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

[Mohrgan]

Only if you take no issues with sophistry.

Like the idea that open suffers PP influence because there's no PvP Combat threat? Or that that issue should be addressed by an overall bonus to open, rather than rewarding PP aligned PvP, the actual threat, rather than a risk of greater threat? Or some cooked up theory about 'Competitive Scope' should justify a distinction between PP and the BGS? Or to ignore the fact that the competition is a PvE contest?

I think I get what you mean.

 

[Kristov]

It does. That's exactly what makes all of the modes equal just as they are. Play where you want, you can change your mind at anytime. Re-balancing towards open only show favoritism, and concern over the population, not parity.

Look, you aren't arguing from a point of reason or facts, you are using emotional arguments only, and they are bad ones at that that disregard the facts presented. Your bias is clear, you won't look at anything that isn't in total agreement with your view. Some of us aren't doing that, we find it rather silly to argue emotionally over a factual thing, like this particular subject.

Fact, people use Solo/Group over Open to do PP activities because there is an actual advantage to doing so.
Fact, Sandro's proposal will remove the actual advantage to doing PP activities in Solo/Group by giving Open a bonus that rewards the Power, not the player directly or indirectly.

If enough people feel that PP is truly about the Powers, then enough of them will do PP activities in Open instead of switching to Solo/Group to fix the imbalance. If they do not feel that PP is truly about the Powers, then they won't, the imbalance will remain.

Fact, there is no incentive to the PLAYERS to take a greater risk by doing PP activities in Open, which leads me to believe this fix, while logical and viable, will not net the result intended by it.

There is NO incentive being given the players to play in Open in this proposal, you keep saying that's all it is about, but you keep forgetting that there is no such incentive. Players get NOTHING, why do you keep stating they are being offered a bribe to play in Open, why do you keep insisting this is an incentive program to force people to Open? I understand you don't use reason or logic in your arguments, but this total lack of basing your arguments on even the bare bones facts and making stuff up is just baffling to me.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Fold

I think he's making a distinction between sophistry and philosophy and their very distinct way of approaching reasoning. The first is about rhetorics and persuasion, the latter is about some form of truth through the dialectics.

You know... anyone that read The Republic​ will understand...

 

[GilliganTX]

"Because I said so" is what I say to my kids.
That doesn't fly with my clients.

I didn't say it was a good answer, but it's why we're having this conversation, is it not?

Huh? So whatever wasnt promised cannot be a big deal?

In the context of my POV regarding this change, yes (and no).

TLDR version, IMO, the modes are currently equal. Supported by the fact that the developers, at present, treat all modes equally (no hard-coded advantages to game mechanics depending on mode). To me that satisfies the promise of "three equal modes."

Keeping that promise is important because keeping promises is important. I would be less inclined to do business with a company which had a penchant for promising one thing, and delivering another.

FD never promised and "equal incentive" to play in all three modes, so it is not paramount to company integrity to provide this. That is what I mean by "not as big of a deal."



Not any gameplay reasons.

Then think about this, I'm not using this for any shock factor nor do I intend to be racist nor imply anyone here to be racist. I have no intention of making light nor joke of the scenario. Therefore I wish everyone examine the following scenario with a solemn mind:

You live in the segregation era, nowhere close to 1964, you have a choice to be any race you wish and have any pigment of skin, but you are of the oppressed and discriminated.

Sure, you live under a constitution that states that all [people] are created equal and there's a 14th amendment that guarantee you equal protection under the law. The government continue to tell everyone that everyone's equal, but just separate.

If you give this choice to everyone during that era, want to take a guess how quickly white/anglo saxon population will spike through the roof and agricultural production will fail in certain region of the country? Status of the country aside, how do you feel personally about the situation?


Now look back at the topic of discussion.


You play in the current PP setting, you have a choice to choose whatever mode you play in.

Sure, the developers tell you all modes are equal.

You know you want to play Open Mode for player interaction, but you also know that the competitive reality is that private and solo modes are the way to go.

So, do you betray what you are as a person having certain preference of gameplay and enter private/solo? Do you think there is some sort of equality there?

Do you not feel the slightest dissatisfaction and disappointment?

IMO, that argument assumes that facilities provided for each group were actually equal, when the fact was that one group was provided with better water fountains, schools, bathrooms, etc, than the other.

There was a blatant endorsement of one group over another by providing them with better, more effective tools/facilities. They were never treated equally by the government. On paper they had equal rights, but those rights were never secured.


The analogy doesn't work.

 

[Mohrgan]

I think he's making a distinction between sophistry and philosophy and their very distinct way of approaching reasoning. The first is about rhetorics and persuasion, the latter is about some form of truth through the dialectics.

You know... anyone that read The Republic​ will understand...

Inquiring about my credentials again? The distinction flows both ways.

 

[GluttonyFang]

The analogy doesn't work.

I think you focused on a part of the analogy that was less prominent.

The example makes you a person of the oppressed and discriminated population, but you have a choice.

Do you betray your sense of identity as a person and become another due to unequal incentives?

Or do you affirm your identity as a person and deal with the disadvantage?

 

[Ozram]

Like the idea that open suffers PP influence because there's no PvP Combat threat? Or that that issue should be addressed by an overall bonus to open, rather than rewarding PP aligned PvP, the actual threat, rather than a risk of greater threat? Or some cooked up theory about 'Competitive Scope' should justify a distinction between PP and the BGS? Or to ignore the fact that the competition is a PvE contest?

I think I get what you mean.

I'm not sure you do, unless you believe all those arguments are posted in order to mislead the reader for some other side goal (like forcing people to join Open), but that's not what's going on here, so your example would be incorrect. I assume this because what started the thread was a discussion on a dev suggestion. If you disagree that there is an inequity which discourages players from engaging in pp from Open, then perhaps try and argue your case. Regardless, my comment was a direct reply to a value judgement on the purpose of arguments. Yours was a glib reply which adds little to the conversation.

 

[Mohrgan]

I think you focused on a part of the analogy that was less prominent.

The example makes you a person of the oppressed and discriminated population, but you have a choice.

Do you betray your sense of identity as a person and become another due to unequal incentives?

Or do you affirm your identity as a person and deal with the disadvantage?

Playing in open is a choice, a choice you can make at any time you like, unlike race. If you get rewards for being red in the red zone, be red. Especially if you can get the bonus for being blue anytime you want as well. Equal, open access removes any imbalance, besides one you may choose to take on yourself.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Inquiring about my credentials again? The distinction flows both ways.

Nope, not inquiry, a statement. Anyone that read The Republic or even just sat in on a lecture about Plato/Socrates will instantly get what Ozram meant by mentioning "sophistry" in the context he brought it up.

If you think I am somehow making fun of your ignorance, you are very much off the mark and should be ashamed to think I'm senseless enough to launch ad hominem for no reason.

 

[Mohrgan]

I'm not sure you do, unless you believe all those arguments are posted in order to mislead the reader for some other side goal (like forcing people to join Open), but that's not what's going on here, so your example would be incorrect. I assume this because what started the thread was a discussion on a dev suggestion. If you disagree that there is an inequity which discourages players from engaging in pp from Open, then perhaps try and argue your case. Regardless, my comment was a direct reply to a value judgement on the purpose of arguments. Yours was a glib reply which adds little to the conversation.

I do. I believe they are all just veiled arguments that playing in open deserves special consideration.

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

Nope, not inquiry, a statement. Anyone that read The Republic or even just sat in on a lecture about Plato/Socrates will instantly get what Ozram meant by mentioning "sophistry" in the context he brought it up.

If you think I am somehow making fun of your ignorance, you are very much off the mark and should be ashamed to think I'm senseless enough to launch ad hominem for no reason.

I would have to agree that I was trying to mislead. I as not, not any more than you are.....

 

[GluttonyFang]

Playing in open is a choice, a choice you can make at any time you like, unlike race. If you get rewards for being red in the red zone, be red. Especially if you can get the bonus for being blue anytime you want as well. Equal, open access removes any imbalance, besides one you may choose to take on yourself.

Hah... please re-read the analogy, if everything in the analogy could come true, it's not an analogy, it's a citation of historical occurrence, which it was not.

You are just repeating your irrational argument about how unequal incentive between selection of modes under a competitive scope is somehow justified as equality. Saying it over and over doesn't suddenly make it rational.

 

[GilliganTX]

I think you focused on a part of the analogy that was less prominent.

The example makes you a person of the oppressed and discriminated population, but you have a choice.

Do you betray your sense of identity as a person and become another due to unequal incentives?

Or do you affirm your identity as a person and deal with the disadvantage?

I guess that depends on how important that identity is to me.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I guess that depends on how important that identity is to me.

I apologize if I offended, it was not the intention. I am a racial minority, fyi (Asian).

 

[Mohrgan]

<snip>

Saying it over and over doesn't suddenly make it rational.

This is what we are saying to each other. I don;t accept your justification, and you won;t address my core question. We deserve each other.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I do. I believe they are all just veiled arguments that playing in open deserves special consideration.

But yet you provide no convincing rational argument that supports that speculation, nothing but repetition of what you said over and over without any consideration for others' arguments.

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

This is what we are saying to each other. I don;t accept your justification, and you won;t address my core question. We deserve each other.

I addressed your questions, what question did I not address? Also, you haven't provided any rational argument against mine. The funniest one is "rational argument isn't the best." But it only has comedic value.

 

[Ozram]

I do. I believe they are all just veiled arguments that playing in open deserves special consideration.

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


I would have to agree that I was trying to mislead. I as not, not any more than you are.....

In that case, you clearly do understand what I was getting at; we simply disagree. It's a shame not to make an effort to elevate the argument though, rather than sinking to the perceived tactics of those with whom you don't concur. I say this because I don't think it has to be an us vs them situation as most of us genuinely are looking to make the game as enjoyable as possible.
Right now I tend to agree with the central premise that there is an inequity in the modes of play when it comes to partaking in pp. The advantage of being able to avoid any direct opposition by avoiding open is obvious to me. If you disagree with this, then please state how you've come to a different conclusion.

 

[Kristov]

I apologize if I offended, it was not the intention. I am a racial minority, fyi (Asian).

Funny, never pictured you as a white, heterosexual 35 yr old married man with conservative values... Bah, you added that (Asian) bit while I was typing...ruined my joke...damned furball... I'm Cherokee and Caucasian myself, could be either from looks, got lots of flack as a kid depending on who I was around...Cherokees treating me bad because of my white blood, whites treating me bad because I've got brown skin...now I just get treated like a big scary guy, long hair and a big long full beard while being 6'1" and 210...people tend to be polite at least while they hide their wallets and women

 

[Mohrgan]

But yet you provide no convincing rational argument that supports that speculation, nothing but repetition of what you said over and over without any consideration for others' arguments.

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



I addressed your questions, what question did I not address?

I feel that I have done a good job at explaining my many reasons for opposing the suggested PP bonus. I never thought I would change your mind. My hope is to use your argument as a foil to convince Sandro, and FD to change their minds. I expect a much easier time with their position, than anyone else on the forums.

The question is: "Why should your personal choice in game play, have any affect on anyone else?" "How does choosing to play in open require any consideration at all?

 

[GilliganTX]

I apologize if I offended, it was not the intention. I am a racial minority, fyi (Asian).

Not at all.

I'm from a predominantly Hispanic area and (despite my grandfather being born in Mexico City) caught plenty of flak for being a guero (gringo).

That sometimes put me at a disadvantage in a lot of social situations growing up, I have no qualms about it, as I'm sure it's also come with other advantages later in life.




That's my answer though. My willingness to compromise what ever identity I may be holding for "an easier path" is dependent on how important that identity is to me.




I have walked away from plenty of situations where I had every reason/incentive to indulge simply for the sake of maintaining my self identity.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Now we moved from utterly unimportant computer game choices to racial questions?

Hmmmm. I'm better at a Japanese heirloom martial art than 98% of natural born Japanese. (The other 2%, including some cute 70 year old grannies and 10 year old high school boys just stomp me into the ground, though) I know words they've never heard and understand concepts they're utterly unfamiliar with. Freckles, I can bow better than most Japanese, which is their signature greeting in everyday life and they're sloppy at it.
What does that make me?

A guy with a weird hobby.