It wasn't my idea. It's been around, on the forums, for a long while. I just bring it up here again as it applies. Getting paid to take the risk of a potential threat seems inappropriate to me.
(info) First bonus for playing in OPEN under consideration for PP
- Thread starter Abil Midena
- Start date
- Status
It wasn't my idea. It's been around, on the forums, for a long while. I just bring it up here again as it applies. Getting paid to take the risk of a potential threat seems inappropriate to me.
Just, FWIW, I don't think the numbers prompting the proposal are any sort of specific action specific. IE, I don't think it's because fortifiers fortify in solo/group while underminers undermine in open ect.
Rather, I think the issue the way it has been presented by the dev team is this:
For all game mechanics and general play (Trading, BHing, CG's, mining, exploration, etc) see the player populations spread through the game modes as
A% in Open
B% in Groups
C% in Solo
I'm sure there are day to day fluctuations.
However, the devs have noticed that, for most of these activities the population of those participating has stayed relatively constant (equal amounts of bounties/bonds turned in, rocks sold commodities traded across all modes), in regard to power play, the numbers are different enough to prompt the development to take notice/action. I'm imagining something like:
% of bonds turned in by mode
A% in Open
1.2B% in Groups
.8C% in Solo
% of bounties turned in by mode
1.1A% in Open
B% in Groups
.9C% in Solo
With a similar figure for trading/missions/exploration data.
Now, for power play, we see % of merits turned in by mode flip on its head in relation to the others. Something like:
.25A% in Open
1.5B% in Groups
1.25C% in Solo
Which indicates players who normally play in Open, are migrating towards groups and solo to participate in PP, an activity which the devs intended to primarily take place in open.
Or it could indicate that open players to not participate in PP, but I don't think anyone is making that claim.
Last edited:
No, worse case will be that players will see the PP efforts in Solo or Private Groups is now useless and they will say "F PP!".
I stopped my efforts in PP a while back when I would see efforts reversed or 'adjusted' almost every week (I'm sure I'm embellishing a bit there). So any efforts I did were either just merit grinding or plain useless. So why bother?
I know I won't bother to return to PP when if my efforts will be doubly useless.
Well, on its own it seems like a fair idea regardless of the rest. I don't yet hold to your assertion that the reason it hasn't been implemented is because it won't coerce people into open though. if anything it would make it safer for those who avoid PVP but want to have more player interactions as it would provide an avenue for pvpers to pursue.
Im viewing this from the perspective that these three game modes are -not- equal as it stands.
From a purely benficial viewpoint my points are these:
-Solo players have the benefit of knowing and predicting the course of each interaction with enemy ships
-Private groups enjoy the same benefit, but also extend this benefit to other players. Essentially being able to choose who can be expected in their gameplay.
-solo and private players are able to modify the experience of players through the BGS that they will never interact with otherwise.
-Open Players have the option of Player vs player interactions ( considering it as a positive for PvP enthusiasts even though instancing issues are still relevant )
From a detrimental or consequence perspective:
-Solo players do not meet other Players, though this is arguable not a drawback for those that choose solo much like the benefit of PvP for those that choose open play.
- All modes can be effected by the BGS and powerplay interactions of other game modes both negatively and positively. However, you can not take action to stop or mitigate it in-game other then putting more effort and time into these aspects.
- I can't think of detriments to Private group specifically
- Open play players are subject to negative encounters with other players, including loss of cargo and ships.
So, perhaps there is an ideological difference in the way some individuals view these issues. The benefits are not equal in this sense, however in a generalized view one could argue that they are all equal with the exception of private and open which get the benefit of other players and player interactions, without considering the nuances of those situations.
If I am to fly in open, I run the risk of a ship being destroyed and loosing millions of credits where i would not have otherwise lost those credits. This is an added -risk- that solo and private don't share, and thus don't have equality.
I understand some individuals prefer solo mode games, it is a trend in gaming that has been around for a long time. However there is a long trend for multiplayer games and it is a growing trend to see both in a single game. However the idea of having a universal background sim is not a trend, it is a new thing so some assumptions don't apply. I personally think that having separated modes would greatly increase the like-ability of BGS and powerplay.
However if separating modes is off the table, as it seems to be, then balancing for open players should occur. You take more risk, you should have balance in the mechanics of the game to even this out. Substantially reducing rebuy costs is one potential way, substantial increase in profits to offset ship rebuys is another.
For example, I have played a few months here and there and would say i have around 70% Open play PvP induced rebuys over the total rebuy amount. And I am on the lower end of rebuys of other players i know. This amounts for me to around 80million credits lost as a result of flying in open. And that's not to mention underminers in PP and Minor factions slipping under the radar with no recourse, costing me time and effort that both they and I could have mitigated by having a similar game mode choice ( not to mention the added risk of loosing credits, effort and time by flying in open ).
Where is the equality in that
From a purely benficial viewpoint my points are these:
-Solo players have the benefit of knowing and predicting the course of each interaction with enemy ships
-Private groups enjoy the same benefit, but also extend this benefit to other players. Essentially being able to choose who can be expected in their gameplay.
-solo and private players are able to modify the experience of players through the BGS that they will never interact with otherwise.
-Open Players have the option of Player vs player interactions ( considering it as a positive for PvP enthusiasts even though instancing issues are still relevant )
From a detrimental or consequence perspective:
-Solo players do not meet other Players, though this is arguable not a drawback for those that choose solo much like the benefit of PvP for those that choose open play.
- All modes can be effected by the BGS and powerplay interactions of other game modes both negatively and positively. However, you can not take action to stop or mitigate it in-game other then putting more effort and time into these aspects.
- I can't think of detriments to Private group specifically
- Open play players are subject to negative encounters with other players, including loss of cargo and ships.
So, perhaps there is an ideological difference in the way some individuals view these issues. The benefits are not equal in this sense, however in a generalized view one could argue that they are all equal with the exception of private and open which get the benefit of other players and player interactions, without considering the nuances of those situations.
If I am to fly in open, I run the risk of a ship being destroyed and loosing millions of credits where i would not have otherwise lost those credits. This is an added -risk- that solo and private don't share, and thus don't have equality.
I understand some individuals prefer solo mode games, it is a trend in gaming that has been around for a long time. However there is a long trend for multiplayer games and it is a growing trend to see both in a single game. However the idea of having a universal background sim is not a trend, it is a new thing so some assumptions don't apply. I personally think that having separated modes would greatly increase the like-ability of BGS and powerplay.
However if separating modes is off the table, as it seems to be, then balancing for open players should occur. You take more risk, you should have balance in the mechanics of the game to even this out. Substantially reducing rebuy costs is one potential way, substantial increase in profits to offset ship rebuys is another.
For example, I have played a few months here and there and would say i have around 70% Open play PvP induced rebuys over the total rebuy amount. And I am on the lower end of rebuys of other players i know. This amounts for me to around 80million credits lost as a result of flying in open. And that's not to mention underminers in PP and Minor factions slipping under the radar with no recourse, costing me time and effort that both they and I could have mitigated by having a similar game mode choice ( not to mention the added risk of loosing credits, effort and time by flying in open ).
Where is the equality in that
Indeed its a point of contention now since Sandro made his proposal.
While not everyone has been happy with the modes and how payouts or merits etc are the same for each of them, it was generally accepted when FD talked about all modes being equal, they meant they would not specifically favour one mode above another. Sure, there will be differences in terms of gameplay, and its not all one sided as some suggest, but for many of us, we were very happy that FD were being egalitarian about the different modes.
Along comes Sandro's bombshell, and now, people start looking at things differently.
Open proponents start to feel they are getting the recognition they deserve, that because open has the chance of PvP they it should be rewarded, and therefore FDs stance on equality actually means trying to make all modes equal in terms of risk vs reward. Its an understandable position.
On the other side, solo and group players are now feeling that they have been misled, perhaps betrayed even. No longer is equality about how FD handle the modes, now equality is about balance... and, dare i say it? We all know how "good" FD are at balancing things *cough* missile nerf *cough*.
If equality is not about egalitarianism but actually about balance, then naturally this is going to lead to questions like: When will there be NPC wings available? Its harder to go against NPCs solo than in a wing, which people in Open can do (and group of course), which makes doing Powerplay harder in Solo!
On the other side, and we have already seen this here on the forums and reddit, those who are getting very excited about this change, some of them are already calling for bonuses to Community Goals and the effect they have on the BGS "because its harder in Open". While Sandro has dismissed this, I actually feel by implementing a bonus for PP, those who are calling for a bonus on CGs and BGS actually have a valid position then. Sure, PP is meant to be more directly competitive, but we have seen plenty of times how doing CGs in Open is actually a lot harder in many cases. I'd actually be willing to argue that CGs in Open are a lot harder than PP in Open, because PP is spread over a large area, while CGs are focused in just one or two systems.
If the PP bonus goes ahead, i think bonuses for BGS and CGs would be warranted, and at which point, i'd be in a poor position of having to agree with that, but at the same time, i'd have to join the campaign for separation of modes and BGS... which i don't want. But there again, i don't want be treated like a second class citizen and competing (via PvE) against people who have been given a bonus just because of the chance they will face PvP is not a fair competition.
Last edited:
But there again, i don't want be treated like a second class citizen and competing (via PvE) against people who have been given a bonus just because of the chance they will face PvP is not a fair competition.
No one wants to be treated like a second class citizen, which Open has been treated as such for PP for quite a while now. Giving some compensation on the matter now suddenly turns the privileged class into second class citizen? Come on now, this is not the French Revolution.
Name a single instance where open was treated any differently than solo. You can't, because open hasn't been treated any differently than solo, that's your own bias talking. Last I checked solo doesn't get a bonus to anything. Come on now, stop with the ridiculous nonsense filled hyperbole. Crying about inherit mode differences has nothing to do with PP bonuses.
Exactly. Once you open those gates and lines of thoughts, then everyone else has a valid complaint. It's harder to grind merits solo than in a wing in open. Where is the bonus for solo PP merits gained, I mean, fair is fair right?
Oh it's you again, I wonder what ad hominem will you launch this time, oh joy.
Under the competitive scope it's irrational to use Open mode, which makes people that enjoys what Open mode entails unable to competitively participate in PP which is a competitive mechanic.
Perhaps if you would "stop with this delusional nonsense typed by blindfolding," you might cry about something more productive?
See how productive we are becoming?
Go somewhere else with your pointed hostility, thank you.
Edit:
If you are not going to at least attempt reading the thread and people's stance and argument on things, don't bother trying to snipe people's posts:
Last edited:
Does it really matter if there is a bonus to playing in Open if gankers that ram inside a station entrance or fire from inside a station go undeterred by the station's weak or absent security response? If you can't complete the goal because of poor station security programming, you earn 0 credits. If you do the same in Solo, at least you get some credits. So, without the requisite station security response improvements to 100% stop the gankers, I would still never participate in PP or CG in Open because I would earn fewer credits and make fewer, if any, contributions to the goals.
If the PP bonus goes ahead, i think bonuses for BGS and CGs would be warranted, and at which point, i'd be in a poor position of having to agree with that, but at the same time, i'd have to join the campaign for separation of modes and BGS... which i don't want. But there again, i don't want be treated like a second class citizen and competing (via PvE) against people who have been given a bonus just because of the chance they will face PvP is not a fair competition.
So I have to ask, do you mainly undermine or do you focus on Fortify/Prep/Expansion? And which power do you usually pledge to? All of these will impact your level of risk in Open. For Undermining your level risk will roughly the exact same unless FD implements a way to counter Undermining that actually earns merits (or at least consistent cash rewards). However, if you mainly deliver PP cargo, then yeah, you may end up feeling like a 2nd class citizen in Solo/Group. But a 2nd class citizen that is guaranteed a safe journey with only minor interruptions from annoyingly suicidal vipers and eagles. So upside down side.
Fire inside a station undeterred...?
You know you get shot by the station just by opening fire in a station right?
Also, in a non-anarchy system if you shoot a target in the no fire zone that is not wanted and has crime report on, station's gonna open fire, too.
Last edited:
Speaking of ad hominem and hostility...
Again, name a single time that open has been treated differently than solo. Do you have an actual example or would do you just want to continue with pathetic attempts at attacking me personally?
Last edited:
Me? I thought it was clear, i don't do PP, its a boring grindfest that offers nothing of interest for me. I did pledge to Mahon for a week... worst ever week in game.
The part you quoted of my text is about how i feel that CGs and BGS should also get bonuses if PP also gets - which would affect me though because i do partake in CGs and working the BGS.
Onward to pointed hostility? Come on, show me what tricks you have under your sleeves this time around.
Well, if you don't want to discuss within the frame of the conversation, then don't blame me for pointing out the obvious:
Competitive mechanic of PP demands fairness/even ground, the modes are not even as I've already explained many times that you simply refuse to read.
Don't blame me if you don't want to read what people write:
Edit:
And yes, see, how I'm attacking you with reasons and rationality? Oh the horror...
*Chuckles in the background*
Last edited:
/mod hat definitely not on - i'm far too involved in this thread.
Just a friendly suggestion for GF and Evolved - you might want to cut back on responding to each other, because otherwise soon, someone might say something that will get them reported.
And then a mod who isn't involved in this thread might have to hand out a spanking.
Hmm... as a mod who has taken mod hat off... does this mean i'm backseat moderating?
Just a friendly suggestion for GF and Evolved - you might want to cut back on responding to each other, because otherwise soon, someone might say something that will get them reported.
And then a mod who isn't involved in this thread might have to hand out a spanking.
Hmm... as a mod who has taken mod hat off... does this mean i'm backseat moderating?
Yaffle
Volunteer Moderator
All
This is clearly emotive.
Cut out the sniping, derailing and personal attacks.
As the expression goes, play the ball, not the player. We won't tolerate random biting of other players in here. If you find yourself typing about another poster you've gone wrong. Stick to the topic, it's not that difficult.
This is the sole warning. We're not going to close the thread for a cooldown; cooldowns will be via infractions.
Think before you type. Read what you have typed before you post.
This is clearly emotive.
Cut out the sniping, derailing and personal attacks.
As the expression goes, play the ball, not the player. We won't tolerate random biting of other players in here. If you find yourself typing about another poster you've gone wrong. Stick to the topic, it's not that difficult.
This is the sole warning. We're not going to close the thread for a cooldown; cooldowns will be via infractions.
Think before you type. Read what you have typed before you post.
I personally don't want to see CG being affected by the potential change to PP. What's your take on my idea of separating player owned faction from NPC owned faction for BGS?
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Great, thank you Yaffle, now we have peace.
I didn't see that you never really played PP. One of the Hazards of epic threads. Well Sandro did already mention that the proposed effects were for PP only, and that he didn't think the bonuses were appropriate for CGs or the BGS which are not necessarily meant to be confrontational. (Even though CGs are the biggest hotspots for emergent PVP in Open) However, I think he also said something about seeing how the PP Open Bonus played out and moving forward from there, but I think those comments were about whether or not to keep it or modify it, and not about spreading it to other parts of the game.
Btw, I think it's quite funny that people have been arguing vehemently about a mode that most of us barely play. I haven't been pledged for several months. And all told, I have only been pledged for about 7 weeks since the PP was launched last year. Most of those weeks were spent in grind hell. So yeah, the only part that interests me about Sandros proposal is defending my systems from Underminers. I won't make any CR or Merits, but at least I'll have something interesting to shoot at. I expect to lose a ton of money in the effort, which is ridiculous.
Last edited:
Yea, I feel like it can really revive some interest in PP.
Last edited:
- Status