You can not be forced to click Solo or Groups.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
If you choose to do so, yes.
(info) First bonus for playing in OPEN under consideration for PP
- Thread starter Abil Midena
- Start date
- Status
You can not be forced to click Solo or Groups.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
If you choose to do so, yes.
Do you read your own writing? PP is doing exactly that right now. Open players are being forced into a non-preferred mode (private/solo) for a guaranteed tangible benefit (complete lack of player opposition).
Last edited:
No one is being forced.
I never argued for "force," I argue for coercion.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Well then let me choose not to get opposed in Open without cheating... oh wait...
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
I am arguing in his own term, I'm not using the word as you perceive it.
I pointed this out a page back I think.
Last edited:
That's what I was thinking, but, at least to me, unless the merit reward was massively substantial, it would still be faster, I think, to undermine or fortify.
There would have to be a balance point between the merit reward, and the time taken to launch, exit the no fire zone, die, and rebuy.
EDIT: I mean, people would have to set up a system (depending on the merits rewarded) to make it work well. You need, say 5 players. Four are constantly dying in rotation, rebuying, flying out, and dying. In an assembly line of exploitation.
You're right, groups would exploit the hell out of that.
Last edited:
> I argue they are one and the same.
> If you aren't inclined to play in Open, feel free to choose an alternate method.
It is only rational if you ignore the effectiveness of inhibiting other powers commanders, a option solo commanders do not have. In open you can undermine a system where commanders have to go pick up their fort materials, not only do you get to gain merits and undermine the opposition, you get to keep that commander from picking up his materials by blowing his T9 out of the sky every time he tries to go pick some up. Now, there is no metric for you blowing up T9s and the number of fort/expan/prep materials you denied, but that does not make that contribution null.
Give me the ground for that argument, how are they the same.
The inclination or the lack of inclination is caused by lack of rational incentive to enter Open, asking me to choose an alternative instead of solving the inequality is evading the problem and asking for negligence.
Let's say private and group play is used as path of least resistance for weary players who are afraid to lose their progress because they are conditioned that they are losers then ("you lost, haha! start this stage again"). Actual chance of that happening is not that important - even one such accident can scar people - and I kid you not - to the level of them not playing game again.
I don't think it is something FD can outright solve, nor I don't think they need to manipulate modes in any shape or form regarding their influence. As I said above, you can reward players sticking with open in other ways - other than influence or private gain in credits or rep.
I don't think it is something FD can outright solve, nor I don't think they need to manipulate modes in any shape or form regarding their influence. As I said above, you can reward players sticking with open in other ways - other than influence or private gain in credits or rep.
Last edited:
Coerce
1. to compel by force, intimidation, or authority, especially without regard for individual desire or volition:
2. to bring about through the use of force or other forms of compulsion; exact: to coerce obedience.
3. to dominate or control, especially by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.:
You're all wrong. It's a bribe.
:|
:|
Last edited:
keep discussing the stuff that matters not the fact that your lost in a dictionary Would the proposed bonus as it stands largely shift the most time efficient method of supporting your power from PvE in private/solo to PvE in open?
This inhibition is limited to only those that play in Open, which is a choice Solo players have in terms of entering Open. It's a tangible effectiveness. Whereas the other way around, Open player trying to inhibit Solo players is intangible. There is no way to enter someone's solo instance.
Thus it makes rational sense to avoid Open. The contribution you speak of can be nullified by the victim party not entering in Open (rationally), but the contribution done in solo in terms of "positive contribution" cannot be nullified. (Save FD server died/data lost/etc)
Now if we work with the assumption of this change in place, then there's ground to speak of this "negative contribution," for that now there's an equal rationality in terms of modes to enter.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
<Off topic>
Last edited:
Potentially most efficient.
If you complete your task with out hindrance, said task will be more efficient than if it had been completed in group or solo.
If you are obstructed, and unable to complete said task, I'd say that was much less efficient.
I hope the end effect averages out to an equitable contribution.
Last edited:
I do not see this happening in the slightest as there's no incentive to do so.
IMO it's also something that FD do not want : During PP beta I specifically asked FD (Michael) if they would consider making it a crime to shoot another player from your power. (In a similar fashion to defending yourself in an enemy power system, when you're locally clean, makes you locally wanted, which is illogical by the way but not for this thread) The idea behind it was to encourage cooperative play - to bring unlikely players together in harmony (like PvE and PvP players; or warring factions who align to the same power). They said no.
<shrug>
That's pretty much how I feel. No amount of extra rewards will bring me to Open, but change what I might lose instead and maybe I'll come play.
I'm quite happy with a Counterstrike or Battlefield style game, nothing lost except a few moments to respawn. In a game like this where there's far more to lose, I just won't consider it.
Not really, they would be just compensating inequalities.
That promise is void. The modes are not equal, they never weren't and they never will be. And with every new feature added to the game, the inequalities will just be more clear on plain sight. Privileges of manned ships? Interacting with other players in stations? Being the passenger on other's player ship? As the game evolves, that promise will be simply impossible to maintain.
Last edited:
- Status