Last thing I heard was 'not planned any time soon' or words to that effect.
(info) First bonus for playing in OPEN under consideration for PP
- Thread starter Abil Midena
- Start date
- Status
Last thing I heard was 'not planned any time soon' or words to that effect.
If all you got from my post was that one word then I have to wonder why you bothered reading it in the first place but then I don't think you have or you would have noticed is said "coerced" which is slightly different.
But I guess I should stop feeding the trolls, they'll only get fat.
Oh you'd be right, except you added this bit
The sarcasm is so obvious that it completely debases everything you wrote above it, if you want to do something about trolling then leave out your own trolling statements
you had a perfectly valid point on the whole thing without it but with it you just look as rabid as the pvp'ers that tell you to git gud and the soloers that tell you to deal.- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
No, I said I'd play when my entire family is online on cheap internet connection, which has a poor ping when I'm online on my own, once the family start doing stuff the only place I'm on my own is in game
I never said for the purpose of this test I'd touch my router/ network hardware at all, because I would not need to touch it.
I have no problems seeing other players with UPnP on and my family not being online (at school/ out of the house - or in bed on a night).
But I very much can go 4 weeks, I can go for years without seeing another player if I only play when everyone is at home and online soaking up my internet connection.
So unless you want to buy me a better internet connection, I can play open without having to touch a router setting and still never see anyone in open... it's all to do with timing.
I also like to stream Spotify while I'm trading, nowt like some sing along time when doing A-B-A trading or pushing vouchers about.
We going to ban streaming music as it soaks up bandwidth ?
So many ways to "accidentally" send my ping so high the match maker just gives up trying to put me with anyone.
Can you imagine what live streaming would do to my connection.....
So my offer still stands, I'm happy to live stream me taking advantage of an open only bonus
Do it, but you better eat crow if you get trashed because somebody catches you when your net works
I'll happily salute +1 to the fact open isn't more dangerous if you can manage without anything occuring.
Last edited:
Oh you'd be right, except you added this bit
The sarcasm is so obvious that it completely debases everything you wrote above it, if you want to do something about trolling then leave out your own trolling statements
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Do it, but you better eat crow if you get trashed because somebody catches you when your net works
I grudgingly have to admit you have a point. Consider me eating humble pie.
Editing post in acknowledgement.
I grudgingly have to admit you have a point. Consider me eating humble pie.
Editing post in acknowledgement.
Lol I can't believe it! I think i can count on one hand the times i've read something like this on a forum, i'll have a much better time reading your views now, thankyou
PVP is yet not entirely based on a purely player battles with player base. true PVP invlves a lot more. Like gathering ressources and equipment which is often done via PVE elements. Yes what you do in PP of ELite is motsly PvE based, but the PvP part is the interaction of players, as in preventing the other player from reaching his goal, or racing towards a goal faster than someone else.
If you think PvP is only limited to a palyer battling another palyer, than you have a rather shallow idea of PvP. just take LOL and DOTA, they are PVP based yet they involve PVE. In fact in any strategy game the environment is a vital part, as in "gathering XP or ressources" So Elite doesn't works much different in it's PvP except being not an typical raw Play vs Player actions PVP it involves the entire PP Universe of Elite as a ressource where the PVP part is settled. But as long as Solo existed and private groups exactly the direct PVP contact was taken away. It took out the full PVP scale, while it still made it a PVP game because musltiple groups of players play against each other even without direct contact.
The question also is if people want PP to be a raw based PVP mode, how do you prevent exploiting moles and dummy characters to farm and abuse the mechanics?
The time factor is a very good point for the "risk" assesment in open, and it was pretty much the same people who are trying to convince us now that open is more "risky" and hence deserves greater impact/rewards that tried to convince us 3 conversations ago that you do not really lose anything in open, if you get shot down and all the uproar about the "evil PKs" is totally unjustified, since all that is at stake is your relatively low insurance that you can make up in a matter of hours by cheesing some robigo runs.
Now time investment is not really a constant, either, not even within a mode. I can make anything from 2 to 6 million an hour in the same Ressource Extraction Site on the same day with the same ship and the same pilot, purely depending on the roll of the RNG. I can even go further and "force" the RNG to reroll until I get favorable results by leaving and entering an instance or just logging to the menu and re-entering, just in case I'm mass locked and getting out of the RES might take 10 seconds longer.
There's no real stopping anyone by PvP means from completing PP related activities - not even in open. If the stars are aligned, the routers in sync and fortuna smiling , one might be able to delay the progress a few jumps, which is pretty much the same difference as doing PP activities in a T9 or an Anaconda (or Vulture vs. FDL for the more combat oriented PPers), with it's clearly superior speed and jump range - or at best "force" a temporal change of plans.
The only thing stopping someone from doing useful PP related activities is their own lazyness.
Last edited:
I would be interested to see actual figures as to the impact of Open on PP efficiency as opposed to speculation. The impact may be very small for some people, most of the time, with instancing occasionally increasing resistance.
If you are one of the "unlucky" few with good connectivity with other players, you would encounter a lot more resistance than someone who doesn't. A flat bonus for the potential risk of open would not address that, a bonus based on actual risk experienced would, provided it merely compensates for the loss of efficiency not make it superior to someone who did not have such an encounter.
Also, as has been suggested elsewhere on this thread, dedicated pvp alternatives could also be added for obtaining merits, like arena-style signal sources for opposing sides to fight it out, with reduced penalties for destruction within those instances such as reduced/no merit loss and reduced insurance costs.
Putting on my tinfoil hat: I do wonder if the proposed flat bonus, especially as high as it is, is not just an attempt to discourage people from using other modes and urge them back into open by actually making Open much more favorable than other modes, using the time efficiency argument, that may not be as severe as suggested, as a vehicle to do so. But maybe that's just me being paranoid.
If you are one of the "unlucky" few with good connectivity with other players, you would encounter a lot more resistance than someone who doesn't. A flat bonus for the potential risk of open would not address that, a bonus based on actual risk experienced would, provided it merely compensates for the loss of efficiency not make it superior to someone who did not have such an encounter.
Also, as has been suggested elsewhere on this thread, dedicated pvp alternatives could also be added for obtaining merits, like arena-style signal sources for opposing sides to fight it out, with reduced penalties for destruction within those instances such as reduced/no merit loss and reduced insurance costs.
Putting on my tinfoil hat: I do wonder if the proposed flat bonus, especially as high as it is, is not just an attempt to discourage people from using other modes and urge them back into open by actually making Open much more favorable than other modes, using the time efficiency argument, that may not be as severe as suggested, as a vehicle to do so. But maybe that's just me being paranoid.
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Yet Sandro's analysis, of the data that he has access to, results in a proposed multiplier of 2 for the effectiveness of Open delivered merits in Powerplay (in comparison to those delivered in S/PG). The inference here is that it takes twice as long for the average Powerplayer to deliver a number of merits in Open than it does the average Powerplayer in S/PG. Presumably the lower specific delivery rate is due to interaction with other players. Although, from previous discussions, it may also be due to ships in Open being equipped slightly differently than in S/PG.
I would really like to see the math on that because it sounds pretty unbelievable to me. The amount of player interference people would have to experience is staggering. If you take into consideration the number of powers involved, the number of systems and the fast distances between said system. If the figures are right it's because people aren't really engaged in PP but instead are grinding merits so they "can haz teh shinies". And if you look in game at the insanely over fortified systems while others sit at 0% because they are to far away then that is excatly what is happening. Instead of a buff for Open a serious overhaul of Powerplay is called for because currently too damn few people really care about it to make it work and that is largely because it's a dreadfully slow and boring grind for very little reward and I'm saying that as someone who has, in Solo, tried to make a difference.
If the people in Open cared to play PP as it was intended the risk would be minimal because people would be all over the place in stead they take the path of least resistance aaaaaand run into resistance because if everone goes to the closest system then everybody else will also be there and there's your risk right there...
Last edited:
The analysis of the data I have access to (and have shared with y'all, so you can doublecheck and correct me) results in the conclusion that exactly zero players are actually playing Power Play as meant to be played and presented by in-game mechanics, whereas a multitude (about 20x as much as necessary) simply grind merits to the nearest system.
(and for completene's sake: I assumed that the in-game representation of the game data is actually accurate in this case - in some other cases it's pretty far off and the "galaxy" view is disjointed from the "system" view - so there is a certain margin of error, and I'm aware of that ... aaaand found it: "System in turmoil don't show their current fortification / undermining unless you drop atleast 1 programme".).
I did not pick a random system to make a point, I picked the one that is presented by the PP interface as the highest losing system for my specific faction.
That does not require any in-depth knowledge of PP mechanics or close following of some reddit threads. It's marked red, you click it, you get two lines of text explaining what needs to be done. Simple and straight forward.
I cannot fathom, why after more than half of the cycle, not a single player has delivered any fortification to said system. This is only made worse by the fact that the competing faction(s) are just as absent.
Data is data. You can pretty much draw any conclusion you want and an outside view of data is in some cases more valid and in others completely off the track to the "root cause".
And I will doublecheck again this evening to see if bringing up that observation in a "high profile, Power Play centered" thread like this has caused the slightest in-game reaction, either by the defending or one of the potential attacking factions.
Last edited:
Sheesj! I'm trying alright, I'm trying! is just there's so many systems and so little me!
That could be a correct inference. It could also be the case that Sandro simply wants to exert an influence on relative populations and thinks a bonus might work, irrespective of its actual effect on PP.
Nah, we don't get let into any more info than the regular members. We try and wheedle info out of Zac and Brett all the time, but they don't tell us anything except to repeat "NDA" or just laugh at us
I'll guess a little from column A and a little from column B.
And ill take a P please Bob.
I got chased out of CZs trying to stop player from undermining and got chased out when I was undermining. People tried to stop me from delivering cargo, but my Conda shrugged them off.
I've never been killed doing PP activities, but definitely had resistance. I know the game too well to be blown up when I don't want to be blown up in Open.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I get that, that's why I ignored it and gave an example to show PP can easily disadvantage certain groups if implemented in certain ways, and now it's creating an disadvantage for Open, and we should look at it as if it's disadvantaging any other mode or modes.
Well, I was wrong - the 0% shows up because the system is in turmoil and is supposed to represent "no data". The fortification is already completed according to 3rd party sites.
Maybe a "no data" on the galaxy map would be a bit clearer.
Again, you seem to not fully understand my examples before trying to undermine them.
The disadvantage PP inflicts is an integral part of the game design, by extension, PP's design.
My example clearly shows that blowing up that hard NPC in any mode will count as one kill regardless, hence it's equal in design. The execution/pragmatic observation is that lone players have it harder on them whereas cooperative players have a competitive edge. How does that deviate anywhere from the current situation of natural incentives toward solo and private?
Lone players can take on the hard NPC, but it requires a tremendous amount of skill and proper outfitting. Then will people argue that lone players should "just work with other people in private group to be competitive?"
How different is that from saying "just play in private and solo?"
It shows how suddenly one type of player gets disadvantaged and it will cause people to raise up in arms about inequality whereas this inequality is ignored when other players are suffering from it.
As for your last few points, don't make statements, support them, otherwise they're empty and I'm not going to reply to them since I can just say the opposite of what you say and provide no supporting reasoning. Suggesting that combative PvP is a detriment to PP gameplay is simply betraying the concept that PvP is an integral component to the game.
Edit:
PP disadvantage shows a inequality of modes under the competitive scope, which is the design of the mechanic.
Last edited:
There is no such thing as 'the threat of a risk'. Risk is already a potential thing. Whether it crystalizes into something bad actually happening to you or not doesn't change that a priori. If your knowledge of a system is too incomplete for you to hold absolute certainty either way, then risk exists and needs to be compensated priori, or else nobody will take that risk.
What you seem to want is to compensate players not for the risk, but to compensate them only whenever something bad occurs. Sadly this means that, to reach Sandro's goal of closing the gap between solo and open, that compensation would have to come in the shape of total reparation (in credits and merits) in the case the player loses his ship and his merits. That's obviously very bad game design, as it removes personal responsibility and the sole point of attacking another player in PP.
Now what can be done, is to make the bonus vary depending on how dangerous a system is. IMO We know some systems will be safer than others, so the compensation for operating in them can be lowered. But there still need to be a bonus a priori, however small.
- Status