You are right, my angle has to do with the equality of the modes, nothing more, nothing less, and I will consider my 'bias against open' next time I log into it....
Last edited:
(info) First bonus for playing in OPEN under consideration for PP
- Thread starter Abil Midena
- Start date
- Status
You are right, my angle has to do with the equality of the modes, nothing more, nothing less, and I will consider my 'bias against open' next time I log into it....
Well, that's the thing I do not really get.
Are they trying to fix Power Play, are they trying to make Open more appealing or are they trying to kill a stone with two birds?
If they want to fix Power Play maybe they should start with useability, basic mechanics and then work at the manyfold suggestions presented by *real powerplay players*. Not those who, despite being told weekly to stop overfortifying systems keep dumping the nearest to HQ one.
If they want to make open more appealing .. as mentioned before, make open *special*, not solo-grind on steroids. This also includes fixing some of the blatantly exploitable mechanics that "we don't talk about" here.
And well, yea, at one point in time accept that if they want to run an MMOG, they have to run it by MMOG standards. That "laissez faire" approach we've seen so far works only in a single player environment. As soon as you're pitted against another player, you have to know that there's a referee watching that he plays by the same rules as you do.
If you cheese Robigo Slave "smuggling" by taking an empty ship back to the bubble and rebuying your slaves there for a 50 million per hour, you're already cheating the player who earns his moneys "the hard way" by doing regular smuggling for a 20 million per hour.
Gluing an other highly exploitable (examples have been given) mechanics on top of a not very stable base is kinda counterproductive.
Last edited:
+1 for that laugh! Too good!
The issue is that those being done in would need compensation, I guess thats the best way to put it.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
> Key word, shouldn't. lol, so I guess Open is too big to fail?
Yes, because they gave the player groups, Minor factions to bring them back after PP went downhill so clearly it is ;P
I take this to mean that maybe other modifications to PP are in the pipeline? But maybe not for 2.1? It would be nice if we had more types of interactions than cargo fortification vs combat/pirate underminers (and the occasional CZ style direct combat vs combat interaction).
In particular, I think a non-combat cat & mouse style spy missions would be a welcome addition. This way people could participate in PP without quite as much risk as combat or fortification missions. We could use small faster ships to carry data while they were being hunted by other small fast ships with scanners. The mechanics would be very much like smuggling but with data packets instead of cargo. Scanning an opposing power's target with espionage data would effectively "steal" the data. Stolen data would cause the original carriers mission to fail, and would be of high value to the data thief.
These missions would be on a timer, like all smuggling missions. Stolen data would also be on a timer.
The ships could also try to destroy each other of course, but that might elicit a police response, and being scanned by the police would invalidate the data. This includes being scanned by your own police force since the espionage data would no longer be a state secret and subject to security leaks.
There would need be some new mechanics introduced for scanning of course. In particular, we would need a way to counter scan defenses such as using chaff, heatsinks, silent running, etc. Maybe have better scanners or sensor suites would be able to cut through chaff heat signature noise and stealth a little better?
Last edited:
Oh I get it, trust me, from interning for state representatives to reading political theorists telling me how transparency is sometimes a terrible thing, I get what you're trying to emphasize.
However, marketing isn't the same as politics. You lie, you get into office, as long as you don't do something stupid, people have to deal with you no matter how fat of a lie you told. But if you lie to the customers and start noticeably hide this and that, revenue is going to go down the drain.
Bartels' myopic voter theory fits here perfectly, it simply is silly to do this when the company counts on banking out an expansion every year.
So no, I disagree, that would be a terrible move and will eventually be uncovered or the mechanic itself will die out. I don't know if you were around, but when the big boys for the active factions went ballistic over the constant changes over the rules when the Empire got into trouble, we went through details after details and demanded more information. And we got it, not that we strong-armed FD into anything, but we simply demanded that as competitive players we want to know the rules and the mechanic of the game we're playing, we even got complex formulas to calculate overhead. (Not claiming any Empire bias here, got over those days)
I wonder if he is actually going to kill noobs, or if he just said that for the type of reaction you gave.
This will not happen.
Look, most of those who don't participate in PVP do so because they don't enjoy it (especially the Elite's gank edition). Do you really think many are going to risk it for a mostly pointless buff, especially if this buff is likely to increase the amount of PVP they were avoiding in the first place?
CCP has tried for a decade to get "carebears" to move to 0.0, in vain. Yet the community there is quite less reluctant to the idea than here as EVE's universe is much harsher than Elite's.
Last edited:
I guess its things like freedom fighters for example protecting a Minor Faction/system from a power if they are trying to exploit or control you.
Predicted result: most players who prefer solo or group will remain in solo or group. A few will cross over; they may stay in Open if they've got the resources and organization to be viable, but most won't. A somewhat larger group will feel that their contributions to their faction have been devalued to the point that they'll quit PowerPlay or the game entirely.
.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a system revolving around military action. If that's what you want PowerPlay to be, make it so. It'll be soldiers against soldiers. But if that's the plan, you might want an entirely different system for people who aren't soldiers... because putting boxes of candy in Sniper's Alley is just kind of scuzzy.
.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with a system revolving around military action. If that's what you want PowerPlay to be, make it so. It'll be soldiers against soldiers. But if that's the plan, you might want an entirely different system for people who aren't soldiers... because putting boxes of candy in Sniper's Alley is just kind of scuzzy.
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
I personally do not partake in Powerplay as it is not something that fits my style of play. I do however play almost exclusively in Open (except for taking hi-res screenshots) and I am intrigued by the idea. It is obvious that any kind of balancing would have to be carefully looked at in great detail, but I think that the idea is a good one. I would happily see more commanders want to play in Open and that is maybe the bigger picture, it should never feel as though it is forced upon you. 99% of people play in Open because they enjoy meeting and interacting with other Cmdrs, even if it's a quick chat.
That would be fun. Would this be applied per transaction? Would you have to remain in Open Play from the point of collecting merits to cashing them in order to claim the bonus as well?
One of the problems I see with fortification and undermining is the direction of trade. For example, Archon Delaine's marked slaves are collected in control systems and sent back to Harma. This means that pirates trying to oppose players directly would need to go to the very heart of the Kumo Crew's operation, or far less successfully, await traders as they pass through systems en route to Harma. It would be better IMO to reverse this, so that Delaine sends something to the control systems for both preparation and fortification.
On a side note, is anyone going to die soon? I'd really like to see a power killed off, hopefully Pranav Antal. Also, I know this is an extremely drastic change and you can laugh at me for mentioning it, but I think Hudson and Arissa should be removed from Powerplay, as they are the leaders, thus their influence is ubiquitous throughout the Empire/Federation.
Lastly, where do you normally fly? I've pirated Michael Brookes before, but not you nor David Braben. I need to steal from you, dammit!
I doubt it but it doesn't detract form the point.
You cannot/should not be able to create an averse situation, then turn around and demand recompense because of the averse situation. "You got yourself into this."
Last edited:
... Oh my god, it all makes so much sense now!> Key word, shouldn't. lol, so I guess Open is too big to fail?
> Key word, shouldn't. lol, so I guess Open is too big to fail?
I lol'd.
That would seem to be the case, eh?
What?
On this same train of thought, would you be pleased if NPC's were buffed to be as hard (and thus as likely to successfully kill you) as other players? Because that's what true equality among all modes would be. Right now, Solo and Private are not equal to open - they are significantly easier. For true parity across modes, the less risky modes would need to be made just as difficult. Or, alternately, you could reward people for taking the higher risk and going to Open.
Last edited:
You and I both agree that PP should be pulled and redone totally. That's evidently not going to happen, instead, they are trying to fix some of the issues that the design brings about, which is...yeah...that's why we both think it should be pulled and redone totally
Fixes to the 5th column/lost souls, probably a good idea no matter what, once you have an idea on how to deal with them, that can used in any form of PP, be it a bandaid as currently being discussed or built into the new improved version of PP, so that's a good place to start with. Test the ideas now on this version of PP, see if they work as intended, refine as needed.
The PP imbalance in the modes, well, that's what it is and it's based a lot on how PP works and what it's supposed to be. If it were Open only, this wouldn't be an issue at all, and it would put PP in the mode where it's intended mechanics are actually used, player vs player competition indirectly and directly.
However, PP is in all 3 modes and the imbalance is clear, we've known it since PP was added, Solo/Group are the best modes for doing PP, this isn't news, this isn't a secret, it's been known about, brought up and discussed by us, the players for months. FD has confirmed this, which is why Sandro made the proposal for this particular imbalance.
And here's the problem, people are tossing about equality and equity, and neither of those applies here, this is about balance, that's it. Each mode is supposed to be the same overall game experience as every other mode, the only difference between them is to be the social interaction you want, none, friends only, or everyone. Otherwise, doing PP in any mode should be the same as doing PP in any other mode. That's not how it's working however, it never has, and this proposal will correct that imbalance, and that's all it does, correct the imbalance between the modes directly for PP, by giving the Powers a modifier, no reward is giving directly to the player. It will work, the modifier will need to be messed with to get it correct, but it will work for the direct purpose of fixing the imbalance between modes for PP.
Again, I am not in favor of this proposal, it WILL fix the imbalance, but it's just a bandaid over a much deeper problem, which is that PP is just messed up and needs to be redone totally, and it should be an Open only option due to it being a directed player vs player game mechanic, that's per FD no less so no one can argue that point...not that they will let something like facts get in the way...
I disagree.
either you apply it to the BGS and the player's minor faction too, either you don't apply it at all, why a different treatment between players that want to compete using PP and players who want to compete using the BGS ?
You said after the PP release that it was fine if a majority of players didn't like PP, but now it seems that you want to force every player that want to interact between groups to use the PP mechanisms and not the BGS...
Ozric
Volunteer Moderator
- Status