to modes and they should not limit their options, then it doesn't matter if Sandro give open a bonus?

A bonus will neither fix open nor power play, so you're correct.

 

[askavir]

It is to balance out the existing coercion toward private and solo.

And how exactly would someone calculate a "balancing" constant value to "equalize" something that is composed of dozens of ever-changing variables, like current number of active players per mode, current active players per power, current active players working against each power, current active players doing each of this stuff per mode, an many other factors and combinations of factors that are constantly changing?

Its not like one can pull a number out of the rear cheeks and in due conscience say that balance/equality is now achieved, is it?

Any arbitrary numeric modifier, or like I prefer to call it "The Unicorn Constant" will never achieve equality or balance, because there are way too many ever changing variables in play.

Its completely impossible to achieve equality through the Unicorn Constant. It would actually make the game less "equal" by introducing a permanent arbitrary buff to only part of the playing field.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Attempt to paraphrase: So, because it is generally accepted that playing in a certain mode is more difficult because of the aforementioned, "self imposed reasons," that can be taken as "The game modes are unequal since there is no incentive to Power-Play in open."

The mechanics are the same across all three modes, I'm not sure it gets more equal than that. Everyone gets the same tools. The tools all the the same effect.

That's not to say that all game modes have equal incentive to play. That would require the game modes to be fundamentally different, like we're discussing now. The same tools having a different effect. That is not equal.

But the argument you're putting forth is no longer an equality of mode, but equality of the mechanic known as PP. Of course access to PP is the same in all modes. But that is one level beneath the equality of modes, which becomes unequal when we notice the obvious coercion toward certain modes than others.

Now, do we care about the equality of access to mechanics or the equality of modes? If we talk about the former, sure, everyone has access to the same tools. If we talk about the latter, then no, a mode is clearly singled out for being disadvantaged.

To play a mechanic, both parts are considered, and clearly we arrive at an inequality.

I went ahead and reported both of you, so it's taken care of.

Good, thank you.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

No incentive, or substantial disincentive?


(And are they really that different?)

There will always be incentives. It's what drives our actions. If there isn't any incentives, then we wouldn't act at all nor make any decisions. Then we move onto punishment.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

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.

It could be argued that the modes should be equally valid choices for players. From that point of view doing 1 hour of X in Mode A should be equally effective as doing 1 hour of X in Mode B.
In this case it would be acceptable to adjust certain aspects of the game to make the time spend doing something equally effective in all modes.

Ideally these changes would adjust the reason why the modes aren't equally effective and not simply add a bonus to one mode.


Disclaimer: I think a bonus for activity X (like a bonus for PP) in Open Mode is the wrong way to address potential problems with modes not being equally valid choices for players.

 

[GilliganTX]

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.

I am also largely behind this.


Power play is the game. The game modes are one of the many tools we have to play that game. All players have equal access to all three modes. All three modes are can contribute equally to their power. Any self relegation to a particular mode is just that, "self" relegation and does not necessitate the game changing to accommodate them.

 

[bitstorm]

And how exactly would someone calculate a "balancing" constant value to "equalize" something that is composed of dozens of ever-changing variables, like current number of active players per mode, current active players per power, current active players working against each power, current active players doing each of this stuff per mode, an many other factors and combinations of factors?

Its not like one can pull a number out of the rear cheeks and in due conscience say that balance/equality is now achieved, is it?

Any arbitrary numeric modifier, or like I prefer to call it "The Unicorn Constant" will never achieve equality or balance, because there are way too many ever changing variables in play.

Its completely impossible to achieve equality through the Unicorn Constant. It would actually make the game less "equal" by introducing a permanent arbitrary buff to only part of the playing field.

One way would to be to do it such that people don't ACTIVELY choose to switch modes only for Powerplay. Change so that there isn't a huge shift in modes just for one activity.

Yeah ultimately it cannot be fully balanced because open/solo are asymmetrical, but it doesn't mean it isn't worth trying to even out the pros and cons over the modes if possible.

 

[Mohrgan]

I just wrote about that literally the post above yours. It's to rectify favoritism for solo and private under the competitive scope.

I must have been typing when that popped up. I don;t find any favoritism towards solo. What I see is all modes as equal, and your self limiting your play as the issue. Because of this self limiting you feel you are entitled to a pat on the back and a little extra in your check. I am not fooled into accepting that self serving pretzel logic.

 

[Boomer Kay]

One way would to be to do it such that people don't ACTIVELY choose to switch modes only for Powerplay.

I suggested to completely remove power play from solo / private games some pages ago. That was not well received.

If you're serious solo playing, power play does absolutely nothing but remind you that your actions are completely worthless in the grand scheme of things.

 

[GluttonyFang]

And how exactly would someone calculate a "balancing" constant value to "equalize" something that is composed of dozens of ever-changing variables, like current number of active players per mode, current active players per power, current active players working against each power, current active players doing each of this stuff per mode, an many other factors and combinations of factors that are constantly changing?

Its not like one can pull a number out of the rear cheeks and in due conscience say that balance/equality is now achieved, is it?

Any arbitrary numeric modifier, or like I prefer to call it "The Unicorn Constant" will never achieve equality or balance, because there are way too many ever changing variables in play.

Its completely impossible to achieve equality through the Unicorn Constant. It would actually make the game less "equal" by introducing a permanent arbitrary buff to only part of the playing field.

We don't need precise number to work with continuous possibility, and this problem can actually be solved with discreet probability.

Open: Possibility of direct player opposition > 0%

Solo: Possibility of direct player opposition = 0%

What you're appealing to is called the Hidden Strategy in philosophy, which is something people use to argue for the validity of determinism that they cannot prove due to the lack of necessary science to prove every tiny variable, and you guessed it, it's a weak argument.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I must have been typing when that popped up. I don;t find any favoritism towards solo. What I see is all modes as equal, and your self limiting your play as the issue. Because of this self limiting you feel you are entitled to a pat on the back and a little extra in your check. I am not fooled into accepting that self serving pretzel logic.

Now you're just making statements without justification and supportive reasoning. I think I'm just going to tell you that every time you do it to help you understand.

Edit:

Here, let me show you how silly your argument is when directed right back at you:

"I find there is favoritism towards solo. What I see is all modes as unequal, and your habitual usage and enjoyment of advantages in private and solo makes you blind. Because of this confirmation bias you feel you are entitled to prevent actual equality or striving toward equality from occurring. I am not fooled into accepting that self serving pretzel logic."

See how silly this argument is and how it is not constructive whatsoever? I really think you are, as you used the phase yourself "grasping at straws."

 

[Roybe]

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.

For some reason, the devs are saying differently. Although, this has been the mantra of the Open vs. discussion from the beginning, tied to the devs refusal to even discuss the possibility of equivalence...apparently, they are considering changing their outlook. And the game.

Whether I agree, or disagree, with that stance..ultimately doesn't matter. IF they feel/decided that the game is broken in this manner, it's up to them to fix the whole game...not just some special little piece of it.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

I suggested to completely remove power play from solo / private games some pages ago. That was not well received.

It's so much PvE, that it would be strange if it's open mode only.

… remind you that your actions are completely worthless in the grand scheme of things.

I often think that it's strange that players have such a huge influence on the galaxy. I wouldn't be sad if the game would show me more often that I'm completely insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Why should I be able to influence a system with billions of humans all doing things in any significant way?

OK, enough OT from me.

 

[Mohrgan]

For some reason, the devs are saying differently. Although, this has been the mantra of the Open vs. discussion from the beginning, tied to the devs refusal to even discuss the possibility of equivalence...apparently, they are considering changing their outlook. And the game.

Whether I agree, or disagree, with that stance..ultimately doesn't matter. IF they feel/decided that the game is broken in this manner, it's up to them to fix the whole game...not just some special little piece of it.

I can live with that. Right now, Sandro made his pitch. That pitch came with a request for comments. I am making mine. Nothing more. I believe one wobbly suggestion about an idea, is not a firm 'we feel this'. I am encouraged that FD follow these discussions and react to them. That's all I ask. That my point of view gets equal time in the debate.

 

[Boomer Kay]

I wouldn't be sad if the game would show me more often that I'm completely insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Why should I be able to influence a system with billions of humans all doing things in any significant way?
.

There's a huge difference in significance and worth.
That's why I wrote worthless.

But that's another topic for another day.

 

[GilliganTX]

But the argument you're putting forth is no longer an equality of mode, but equality of the mechanic known as PP. Of course access to PP is the same in all modes. But that is one level beneath the equality of modes, which becomes unequal when we notice the obvious coercion toward certain modes than others.

Now, do we care about the equality of access to mechanics or the equality of modes? If we talk about the former, sure, everyone has access to the same tools. If we talk about the latter, then no, a mode is clearly singled out for being disadvantaged.

To play a mechanic, both parts are considered, and clearly we arrive at an inequality.

I don't think I'm buying it. Again, the game modes are equal in coding, in mechanics, in influence. The difference in equity is a result of the behavior of each modes inhabitants, which, as you've stated, is a [disincentive] to others seeking to play in that mode.


In open, the added difficulty is there not because of any "inequality" in treatment of the game modes by the developers, but by the actions taken by those within the game mode.

In effect, you (which because of your affiliation with certain groups I have no qualms about using) are claiming that "We have made this gaming mode more difficult for one another by our own will and volition (which is fine), and now we would like extra compensation/reward/impact for our actions here because of that."

Which, to me just sounds horribly back asswards.



You have the option of not blowing players up, which should remove any disincentives there were regarding PP in open. I know that isn't going to happen, and it would be silly to expect it to.

Just pointing out that the modes are equal. Because one is used differently that makes it inequitable, not unequal.

There will always be incentives. It's what drives our actions. If there isn't any incentives, then we wouldn't act at all nor make any decisions. Then we move onto punishment.

Oh I know, just musing, and it's a slow day here, so, you know.

 

[Voiddancer]

Compensate for risk only when it's actually encountered, not just potential risk. If a player is attacked and escapes, depending on the nature and degree of danger encountered, only then do their PP activities receive a proportional boost. For fortification, the merit value of current cargo is boosted. For undermining, this could be solved by boosting the merits for actually killing cmdrs, and maybe also removing or reducing merit loss on death. Encounter no hostile players, no boost. Importantly, it wouldn't reward it merely compensates for lost time, putting it back on par with someone who wasn't inconvenienced.

Thoughts?

 

[GluttonyFang]

I don't think I'm buying it. Again, the game modes are equal in coding, in mechanics, in influence. The difference in equity is a result of the behavior of each modes inhabitants, which, as you've stated, is a [disincentive] to others seeking to play in that mode.


difficulty is there not because of any "inequality" in treatment of the game modes by the developers, but by the actions taken by those within the group?

In effect, you (which because of your affiliation with certain groups I have no qualms about using) are claiming that "We have made this gaming mode more difficult for one another by our own will and volition (which is fine), and now we would like extra compensation/reward/impact for our actions here because of that."

Which, to me just sounds horribly back asswards.



You have the option of now blowing players up, which should remove any disincentives there were regarding PP in open. I know that isn't going to happen, and it would be silly to expect it to.

Just pointing out that the modes are equal. Because one is used differently, makes it less appealing to some players, not unequal.

Wait, so you're saying that we should make agreements on abolishing the mechanic known as combative PvP that is integral ED itself and therefore to PP itself in order to secure an equality? If you truly respect all the modes for what they are, how can you not see that Open is suffering not from some sort of artificially induced difficulty, but the mechanics of the game itself?

Do you see who is stretching by leaps and bounds now?

 

[Roybe]

We don't need precise number to work with continuous possibility, and this problem can actually be solved with discreet probability.

Open: Possibility of direct player opposition > 0%

Solo: Possibility of direct player opposition = 0%

On the other side of this, really, is how much of a difference does the two possibilities make to the overall impact on the game.

It, obviously has a large impact on a player's perception, but it needs to be shown that the ▲ is actually significant between the two possibilities...making such a large change for a small ▲ just because of perceptions...would mean its better to leave it than have it...unless the principles of the company are concerned over the player's perception..then it's a change to make money with...and the change actually makes little difference to the outcome of the game.