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

[Mohrgan]

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.

If you go through this thread, and others on the same base issue, you will see that I do. Recently I have been pushing this one in order to highlight what I see as the base issue. The notion that open is special and requires extra effort to bring targets into that mode. Rather than just accepting the fact that only those that enjoy open world PvP will regularly play in open.

PP is a series of PvE activities. If one players sees an advantage to playing is Solo, by what justification do you subsidize open, rather than just suggest that the player use Solo?

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

If (When?) they implement the bonus we'll see what motivated it.

If it's substantial, it'll be a carrot to lure people out in Open.
If it's minor, it'll be a compensation for the minor extra risk in Open.

You forgot the 3rd:
If it leads onto other things we will know it was spin.

 

[GluttonyFang]

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.

Well, good luck with that, I've done nothing but providing further justification and reason for proceeding with the change, even wrote detailed proposal on how some conceptual mechanics can come into life. If you want to convince me into your camp, use rational arguments and don't grasp at straws, it's the fastest way.

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?

The answer is:

Currently, players that enter Solo and Private due to a rational incentive under the competitive scope are causing people to massively migrating into private and solo despite not enjoying the modes themselves.

People's choices of mode of gameplay don't have any effect on others.

Choosing to play in Open for the competitive mechanic known as PP is currently irrational of a choice due to solo/private's competitive edge, thus betraying the idea of proportionate equality, and the purpose of PP being a PvP and competitive mechanic. Modes are not being incentivized equally, thus we need to rectify the situation.

Thus, Open is not requiring any consideration, PP as a mechanic, on the other hand, is what is requiring the consideration, and as a result of that, Open Mode is being reimbursed for its lack of incentive to engage PP in.

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

If you go through this thread, and others on the same base issue, you will see that I do. Recently I have been pushing this one in order to highlight what I see as the base issue. The notion that open is special and requires extra effort to bring targets into that mode. Rather than just accepting the fact that only those that enjoy open world PvP will regularly play in open.

But that notion is completely self-created.

Precisely because Open isn't special, it needs to be balanced with the other modes for the competitive mechanic in terms of rational entry incentive based on equal competitive edge and personal mode preference as an entity.

 

[bitstorm]

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?

That's an argument for penalising solo too.

None of your arguments seem to provide any actual reasons why a higher risk mode should not offer higher rewards.

It all seems to amount to "change is bad".

 

[GluttonyFang]

That's an argument for penalising solo too.

None of your argument seem to provide any actual reasons why a higher risk mode should not offer higher rewards.

It all seems to amount to "change is bad".

That is what I've been getting out of it.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

Funny, never pictured you as ..

I don't picture anyone as anything ... apart from those I met at Launch, frankly, you're (collectively) just a bunch of words that go when I turn off the PC. <shrug>

I am also available for childrens parties and weddings

 

[Mohrgan]

Well, good luck with that, I've done nothing but providing further justification and reason for proceeding with the change, even wrote detailed proposal on how some conceptual mechanics can come into life. If you want to convince me into your camp, use rational arguments and don't grasp at straws, it's the fastest way.



The answer is:

Currently, players that enter Solo and Private due to a rational incentive under the competitive scope are causing people to massively migrating into private and solo despite not enjoying the modes themselves.

People's choices of mode of gameplay don't have any effect on others.

Choosing to play in Open for the competitive mechanic known as PP is currently irrational of a choice due to solo/private's competitive edge, thus betraying the idea of proportionate equality, and the purpose of PP being a PvP and competitive mechanic. Modes are not being incentivized equally, thus we need to rectify the situation.

Thus, Open is not requiring any consideration, PP as a mechanic, on the other hand, is what is requiring the consideration, and as a result of that, Open Mode is being reimbursed for its lack of incentive to engage PP in.

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



But that notion is completely self-created.

Precisely because Open isn't special, it needs to be balanced with the other modes for the competitive mechanic in terms of rational entry incentive based on equal competitive edge and personal mode preference as an entity.

I have to say I find that all just double talk. I don;t agree with your base assertions, why should I agree with your conclusions? I will continue to bring the counter to your positions to FD, and expect you to disagree.

 

[Boomer Kay]

None of your arguments seem to provide any actual reasons why a higher risk mode should not offer higher rewards.

Because Robigo, Tun and the dozen things we don't talk about on these boards.
Unless they fix a majority of known exploits, there is no such thing as a "higher risk mode". (And yea.. "real" PvP games hammer-nerf all cheese for the sake of a fair playground - sometimes with same day emergency patches)
Here, there's easy mode and cheesy mode.
There's those that cheese their way to easy progress and those that don't.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I have to say I find that all just double talk. I don;t agree with your base assertions, why should I agree with your conclusions? I will continue to bring the counter to your positions to FD, and expect you to disagree.

When you counter doesn't utilize reason but flat out, unsubstantiated denial?

Good luck.

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

Because Robigo, Tun and the dozen things we don't talk about on these boards.
Unless they fix a majority of known exploits, there is no such thing as a "higher risk mode". There's easy mode and cheesy mode.
There's those that cheese their way to easy progress and those that don't.

You are confusing competitive mechanics with non-competitive activities, and not reading Sandro's statement on the change affects only PP.

 

[Mohrgan]

That's an argument for penalising solo too.

None of your arguments seem to provide any actual reasons why a higher risk mode should not offer higher rewards.

It all seems to amount to "change is bad".

My argument is that you should change your mode, rather than expect a reward for your choice of what mode to play in. When I play in Solo, I don;t seethe over the fact that players in open can wing up. If I wanted to wing up, I'd go to open, or a PG. Since I have control of the state I put myself in, I accept the conditions I choose.

 

[bitstorm]

Because Robigo, Tun and the dozen things we don't talk about on these boards.
Unless they fix a majority of known exploits, there is no such thing as a "higher risk mode".
There's those that cheese their way to easy progress and those that don't.

Kinda off topic but clearly doing Robigo in open is higher risk, weren't there some anti-Robigo folks trying to blockade at one point?

I'm not sure Robigo is an exploit though, I gave it a go to see given all the fuss and it seems like it's been designed to me.

Mode switching sure that can be called an exploit I guess, maybe that's loosely on topic.

To prevent mode switching, how about all taken missions disappear (perhaps abandon) if you change modes? That could sidestep a PP bonus in open being abused I suppose.

 

[Mohrgan]

When you counter doesn't utilize reason but flat out, unsubstantiated denial?

Good luck.

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



You are confusing competitive mechanics with non-competitive activities, and not reading Sandro's statement on the change affects only PP.

Which makes me have to raise the Slippery Slope argument. In this very thread Sandro slipped on that slope, others with even less control have been pushing each other down it. This whole thing is seen as a way to just start the flow of subsidies into open to artificially control the population. Open doesn't deserve special care.

 

[Boomer Kay]

You are confusing competitive mechanics with non-competitive activities, and not reading Sandro's statement on the change affects only PP.

Nope. I'm counting the only currency in this game. Time.
If I cheese my cutter with forced board refreshes and robigo exploits, I have the edge, long before you're in an Asp.
If I waste 20 hours a week for my rebuys and you 3, you have the edge.
Pve fuels both PvP (sans arena) and power play.
That's teh suck of open world unrestricted PvP.. And was since the beginning of time.

Remember the PvP league discussion about synthesis.

 

[GilliganTX]

To prevent mode switching, how about all taken missions disappear (perhaps abandon) if you change modes? That could sidestep a PP bonus in open being abused I suppose.

Because of the 10-16 hour time frame for shadow deliveries, I often log out in the middle of delivering them to go to the grocery store, or take care of a horse, or do a load of laundry.

Should my missions suddenly disappear because I logged back into EDC or Open instead of Mobius?

 

[Ozram]

If you go through this thread, and others on the same base issue, you will see that I do. Recently I have been pushing this one in order to highlight what I see as the base issue. The notion that open is special and requires extra effort to bring targets into that mode. Rather than just accepting the fact that only those that enjoy open world PvP will regularly play in open.

PP is a series of PvE activities. If one players sees an advantage to playing is Solo, by what justification do you subsidize open, rather than just suggest that the player use Solo?

Thanks for the honest reply. I suppose our difference in perspective comes from our views on Open. I play strictly in open but not for any singular need to PVP (actually a rare occurrence for me), rather for direct player interaction which usually comes in the form of improvised coop. Acquiring assistance from the fuel rats for example, can only happen in open and that's certainly not adversarial. Sometimes I also help out beginner ships (players) in REZ sites by winging up and drawing agro so they can face otherwise implacable foes. My experience and take on Open is that it provides the potential for improvised player interactions, both coop and competitive.
When I apply that viewpoint to Sandro's suggestion it makes sense to me because open currently has a real disadvantage for anyone who intends to be genuinely competitive with their contributions to pp. while I agree that most of the ways to play pp are directly PVE, there's little doubt they are all covered under the PVP monicker as the core of pp is competition between player groups. To me it is counterintuitive to have those who play a competitive element of the game be at a disadvantage for doing so in the mode which provides the framework for player direct player interaction.
In short, I believe it is an effort to make pp equitable regardless of play mode and not an effort to corral players into open. I don't own the truth and don't have access to the numbers in order to know what the best fix for this inequity is, but I do see the inequity and am open to the idea that something needs to be done.

 

[bitstorm]

My argument is that you should change your mode, rather than expect a reward for your choice of what mode to play in. When I play in Solo, I don;t seethe over the fact that players in open can wing up. If I wanted to wing up, I'd go to open, or a PG. Since I have control of the state I put myself in, I accept the conditions I choose.

Well if a significant amount of people change modes for a specific activitythat would indicate a significant imbalance in modes for that activity. If the modes are imbalanced for that activity they are unequal.

If the modes can then be balanced while remaining unequal then you've made one option more acceptable to a portion of players, you've then created choice for players and as a result created worthwhile variation in the game. That way ALL player win, except of course those that refuse to switch modes regardless but obviously your own argument suggests that isn't valid so for sake of argument I'll ignore that category of people too.

 

[GluttonyFang]

My argument is that you should change your mode, rather than expect a reward for your choice of what mode to play in. When I play in Solo, I don;t seethe over the fact that players in open can wing up. If I wanted to wing up, I'd go to open, or a PG. Since I have control of the state I put myself in, I accept the conditions I choose.

Then answer this:

If PP was based primarily on this:

Boss NPC that requires at least a wing to take it down. A solo player can do it, too, but it takes a lot of skill and substantially longer.

If there's more than one wing in the instance, the credit will only go to one wing and it is randomized as long as all wings have tagged the target.

PP is a race of the clock on how many of this Boss NPC gets taken out and it determines if you get merits/your power gets influence or not.

The merit for the Boss NPC is equally distributed among the wing members of a wing upon destruction. If a single player destroys the boss NPC, the single player gets as much merit as the wing members' reward combined.

However, it is substantially faster for a wing to take down the NPC than the solo player.

Open Mode players ask for balancing for possible player opposition while fighting the Boss NPC and kill stealing.

Solo Mode players ask for balancing for substantial reward increase in destroying the boss by oneself.

Private Mode players giggle happily as they keep farming with their respective three buddies.

If this were the present PP mechanic, can I count on you to say that there is no need for change? Can I count on you to utter the exact same argument you've been throwing at the thread?

If FD decides to give reward to Solo and Open players to compensate for their respective difficulties. Will you fight the change as much as you have done here and prevent there to be an "imbalance"?

You better say "yes."

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

You are confusing competitive mechanics with non-competitive activities, and not reading Sandro's statement on the change affects only PP.

Thought we had been through that ?!

Here:

... In truth, it's impossible to to say with any certainty whether we'd want to push the concept a wider: we'd need to commit to adding it to Powerplay, then see how well it actually played out - that's a lot of bridges to cross.

That is called a slippery slope. It's opening the door to the possibility that open will one day receive bonus's just for being there.

Admit this and you may find people start to become more reasonable ..

 

[GluttonyFang]

Nope. I'm counting the only currency in this game. Time.
If I cheese my cutter with forced board refreshes and robigo exploits, I have the edge, long before you're in an Asp.
If I waste 20 hours a week for my rebuys and you 3, you have the edge.

Remember the PvP league discussion about synthesis.

Then you are simply not within the frame of this discussion. Sandro clearly delineates a differential between competitive mechanic and non-competitive mechanic. Your personal input on that front weighs very little.

Also, what about Synthesis? I didn't support either side of the argument and only stated that Oogie should determine where the root of the tournament he hosts is, then determine whether he wants to allow Synthesis or not.

Edit:

Also, even if we use your frame, think about it:

Time wasted on player opposition can only uncontrollably happen in Open, thus making Open an irrational choice for PP, which betrays the concept of proportionate equality.

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

Thought we had been through that ?!

Here:



That is called a slippery slope. It's opening the door to the possibility that open will one day receive bonus's just for being there.

Admit this and you may find people start to become more reasonable ..

Hey, if you have been following the thread, I've voiced several times that I'm going to fight against any changes to the CG and ask for a distinction between player owned faction and NPC faction for BGS.

 

[GilliganTX]

Well if a significant amount of people change modes that would indicate a significant imbalance in modes. If the modes are imbalanced they are unequal.

I disagree. The usage of modes for PP is imbalanced because all modes are equal. All modes provide the same background and tools. All modes are mechanically equal. A merit is equal across all three modes. The population of one mode has the effect of making earning that merit more difficult. The mode isn't different, the inhabitants are. Because the inhabitants create a more difficult experience, and because it has no advantage in terms of compensation over other modes (because they are equal), players leave that mode for another, creating an imbalance in the usage.