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

[bitstorm]

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?

That was my question!!

I dunno, why not? It would need a suitable warning so it wasn't done accidentally.

Yes it's more of an issue with missions with large time spans but mission stacking is also an issue.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

...

You're describing what happens now in a CG involving bounties. Solo get all the bounty money but can only kill at a certain speed; winged players can kill faster but share the credits.

So .. ermm .. Yes ?!

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

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.

Of course you are ... I mean - argue against mechanics to bring more players into open - the mode you favour due to the potential of more players to kill ?!

You might be smart but I am not stupid.

 

[GilliganTX]

That was my question!!

I dunno, why not? It would need a suitable warning so it wasn't done accidentally.

Yes it's more of an issue with missions with large time spans but mission stacking is also an issue.

Then I'm going to say the answer is a big fat NO!


Giving shadow deliveries a timer would help with the stacking.

Can't spend 30 minutes mode switching if you've only got an hour to deliver.

 

[Mohrgan]

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.

Exactly. Perspective, genuinely competitive, it's all just the affects of seeing open as something special. Some higher motivation for play. That's the trouble. When open is seen as just another choice, like your ship, or what modules you equip, then you'll see my point of the perfect equity between the modes because of equal access. Player interaction is already held hostage to PvP, why do we need to offer more to the cause.

It is obvious that the extra risk referred to is easily identified, PvP Combat. Why not make the bonus just as focused? Let PP aligned players be rewarded, with PP influence, for any PvP encounter they face? Winners get 10 merits, the loser gets 5, and everyone keeps their merit after the fight. It pays for facing the actual risk, and not just the threat of extra risk.

This idea won;t be considered. It has no potential to increase the population in open.

 

[GluttonyFang]

You're describing what happens now in a CG involving bounties. Solo get all the bounty money but can only kill at a certain speed; winged players can kill faster but share the credits.

So .. ermm .. Yes ?!

But hey, there's the balance. Solo players get all the money for the effort they put in. Winged players kill things faster but share the credits.

Not to mention CG is not direct player opposition, but cooperative competition since they are all contributing to the same goal and there's no opposition "progress bar." Therefore I don't consider it within the sphere PP falls into.

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

It is obvious that the extra risk referred to is easily identified, PvP Combat. Why not make the bonus just as focused? Let PP aligned players be rewarded, with PP influence, for any PvP encounter they face? Winners get 10 merits, the loser gets 5, and everyone keeps their merit after the fight. It pays for facing the actual risk, and not just the threat of extra risk.

You said you read my proposal, are you lying or you enjoy arguing against me for the sake of it?

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

Of course you are ... I mean - argue against mechanics to bring more players into open - the mode you favour due to the potential of more players to kill ?!

You might be smart but I am not stupid.

I just explained why, and I already said no to CG being treated possibly the same as PP once in this thread, and I'll say it again, no means no.

 

[bitstorm]

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.

I don't see what relevance that has. Whether the imbalance is from mechanics or players is irrelevant, they both exist and both effect the player, having a discussion comparing open to solo while putting aside that players attack others in one mode but not the other makes no sense.

The only way I see your point being relevant is if you're suggesting we either re-educate all players in open not to attack powerplayers, or remove all PvP mechanics from open. Neither of which will ever be on the table.

 

[Mohrgan]

I don't see what relevance that has. Whether the imbalance is from mechanics or players is irrelevant, they both exist and both effect the player, arguing about open and putting aside that players attack others in makes no sense.

The only way I see your point being relevant is if you're suggesting we either re-educate all players in open not to attack powerplayers, or remove all PvP mechanics from open. Neither of which will ever be on the table.

No, just pay players for facing PP based PvP. Reward for the actual issue, not just the the risk of having an issue.

 

[Boomer Kay]

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.

My personal input is for those who care.
I gave up preaching and reasoning long time ago.
Draw your lines, define your frames, chose the facts you like and ignore the others, it will not make a difference.

Sometimes I just write stuff so I can dig it up and say "told you so".
Told you I have weird hobbies.

 

[GilliganTX]

I don't see what relevance that has. Whether the imbalance is from mechanics or players is irrelevant, they both exist and both effect the player and that's what the discussion is about.

The only way I see your point being relevant is if you're suggesting we either re-educate all players in open not to attack powerplayers, or remove all PvP mechanics from open. Neither of which is likely ever to be on the table.

It's only relevant because FD promised "three equal modes," and a lot of players still believe in that promise and I believe in respecting everyone who plays this game.

I would actually (or my power via my contribution) benefit form this proposed change, as If I'm participating in PP, I'm winged up, undermining in Open.

But my personal identity (GF) means that I'm going to put my voice out there for those players for whom this change would be a serious breach of trust, even if I could benefit from the changes.


I think it is relevant where the imbalance comes form, as the mechanics are static (unless patched) and hard coded. The populations are liquid and free-flowing and are not inherent or permanently tied to the game mode in the same way game mechanics are.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I gave up preaching and reasoning long time ago.

Okay.

 

[stripealipe]

Phew!! Lots and lots of reading....

Certainly there is a lot to digest here, but i'm pretty much down with the argument that there is absolutely no reason to risk playing in Open whilst participating in PP. Why would you?
Surely we can all be in agreement that it is way more precarious playing in Open than in any of the other modes of gameplay.

So.. if i want to play and participate in PowerPlay in Open due to my own preferences, do i therefore have to accept that i'm going to be at a disadvantage? Fair?!

We could trawl the forums for days on end finding posts on how Open is so 'mean', so let's not sway from the topic at hand here either..

 

[bitstorm]

No, just pay players for facing PP based PvP. Reward for the actual issue, not just the the risk of having an issue.

Sure but as discussed before:

1) The reward would then need to be higher
2) It means people are being coralled into PvP
3) It will be abused so mainly benefits those that like to abuse mechanics

I think I disagree with the idea generally on the grounds that the idea for a player should be (pure combat missions aside) to avoid combat and get the delivery or whatever done.

By entering open such players ARE taking a risk but their aim is to AVOID combat, that should be rewarded.

To me it makes no sense to reward people who already seek out PvP for doing PvP.

It makes more sense to reward players who didn't want PvP for entering an area which increases the likelyhood of PvP.

Awarding only in the event of PvP seems to be backward logic when you follow how it's likely to play out.

 

[Mohrgan]

Sure but as discussed before:

1) The reward would then need to be higher
2) It means people are being coralled into PvP
3) It will be abused so mainly benefits those that like to abuse mechanics

I think I disagree with the idea generally on the grounds that the idea for a player should be (pure combat missions aside) to avoid combat and get the delivery or whatever done.

By entering open such players ARE taking a risk but their aim is to AVOID combat, that should be rewarded.

To me it makes no sense to reward people who already seek out PvP for doing PvP.

It makes more sense to reward players who didn't want PvP for entering an area which increases the likelyhood of PvP.

Awarding only in the event of PvP seems to be backward logic when you follow how it's likely to play out.

1) There is no reward now, so any reward can be set that reflects what ever value is justified. ( I don't believe one is needed though G-Fang)
2) No, only people that want to play in open, and face the actual risk get rewarded. Paying off the entire mode belies the reason for the bonus. If it's about parity for reward, reward the risk. If it's about adjusting population then pay the bribe to all.
3) That exact argument is used against a bonus as well. Could they just balance themselves off the table? If not, we should just expect FD to create a payout that has a minimum of potential abuse.

It is a very hard sell. I'm not buying paying people just to populate open. If it's because of risk, pay for the risk. Only because the issue is so easily identified, and isolated. So you want to offer a reward for players that are good at avoiding PvP Combat? I'm not at all comfortable with that.

 

[bitstorm]

It's only relevant because FD promised "three equal modes," and a lot of players still believe in that promise and I believe in respecting everyone who plays this game.

I would actually (or my power via my contribution) benefit form this proposed change, as If I'm participating in PP, I'm winged up, undermining in Open.

But my personal identity (GF) means that I'm going to put my voice out there for those players for whom this change would be a serious breach of trust, even if I could benefit from the changes.

To be honest on that, I'm really of the opinion that Frontier have to be willing to make changes.

Kickstarter is a noose around ED's neck, all it's does now is hold the game back.

I backed, that time has now passed.

There is no way Frontier could have predicted how ED would turn out, all good software must be allowed to iterate and evolve, a bit of a rant here but folk who throw around "I backed for xxxx..." really get my back up. We've had a good year out of it, it's time to move on and accept ED is Frontier's product to do with as they please, it does not belong to backers.

if backers stop changes on the grounds of well this was said a year ago then ED will suffer and as a result we as players will lose out.

All good software evolves, you cannot predict how it needs to evolve 1-2 years in advance.

 

[Ozram]

Exactly. Perspective, genuinely competitive, it's all just the affects of seeing open as something special. Some higher motivation for play. That's the trouble. When open is seen as just another choice, like your ship, or what modules you equip, then you'll see my point of the perfect equity between the modes because of equal access. Player interaction is already held hostage to PvP, why do we need to offer more to the cause.

It is obvious that the extra risk referred to is easily identified, PvP Combat. Why not make the bonus just as focused? Let PP aligned players be rewarded, with PP influence, for any PvP encounter they face? Winners get 10 merits, the loser gets 5, and everyone keeps their merit after the fight. It pays for facing the actual risk, and not just the threat of extra risk.

This idea won;t be considered. It has no potential to increase the population in open.

Actually, while for me the added player interaction is more attractive I am not placing the value judgement that it is superior. Also, I think your suggestion (at a glance) might work. The argument is to deal with an inequity and not to force players into a mode they do not already wish to play in. Personally I'd be happy with your idea. That would potentially have the side benefit of giving the PVP focussed players in open a more rewarding experience and goal within PVP than having to actively look for a fight no matter what. My only worry is that it does nothing to ameliorate the inequity for those who wish to be active in open and risk PVP opposition, but not focus on it. As to Sandro's suggestion, I'm not sure it would force players into open who don't want to be there, but that's worth discussing here as it seems to be the core contention among those who are in disagreement.
Cheers

 

[Boomer Kay]

To be honest on that, I'm really of the opinion that Frontier have to be willing to make changes.

Kickstarter is a noose around ED's neck, all it's does now is hold the game back.

I backed, that time has now passed.
.

I fully agree.
The question is -as mentioned before- if they're gonna put a bucket under the leaking sink and consider it fixed or fix the plumbing.

 

[GilliganTX]

To be honest on that, I'm really of the opinion that Frontier have to be willing to make changes.

Kickstarter is a noose around ED's neck, all it's does now is hold the game back.

I backed, that time has now passed.

There is no way Frontier could have predicted how ED would turn out, all good software must be allowed to iterate and evolve, a bit of a rant here but folk who throw around "I backed for xxxx..." really get my back up. We've had a good year out of it, it's time to move on and accept ED is Frontier's product to do with as they please, it does not belong to backers.

if backers stop changes on the grounds of well this was said a year ago then ED will suffer and as a result we as players will lose out.

All good software evolves, you cannot predict how it needs to evolve 1-2 years in advance.

I can't disagree with any of that.

In fact, I agree with the sentiment. Making these promises is going to force FD into one compromising situation after another. I'm just doing my part to try and make sure the developers consider both the rock and the hard place, because both should be respected.

 

[Voiddancer]

I'm not sure what effect this proposed change would actually have on fortifiers in Open, especially if the amount of players hunting them actually increases as a result. It would be required to possess a ship with shields capable of withstanding potentially multiple players armed with railguns. Even with an escort the ships still need to be able to withstand fire long enough to escape as the transport will remain a priority target, as they represent a greater investment of time and resources.

Are there any suggestions to address this imbalance, or would it effectively restrict open fortification to those with cutters? Also I would be curious to know what proportion of fortifiers actually prefer fortifying in group/solo, as opposed to wanting to take the risk in Open but it being more efficient not to, especially given the non-combative nature of it.

Edit:
Another thought: A wing serving as backup is also inefficient: it would increase travel time, be difficult to protect the transport, and each ship could themselves deliver cargo in group/solo.

I agree that the idea for more pvp options in powerplay seems better to that of a flat bonus. A suggestion made earlier was for signal sources in control systems to group players together for combat. The system's defenders would be assisting with fortifying the system when they make kills, with the opposing players assisting with undermining the system with kills. Within the signal source only partial merit loss occurs on ship destruction, to compensate for the additional danger of other players, but still encourage leaving before destruction.

 

[Ozram]

I'm not sure what effect this proposed change would actually have on fortifiers in Open, especially if the amount of players hunting them actually increases as a result. It would be required to possess a ship with shields capable of withstanding potentially multiple players armed with railguns. Even with an escort the ships still need to be able to withstand fire long enough to escape as the transport will remain a priority target, as they represent a greater investment of time and resources.

Are there any suggestions to address this imbalance, or would it effectively restrict open fortification to those with cutters? Also I would be curious to know what proportion of fortifiers actually prefer fortifying in group/solo, as opposed to wanting to take the risk in Open but it being more efficient not to, especially given the non-combative nature of it.

Not sure, but I kind of like Mohrgan's idea of a directly PVP pp bonus where (if I understood it correctly) there is simply the incentive for opposing factions to engage each other in combat with the larger incentive going to the victor. This may actually be quite a good idea and it would provide one of the first tangible incentives for PVP. I think we lack those which is why so much of the PVP gets a bad rep.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Not sure, but I kind of like Mohrgan's idea of a directly PVP pp bonus where (if I understood it correctly) there is simply the incentive for opposing factions to engage each other in combat with the larger incentive going to the victor. This may actually be quite a good idea and it would provide one of the first tangible incentives for PVP. I think we lack those which is why so much of the PVP gets a bad rep.

Hence why you should take a look at my proposal

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=238428