(info) First bonus for playing in OPEN under consideration for PP

[Aewarin Jameson]

As an aside, I'm actually quite surprised there's so much discussion - I thought PP was pretty much dead as far as most players were concerned. Good on you guys for keeping the lights on.

Couldn't care less about PP - board game in space with illogical crime rules.

I care about the prescient it sets as you and I both know FDs track record

 

[Bacalao]

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.

Well, when everybody leaves open you'll have a point (of course at that point it's just like solo). If they enter solo, they can't stop you in open, as you pointed out you can't stop them in solo, of course, they can't stop you in open. You're now on equal ground. Add a benefit to make open more effective than solo and you've removed the competitive equality.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Not really, they would be just compensating inequalities.

The inequalities are compensated by everyone's option to switch into solo at any time. *cough*
Even our hardcore voices of open kinda hinted at having done that.
The modes might not be equal, but as long as noone (but the poor Xbox players) is blocked from using them equally .. ermm .. the only issue is really lack of discipline and sticking to that one mode that you adamantly defend, regardless of advantages or disatvantages.

In a condensed version -> everyone can play any mode at any time so far. Some think that's not fair and come up with elaborate excuses.

Offer me a billion credits, a new computer or dancing hampsters if I meet you 10 minutes in open. I double dare you.

 

[Cosmos]

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>

You lose merits if you kill another player from your power. For the Empire same even if diff powers affilated to the Empire.. And when I played PP seeing another member of my power almost always resulted in positive communication.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

There is zero benefit to being solo if you would not have been killed in open anyway. You're choosing a different mode due to the possibility of opposition. Giving an artificial benefit to open is a guaranteed benefit. You're getting it regardless of you getting attacked or not. You're wanting a 100% guaranteed benefit for the possibility of being attacked. It's not that difficult to understand. That is inequality.

I can't rep you for this Evolved as you said some equally smart things earlier on

You lose merits if you kill another player from your power.

So it has been changed then ? Well, that's a surprise and a good thing!

Tell me also - do you still become wanted if you defend yourself when in an enemy powers system, even if you are locally clean there ? (That was a huge logic fail for me)

 

[Cosmos]

Couldn't care less about PP - board game in space with illogical crime rules.

I care about the prescient it sets as you and I both know FDs track record

But Liqua, you've said yourself you don't really play the game much ?? That said, PP does still need love and attention even if Sandros suggestion is implemented.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Tell me also - do you still become wanted if you defend yourself when in an enemy powers system, even if you are locally clean there ? (That was a huge logic fail for me)

Not sure, can't remember given I only played it for a few months fully. I would think so but others could confirm, if not it should be changed.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Well, when everybody leaves open you'll have a point (of course at that point it's just like solo). If they enter solo, they can't stop you in open, as you pointed out you can't stop them in solo, of course, they can't stop you in open. You're now on equal ground. Add a benefit to make open more effective than solo and you've removed the competitive equality.

Well, actually, it's still unequal, for that Solo players have the option to enter Open to interfere and engage the negative contribution you brought up. Whereas Open players have no way of entering the solo. (Not suggesting the removal of any modes before anyone gets too agitated)

So no, it's not equal.

Competitive equality for modes mean that all modes are equally encouraged and only swayed by preference of gameplay not some modes having more of a competitive edge in the present situation.

If Open is full of people- Negative contribution can exist

If everyone is in private/solo- Little to no negative contribution can exist

Negative contribution requires players

Positive contribution does not require players

Positive contribution is more secure and reliable of a method to PP

Positive contribution is accessible in all modes

What's a mode without negative contribution? Oh... it's private and solo.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

If you feel that you are genuinely using coerce correctly within context, so be it. You are hereby being coerced out of Open mode.

Lol, the point isn't about being correct, it's about understanding that words are just human constructs and convention that we should give intersubjective consideration for, not that there are some absolute objective truth is behind them.

I get what you're trying to say by using the word "coercion," you get what I'm trying to say by using the word "coercion." It might be that my understanding of coercion is yours for force and your understanding of force is mine for coercion. It isn't the words at war, it's our understanding of the word. Yet we are very well aware of what we are trying to express by using the word, so let's focus on that instead of some set-in-stone definition, or we have a sovereign that tells us exactly what a word means and be the absolute arbiter.

That's what Hobbes' trying to tell people, that's all.

And yes, I'm being coerced out of Open mode to play PP in the current implementation of the competitive mechanic known as PP.

 

[Jesse Blue]

The inequalities are compensated by everyone's option to switch into solo at any time. *cough*
Even our hardcore voices of open kinda hinted at having done that.
The modes might not be equal, but as long as noone (but the poor Xbox players) is blocked from using them equally .. ermm .. the only issue is really lack of discipline and sticking to that one mode that you adamantly defend, regardless of advantages or disatvantages.

In a condensed version -> everyone can play any mode at any time so far. some think that's not fair and come up with elaborate excuses.

So you are no different from those saying that everyone should play in open.

Since you switch mode whenever you see fit (convenient) others should do the same, right?

Switching modes is an option. Everyone can play at any mode at any time, but some actually choose to play in a single mode exclusively. Because that's their option. They have the option to switch, and they choose not to do so.

For those that choose not to do so, there's inequality.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

But Liqua, you've said yourself you don't really play the game much ??

Comes and goes in waves ... still allowed to have an opinion though, and you know me

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Mines this big .. does that count ?

(cut it out before a mod locks the thread)

 

[Mobius]

I hope that Sandro puts all this into place and will stop people moaning about Solo and Private groups undermining those in open.
what will happen next will be to force players out of solo and private group by removing community goal contributions and payouts for Solo/private players.
then it will be to reduce payouts for Data gathered for explorers while in solo/private.


But in the end its not going to change anything, you are still going to get groups of players demanding that open belongs to them and making others their content, your still going to get player killers doing it for the lulz, and players will still moan that commanders are going into solo and private groups.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I hope that Sandro puts all this into place and will stop people moaning about Solo and Private groups undermining those in open.
what will happen next will be to force players out of solo and private group by removing community goal contributions and payouts for Solo/private players.
then it will be to reduce payouts for Data gathered for explorers while in solo/private.

Don't worry Mobius, if they start touching CG and exploration, I'll fighting it just as hard.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

Mines this big .. does that count ?

(cut it out before a mod locks the thread)

I know right? I suppose Kant's teleology of human maturity and enlightenment shall never have its end in sight at this rate.

*Chuckles in the background*

 

[GilliganTX]

Not really, they would be just compensating inequalities.

That is fallacy. They are compensating inequities by modifying a mechanic to apply an unequal effect based on game mode, where currently effects are equal.

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.

I disagree, the game modes are equal at present and that promise has been largely upheld thus far. There have been a few deviations that are currently being corrected for.

Re-read some of my posts to understand me when I say that because certain mechanics have different effectiveness and usability between different game modes does not make them unequal, it makes them inequitable. In fact, it is inequitable because all modes are treated equally.

 

[GilliganTX]

I really like Kant's postulations on the nature of reality.

 

[Banana's_Are_Good_For_You]

Maybe I'm just getting rusty as I've been playing less, but the NPCs are seeming very difficult to me. Often I'll lose against targets on even ground, in my Viper.

Beside some of the more noticeable bugs mentioned...there's a reason for that. I don't imagine you running around with as many hull reinforcements in your ship as you can, especially if in a Viper, whereas a lot of the players complaining about "no challenge" have things stacked way up their patooties. This stacking is threatening to de-stabilize the game for those who choose not to.
This is one of the core, fundamental problems this game has.
The Meta is stopping players from being able to play the game.

You're now feeling the effects of the shift in the same way I have to run with hull reinforcements when exploring local systems in an Asp Scout when I would like to have a buggy but I can die too fast to railgun packing Elite ships if I don't have reinforcements.

Playing in the weaker ships is becoming that much more difficult.

I will digress as this thread is about other things though.

Generally:
Simple solution to players putting all their fortifications into the closest system would be to cap it and since I'm feeling particularly evil today, just don't even warn, just don't reward.
I like the vote up / down expansions thing but as for the rest, you can't fix humans.
You can only stop them from doing things if you have the power to do so and that does not lie with me.

 

[Boomer Kay]

For those that choose not to do so, there's inequality.

Ah. They ancient cake problem .. to eat or to keep.
Choice, once chosen turns into restrictions.
How can people cope with such mind boggling options. Madness!

And you missed your oppertunity to witness true strength of will just to keep those dancing hamsters to yourself.

I don't care where someone plays, why or for how long. I just don't think it will fix any real power play issues or make open actually more attractive for anyone, if all they do is add some bonus.

It might create another group of people who feel coerced into open and start despising the game because they put weird pixel advantages over their enjoyment. See: the grind discussion.

 

[Starlear]

Just my 2 cents, I don't think a person makes it hard, it's more like roaming gank-squads that engage in 4v1 encounters that make things dangerous. NPC's can be a threat, we just don't see the Elite/proper-loadout ones very often.

I know. I'm advocating that NPC's should also do that, on top of using tactics that players would use (like silent running, all-railgun builds).

 

[Kissinger]

Just fix the missions, then we'd all have something else to do.

All this wasted effort on PowerPants when you could have been working on something else. PowerPants is like 6 dimensional chess, with a committee of umpires changing the rules. Totally wasted effort.

 

[Evolved]

I know. I'm advocating that NPC's should also do that, on top of using tactics that players would use (like silent running, all-railgun builds).

Balancing AI is a tricky thing in a game without a difficulty slider. Not every person has the same skill level or tolerances towards difficulty. What's acceptably difficult for you, may not necessarily be the proper acceptable difficulty for someone else. It's the reason balance is always one of the hardest things to get right in any multi player game.

 

[Jypson]

I know. I'm advocating that NPC's should also do that, on top of using tactics that players would use (like silent running, all-railgun builds).

I would argue that 4v1 gank-squad NPC's wouldn't be very fair in Solo.