It does rather seem to be an attempt to draw people into open under the guise of pushing mode equity, especially when a more focused solution may exist. I don't myself why people should be drawn into open if they don't want really want to be there for its own merits and that aspect of the game.
(info) First bonus for playing in OPEN under consideration for PP
- Thread starter Abil Midena
- Start date
- Status
I'm not arguing what you are replying to seriously, it's to show how silly the accusation argument gets. It's simple to accuse other people of malicious intent and it's a convenient argument to make, thus we should avoid it, since it adds nothing constructive to the discussion.
Last edited:
If open isn't special, why should there be a rational incentive to play in open? Just play in Solo. If you want to be the most effective take the advantage. It's one click away.
If you are going to use this "logic", then Private Groups should get any bonus that open gets, since it meets the "Possibility of direct player opposition > 0%"
Sandro's proposal isn't about fixing PP itself, it's about fixing an imbalance in the 3 modes in regard to PP, that's all.
I've said it in this very thread, they need to pull PP totally, redo it and release it after that, as it stands it's generally nothing but a grinding mechanic for certain toys and income and that's all to most of the people who do it.
...
Wait... so you're admitting to that the rational mode to enter when player competitively is to enter Solo, and you're okay with it but not okay with giving Open an incentive as a counter balance to the rational incentive to Solo...?
You're okay with Solo being the mode to enter for competitive play of PP...
I...
...
I think I'm about done here.
I know what you mean, and I know what you've been getting at, but objecively I can't yet agree that the modes are presently unequal.
The mode is a box.
FD have given us [a minimum of] three boxes. Each box is governed by the same mechanical, physical rules. Each box is the same size. Each box is effectively identical.
Now, one box is just for you, another can be shared with anyone of your choosing, and anyone and everyone can get in the third box.
The boxes are equal. The thing is the same. The inhabitants, and thus the usage are different. This creates inequity between the boxes, regarding their impact on the identical space inside each box.
From a competitive standpoint, yes, there a disincentive to playing where the game is more difficult. The modes are equal, the motivation to play in one over the other is not. I can accept that.
Way to miss the point. Why should there be a rational incentive to play in open?
Unfortunately that logic fails in the sense that you can control fully of who will meet you and who won't. Get your friends together and lock everyone else out with no possibility of ever meeting you and your friends.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Because there's a rational incentive to be in solo and private for PP, a competitive mechanic?
Thus we are bringing incentive to Open for PP to balance it out?
What isn't understood here?
Per the mechanics of power play, it is more effective to play in solo.
What is the old "PvPer*" mantra, referencing sun tzu regarding teaming up on people...
Anyway, PP is not a PvP game in it's current iteration. It is, like Krisov says, a PvE grind fest. It's best to accomplish that away from open.
I think that is unfortunate, and I would personally love to see some sort of PvP centric mechanic get introduced into PP.
Until then, it's a grind fest which is most effectively done in solo.
Now, whether or not that should be the case... *shrug*
I didn't invent the damn thing, I just play it.
*I really, really hate "PvPer"/"PvEer"/"PvP"/"PvE.
I really do.
Last edited:
Then explain it. Why should balance be moved towards open, if you have perfect access to the perceived (extra words just for you G-Fang) advantage at your disposal. Just use Solo (if it had any real advantage) when you PP. PP is not PvP, it is a meta-PvP struggle through PvE activities at best. What does playing in open mean that it requires the other modes to conform to it?
I don't see why this would be an issue.
Currently we have open players switching to solo/pg just to pp, the idea is to implement changes to counter that.
If as a result of changes some solo players switch to open just for pp, then that's fine if net migration between the two modes for this one activity is 0.
Last edited:
But clearly there are differences in the box. Solo is the most basic box, Private adds multiplayer and choosing who to include in the box, and Open includes multiplayer and does not let players decide who to have in the box. These are different rules.
In a box, usage implies user action dictates what is allotted, whereas innate differential between the mode dictates the user's actions. I believe the latter is more logical than the former.
Indeed, and I would never agree to forcing bonus on any mode outside of a competitive mechanic, that would inflict actual inequality.
Access to the PP mechanic is available in every mode. The competition within it has no need for PvP to continue. Why is 'just play in solo' not a good enough answer to a perceived imbalance between the modes?
It's not a combative PvP mechanic, no, but it's a PvP mechanic regardless.
Because it limits choice.
Why? What makes playing in open worth making exceptions for? I am sure you could just click on Solo if you needed/wanted an advantage. Don;t you choose and outfit your ship to have an advantage?
Has no need of combative PvP to continue, no. Which precisely is what defeats the purpose of Open Mode, which inflicts inequality between modes.
Because that explicitly implies the rational choice of mode to play PP competitively is to enter Solo, and that is not okay if you truly care about FD's stand on modes being equal.
Why not give them the toys they want if it is done in a way that doesn't devaluate the toys of everybody else - and Sandro's suggestion has the intention to do it that way (I think Sandro's fix would devaluate the toys, but apparently that's a different discussion).
Last edited:
- Status