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

[Kristov]

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.

People playing PP without regards to the consequences of their actions is an entirely different subject, and it's been an issue with PP since day 1. The PP forums here and on reddit have lots to say on this subject, sometimes it's 5th columnist, sometimes it's just people getting their merits ASAP, and sometimes it's just people without a clue thinking they are helping the cause. That's not going to be fixed by the devs, even an hours long dedicated tutorial on how to PP wouldn't change this problem.

If you are doing PP solo and not following the advice of the folks trying to coordinate the Power's actions each week, what you show is exactly what will happen.

And like you, I also advocate for making PP a purely Open only mechanic, with the same results you garnered

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

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

Oh, ah. OK. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[GluttonyFang]

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.

Before change:

ED outside of PP:

Open -
Private -
Solo -

PP:

Open ▼
Private ▲
Solo ▲

After change:

ED outside of PP:

Open -
Private -
Solo -

PP:

Open -
Private -
Solo -

I really don't know why would anyone oppose this change other than those fearing that they can no longer take advantage of the rational incentives.

I really want to talk to someone who play PP exclusively in Open and is against this change, I want to talk to someone like that to hear why.

 

[Mohrgan]

The question simply is: Why should playing in open be treated any differently than the other modes? Because people just feel that open is the top banana. If it wasn't that, then FD, and all of the players would just say, "use Solo then." Only because some players, and apparently one Dev., see open as special, and deserves a special reward for it's use, we wouldn't be discussing this. I can be no other reason.

Apparently those that play in Solo, or a PG, should just have to get used to the idea that, their game play is not meeting open's standards, so open needs to be compensated for that. Rather than, those that choose to stay in open accept the repercussions of that decision. Without the notion that those in open get it right, and what entitlements come with that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Boomer Kay]

People playing PP without regards to the consequences of their actions is an entirely different subject, and it's been an issue with PP since day 1. The PP forums here and on reddit have lots to say on this subject, sometimes it's 5th columnist, sometimes it's just people getting their merits ASAP, and sometimes it's just people without a clue thinking they are helping the cause. That's not going to be fixed by the devs, even an hours long dedicated tutorial on how to PP wouldn't change this problem.

If you are doing PP solo and not following the advice of the folks trying to coordinate the Power's actions each week, what you show is exactly what will happen.

And like you, I also advocate for making PP a purely Open only mechanic, with the same results you garnered

But that lack of powerplayers actually playing power play is the true issue of power play. Magnitudes more impactfull than some straw man arguments about mode differences and the old "my choices are way better than yours" grumpiness around here.

If FD wants to fix power play they should at least try to adress the real problem instead of ductaping around.
From my limited plumbing experience I can state with certainty that putting a bucket under your sink is not fixing the leak.

 

[Mohrgan]

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?

If FD finds that anything has to happen at all, this idea makes the most sense to me. But no one will accept that. It does nothing to affect the real reasons for the suggestion. IT does nothing to entice more people into open.

 

[GilliganTX]

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?

Oh calm down, No absolutely not. I'm pointing out that that is where the perceived inequality comes from, not from any real inequality regarding the modes themselves. Sometimes that takes hyperbole.

Aside: PvP is hardly "integral" to ED or PP. It is pretty much a sideshow in game, and I think that is unfortunate.



Just saying that because one is used differently by the players within it does not make the modes unequal. The mode itself is an inanimate thing. All three inanimate things are equal in their ability to contribute to the BGS. All three are equally accessible to all players. All three require the same amount of work to be put in as a baseline to earn a merit. The modes themselves, with out players, are equal.

Any perceived inequality regarding playing in one mode vs another is a result of the players in that mode. The modes themselves are equal. This lends itself to inequity between them. Equality is rarely equitable, equity is rarely equal.

We currently have equality, not not equity. Sandro is proposing equity in place of equality.

 

[GluttonyFang]

The question simply is: Why should playing in open be treated any differently than the other modes? Because people just feel that open is the top banana. If it wasn't that, then FD, and all of the players would just say, "use Solo then." Only because some players, and apparently one Dev., see open as special, and deserves a special reward for it's use, we wouldn't be discussing this. I can be no other reason.

Complete strawman, natural incentives send everyone who truly care about the competitive mechanic to private and solo giving people no reason to play in open.

Apparently those that play in Solo, or a PG, should just have to get used to the idea that, their game play is not meeting open's standards, so open needs to be compensated for that. Rather than, those that choose to stay in open accept the repercussions of that decision. Without the notion that those in open get it right, and what entitlements come with that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

People that truly champion for equality will welcome this change because as it is, there is inequality under the competitive scope.

*Alarm, the following part is to reflect how silly arguments will get if the strawman continues*

Those that want to compete truly on fair grounds, accept this change as rectifying the imbalance from before, those just want to secure their personal interest, have fun defending a corrupted system. (See? I can play this game too, if you won't stop with the strawman, then I guess I'll have a go at it, too. But don't worry, you'll realize how pointless and silly it is soon)

 

[Boomer Kay]

I really want to talk to someone who play PP exclusively in Open and is against this change, I want to talk to someone like that to hear why.

Hmmmm..
Does that mean you don't actually powerplay or you power play in solo and require more incentives to move to open?

 

[askavir]

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.

You forgot an important one:

Open: ACTUAL direct player opposition = tending to 0%. You would be surprised to know how scarce hostile encounters you will find unless you are actively looking for it.

I'm an open player myself, I perfectly know how much random hostile encounters one usually finds outside CG's. Its meaningless and as such unworthy of any kinds of extra candy or buffs.

You may call it whatever philosophical term you like, real sciences outweight philosophy, and its mathematically impossible to apply a constant numeric modifier and by that achieve equality or balance to an ever changing and unpredictable group of variables. And if you claim otherwise, you're being dishonest.

You may believe you deserve such bonus, or believe the game would be better off with such a bonus, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But you cannot claim it would make modes equal. It would make it less equal because then not even the game rules would be equal.

But this isn't really about equality, is it?

 

[GluttonyFang]

Aside: PvP is hardly "integral" to ED or PP. It is pretty much a sideshow in game, and I think that is unfortunate.

Sandro used the very word "integral" to describe both PvE and PvP, I'm not making it up.

Just saying that because one is used differently by the players within it does not make the modes unequal. The mode itself is an inanimate thing. All three inanimate things are equal in their ability to contribute to the BGS. All three are equally accessible to all players. All three require the same amount of work to be put in as a baseline to earn a merit. The modes themselves, with out players, are equal.

Equal access doesn't imply non-biased incentive of entry, which we have under a competitive scope of examination.

Any perceived inequality regarding playing in one mode vs another is a result of the players in that mode. The modes themselves are equal. This lends itself to inequity between them. Equality is rarely equitable, equity is rarely equal.

That is blinding oneself to the obvious pragmatic effect of a competitive mechanic taking place in multiple modes where certain mode is completely irrational to use. Stating that the player who picked the irrational mode at fault is simply lacking in valid premise. Modes are equal in a non-competitive scope, indeed, but they are not equal when viewed competitively due to the rational incentive to avoid certain mode.

We currently have equality, not not equity. Sandro is proposing equity in place of equality.

We don't have equality whatsoever under a competitive examination of the modes, Sandro is proposing for equality.

 

[GilliganTX]

I really want to talk to someone who play PP exclusively in Open and is against this change, I want to talk to someone like that to hear why.

Yo. The only times I PP is in open with my wing, and that's just for the sake of playing with others. They like to play in open, so I play with them there.

Other than that I hardly PP anymore these days.

I'll take an occasional fortification or preparation run if it's listed in my powers "priorities" thread, but I don't may much mind to what mode I'm in then. The last run was done in open, I remember this because I was destroyed by a player after delivering.


EDIT: I don't know that I'm against this change. I don't know that I'm for it either.

 

[Mohrgan]

<snip>


I really want to talk to someone who play PP exclusively in Open and is against this change, I want to talk to someone like that to hear why.

Why should that person have any more valid things to say than anyone else? Because he has the blessings of open upon him? Because he agrees with your choice so you can only respect their views? This is the crux of the argument. Why should playing in open be seen to deserve a special reward? If Solo has an advantage, use it.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Open: ACTUAL direct player opposition = tending to 0%. You would be surprised to know how scarce hostile encounters you will find unless you are actively looking for it.

May I kindly ask how often do you play in Open and what activities do you engage in? My observation tends to be the reverse.

I'm an open player myself, I perfectly know how much random hostile encounters one usually finds outside CG's. Its meaningless and as such unworthy of any kinds of extra candy or buffs.

How much PP have you done in Open? Please stay on topic.

You may call it whatever philosophical term you like, real sciences outweight philosophy, and its mathematically impossible to apply a constant numeric modifier and by that achieve equality or balance to an ever changing and unpredictable group of variables. And if you claim otherwise, you're being dishonest.

Oh god, you're claiming that science outweighs philosophy? Want to guess which came first and which influenced which and which gave birth to which?

Actually, what is your credential in philosophy and are you aware that there is this subject in philosophy called the philosophy of science that is used to drive and distinguish sciences?

I love it when people think humanities are irrelevant the "scientific community."

You may believe you deserve such bonus, or believe the game would be better off with such a bonus, it's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But you cannot claim it would make modes equal. It would make it less equal because then not even the game rules would be equal.

Rules are perfectly equal, only that certain mode has extra categorical factors that you are willing to ignore that needs to be addressed to maintain actual equality.

Read for yourself what I actually stand for:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=235327

But this isn't really about equality, is it?

Completely about equality, but for some it's defense for maintaining unfair privilege under a competitive setting. (See? I can play this speculation and strawman game, too, so stop before it gets too fun and the discussion degrades into a nonconstructive mess.)

 

[Cosmos]

Hello Commanders!

Gosh, this thread built up steam fast.

I'd just like to make very clear a couple of points.

The concept of an Open Play benefit for Powerplay is purely for Powerplay, not any other aspect of play.

In addition, the benefit is *not* a personal benefit - personal rewards, such as merits, obtained through Powerplay activities would remain identical between Open Play, Private Groups and Solo Play.

Finally, this concept is nothing more than a discussion point right now. There are no guarantees that we will move forward with it, or when we would implement it if we do decide it's a good idea.

It is a good idea Sandro whether some people like it or not. As it stands Open has become pointless.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Why should that person have any more valid thing to say than anyone else? Because he has the blessings of open upon him? Because he agrees with your choice you can only respect their views? This is the crux of the argument. Why should playing in open be seen to deserve a special reward?

He doesn't, but he offers opinions that people who don't play PP in open can offer that I can use constructively to critique my own view, which I've found none in this thread. I've played PP in all modes and came to discover that there is no rational incentive to play in Open other than when I don't want to competitively work for my faction.

Open isn't special, it's been classed as the second class citizen for a long time in PP and it needs to change, simple as that.

 

[Brimstone]

Actually, what is your credential

I giggle every time you say this now.

I must spread my rep around more. damnit.

 

[GilliganTX]

Sandro used the very word "integral" to describe both PvE and PvP, I'm not making it up.

Well I suppose we're all fallible.







I won't hold it against him.


Seriously though, I'm not sure I agree with him there. I wish it was an integral part of the game. I just don't see it.

Equal access doesn't imply non-biased incentive of entry, which we have under a competitive scope of examination.

That was just one of the qualifiers I'm using to justify that they modes are equal.

That is blinding oneself to the obvious pragmatic effect of a competitive mechanic taking place in multiple modes where certain mode is completely irrational to use. Stating that the player who picked the irrational mode at fault is simply lacking in valid premise. Modes are equal in a non-competitive scope, indeed, but they are not equal when viewed competitively due to the rational incentive to avoid certain mode.

Still not buying it. The only effective difference between the modes is who is inhabiting that mode. Equal incentive is not the same as "equal". Infact, trying to equalize the incentive to play in any game mode necessitates making them different.

Please note I'm making no comments about whether I feel the modes should be equal or equitable, only that by definition, they are equal but inequitable at present.

We don't have equality whatsoever under a competitive examination of the modes, Sandro is proposing for equality.

I disagree.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Still not buying it. The only effective difference between the modes is who is inhabiting that mode. Equal incentive is not the same as "equal". Infact, trying to equalize the incentive to play in any game mode necessitates making them different.

Please note I'm making no comments about whether I feel the modes should be equal or equitable, only that by definition, they are equal but inequitable at present.

But then you're making the argument that America is running a democracy when in pragmatic examination, it's an oligarchy. Have a read at Larry Bartels' writing and you'll see what I mean.

The difference between the two is that we can do something about the Elite universe whereas the broke real life political system will probably take decades or centuries to evolve or devolve or remain stagnant.

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

…
I really don't know why would anyone oppose this change other than those fearing that they can no longer take advantage of the rational incentives.
…

The change - as suggested by Sandro - has some flaws.
Being against this change isn't equal to being against a change that would make playing PP in Open Mode equal effective to playing it in Solo. It's simply being against a flawed change that can result in more problems than it fixes.

Being against a change that results in equal effectiveness of PP in all modes could be based on a different idea of "equal" or a desire of elegant/simple systems. I guess there are more reasons to oppose such a change that have nothing to do with "no longer taking advantage of rational incentives" - or maybe not.