Turmoil is bugged but if you're logged in a while it should (sometimes) should the right data...
Oh and the top turmoil system in the list for Aisling Duval was sitting at 0 when I was last there..
Last edited:
(info) First bonus for playing in OPEN under consideration for PP
- Thread starter Abil Midena
- Start date
- Status
Turmoil is bugged but if you're logged in a while it should (sometimes) should the right data...
Oh and the top turmoil system in the list for Aisling Duval was sitting at 0 when I was last there..
This distinction is only done for risk assessment, and guess what if you know and understand the Elite mechanics and if you know what a dedicated PK and griefe ris you know exactly that riks= hazard. because you know which ships are able to take you down and which not. There is no "exposure" in the terms of the given equation the Wiki page gives. Because Exposurer here is 100% if you ae close to this kind of opponent and the hazard just equals the risk. if ushc a player is able to get you he will, if he isn't he won't. It is actually that simple unless someone makes a total derp style maneuver.
Ok, add that to the list of
- bandwidth monitoring
- network "optimization"
- jumprange "optimization"
- shield and weapon "optimization"
- teleporting out of a station "optimization"
and probably half a dozen more mechanics used by players to "optimize" their risk vs. reward, that make open such an inviting, gentlemanly environment to share with fellow players.
(sad but true, that's the junk you stumble upon while looking for useful information on reddit)
Last edited:
Hello Commanders!
Lots of lively debate here, for sure, but let's keep things civil, please. I understand that this is an emotive subject, but remember, that's never an excuse for being rude.
So, just to let you folk know a little more of the reasoning behind the concept of an Open Play bonus, I thought I'd pop this out.
Elite Dangerous is a game where you can just as easily play solo, in groups or as part of a nation, as it were.
In general, there aren't mechanical befits within the game to push you towards one style of play over another.
However, there are a few aspects of the game that are specifically aimed at utilising the fact that the game has multiplayer facets, one of these is Powerplay.
Powerplay is unique in that it explicitly *enforces* adversarial multiplayer by making Commanders choose sides. You are no longer fighting against the vagaries of the galaxy; you are competing directly with Commanders pledged to opposing powers.
In addition, Powerplay has rules to handle direct Commander-Commander confrontation. Indeed, this is the core conceit: the system encourages justifiable piracy and homicide for a higher purpose. It’s my belief that Powerplay will always be at its best when opposing Commanders interact directly, whether in an expansion conflict zone or through interdiction.
So it feels natural (to me) to look at ways to encourage Commanders to use Open Play. However, It’s also fairly clear that human opposition is potentially, and generally speaking, much more of a significant threat than NPCs.
Now we have to consider probabilities. Yes, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that you might never run into a human opponent in a control system, even playing in open. The fact remains however, that you *might* instead run into several. And this is on top of the standard NPC threat, which is identical in all play modes.
What’s more, the more pledged Commanders that play in Open, the greater the likelihood there is of human interaction and conflict.
There are thousands of Commanders that engage to some degree or another in Powerplay. Some play in Open, some don’t. If we are successful in getting more Commanders into Open, then the potential for them bumping into each other could increase rather significantly.
And there’s another point to make here, that’s quite simple but also fairly undeniable, is that playing in Open you don’t just meet other Commanders pledged to Powers. You meet *all* other Commanders. That includes all sorts of scum and villainy (character persona only, of course).
So what would an Open Play Success bonus actually achieve? The idea is that it’s a reward for taking the additional risk, whether the risk actually manifests or not.
If you care about Powerplay, and care that you power does well in it, then playing in Open is a “force multiplier” for your Power’s strength.
If you generally play in a Private Group or in Solo, it’s also a gamble, because in addition to all the NPC challenges you have the possibility of opposing Commanders engaging you.
If you already play in Open then you could treat this bonus as a reward for working with the game to make it the best it can be for all involved.
As to the size of the bonus, well, that’s up for grabs. Clearly it would have to be reasonably large to have the potential to cause significant change, but I’m not too worried about the details of that at the moment, I’m more interested in what folk make of the concept in general.
Of course, it’s equally important to remember that this is, at the moment, just being raised as an idea, nothing more. Everyone’s opinion is equally valid, even in disagreement, and all feedback is useful.
Lots of lively debate here, for sure, but let's keep things civil, please. I understand that this is an emotive subject, but remember, that's never an excuse for being rude.
So, just to let you folk know a little more of the reasoning behind the concept of an Open Play bonus, I thought I'd pop this out.
Elite Dangerous is a game where you can just as easily play solo, in groups or as part of a nation, as it were.
In general, there aren't mechanical befits within the game to push you towards one style of play over another.
However, there are a few aspects of the game that are specifically aimed at utilising the fact that the game has multiplayer facets, one of these is Powerplay.
Powerplay is unique in that it explicitly *enforces* adversarial multiplayer by making Commanders choose sides. You are no longer fighting against the vagaries of the galaxy; you are competing directly with Commanders pledged to opposing powers.
In addition, Powerplay has rules to handle direct Commander-Commander confrontation. Indeed, this is the core conceit: the system encourages justifiable piracy and homicide for a higher purpose. It’s my belief that Powerplay will always be at its best when opposing Commanders interact directly, whether in an expansion conflict zone or through interdiction.
So it feels natural (to me) to look at ways to encourage Commanders to use Open Play. However, It’s also fairly clear that human opposition is potentially, and generally speaking, much more of a significant threat than NPCs.
Now we have to consider probabilities. Yes, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that you might never run into a human opponent in a control system, even playing in open. The fact remains however, that you *might* instead run into several. And this is on top of the standard NPC threat, which is identical in all play modes.
What’s more, the more pledged Commanders that play in Open, the greater the likelihood there is of human interaction and conflict.
There are thousands of Commanders that engage to some degree or another in Powerplay. Some play in Open, some don’t. If we are successful in getting more Commanders into Open, then the potential for them bumping into each other could increase rather significantly.
And there’s another point to make here, that’s quite simple but also fairly undeniable, is that playing in Open you don’t just meet other Commanders pledged to Powers. You meet *all* other Commanders. That includes all sorts of scum and villainy (character persona only, of course).
So what would an Open Play Success bonus actually achieve? The idea is that it’s a reward for taking the additional risk, whether the risk actually manifests or not.
If you care about Powerplay, and care that you power does well in it, then playing in Open is a “force multiplier” for your Power’s strength.
If you generally play in a Private Group or in Solo, it’s also a gamble, because in addition to all the NPC challenges you have the possibility of opposing Commanders engaging you.
If you already play in Open then you could treat this bonus as a reward for working with the game to make it the best it can be for all involved.
As to the size of the bonus, well, that’s up for grabs. Clearly it would have to be reasonably large to have the potential to cause significant change, but I’m not too worried about the details of that at the moment, I’m more interested in what folk make of the concept in general.
Of course, it’s equally important to remember that this is, at the moment, just being raised as an idea, nothing more. Everyone’s opinion is equally valid, even in disagreement, and all feedback is useful.
Thanks for your comments Sandro. It's always great to see some elaboration and clarification from the Dev team.
I recently made a lengthy reply to your initial thread in the power-play section now that I have formed an opinion and slept on it.
While I agree with pretty much all of the above:
"PP is better in open."
"PP is meant to encourage PvP action"
and so on.
I agree with the direction you're going here, but I do feel that it is important to keep the groups "equal" in doing so. IMO, buffing the effect that one mode has on the BGS over others is making them unequal, and that is something I would handle very carefully here, considering FD's promise of "Three equal modes."
I think what ever change is made to the PP mechanics needs to respect that promise. I'm not sure this proposed change does that.
I completely agree with the "Equality through different Treatment" concept.
The matter of fact is that the 3 modes are not equal between them, no matter how much the masses bark. The developers have the final consideration about where, when and how to adjust the inequalities.
The matter of fact is that the 3 modes are not equal between them, no matter how much the masses bark. The developers have the final consideration about where, when and how to adjust the inequalities.
That is not equality. Equality requires everything to be treated equally regardless of output/effect/mitigating factors. Everyone gets one box. The results that come from that equal treatment are inequitable.
Treating the modes differently to create equitable output between them is treating them unequally.
Alrighty, so Open gets the love they wanted, can Solo, and by extension everyone else, be next on the list Sandro?
Specifically, NPC wingmates for hire, and NPC crew in 2.3?
So according to you, everyone have to pay the same taxes?
1000$ of taxes! What, you are without job and with three babies? That's not my problem! Everyone is the same, everyone pays the same! Look at that billionarie! See? he pays his 1000$ without complaining! Equality man!
Sorry but, "Equality through different treatment" exists precisely because outputs/effects/mitigating factors DO matter. That's why lots of people don't pay taxes at all.
If it's the HIP 95... example that you posted a little back, I have bad news for you, systems in turmoil don't show the amount of fortification/undermining (it's a bug).
This is what a lot of people forget/ignore when entering a Open vs Solo discussion.
What are you talking about? What does this have to do with taxation IRL?
This is about the Dev team treating one game mode differently than the other two. It is about the Dev team treating one game mode unequally. That breaks a long standing promise they have made to many players.
Read my past comments in the thread. Equality is not intrinsically good or bad. The fact that all game modes are equal creates inequitable results, and that's bad.
Equality through different treatment is not equality, it is equity. Treating two things differently means treating them unequally. Definitively.
Last edited:
I love this idea. Thank you for the added clarification, Sandro!
V E R Y slippery slope you're plunging headlong towards here.
Agreed.V E R Y slippery slope you're plunging headlong towards here.
Omg Sandro I love you.
Indeed...V E R Y slippery slope you're plunging headlong towards here.
If powerplay is indeed intended as primarily something for players in open (and oriented around pvp as a result) to do, then why not reduce, though not eliminate as that would remove almost all purpose in doing it, it's effects on the BGS. So people who don't like to play in open and encounter pvp as much, and would be handicapped by this proposed change to powerplay, are impacted less by it.
I don't fully agree PP is head on PvP - it is clearly meta game, but it is more like invisible thug of war, not full blown conflict in Open. Also I don't think multipliers are way to make Open more interesting, or make PP more engaging. Such details attract only completitionists, while rest of players feel indifferent. As in the past I have been more in favor of mode switching cooldowns and cosmetic and other interesting rewards for people playing in Open. Crunching numbers with increased pace is a bit meh, and really doubtful it is positive change you are looking for. I agree it might be easiest way to do this...but don't follow that path. I don't agree slippery slope argument, but this can be done better.
- Status