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

[GluttonyFang]

I want unpredictable player interaction, its the bestp art of the Game!

A player attacked me, thats not fair, compensate me for it!

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=237822&p=3684852&viewfull=1#post3684852

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

Banks asking for bailouts after engaging in risky lending and loosing.

Agree completely.

See the above.

 

[Boomer Kay]

I don't consider myself an Open advocate, I advocate for even ground on a competition for modes.

Then you advocate limiting the overall playtime of every other player to the 15 hours a week I can afford with a full time job (that I need to keep buying expensive DLCs and hardware), family and other junk?
Because if not, the competition is botched on arrival. Even ground between those mountains that are too big to fit the frame.

I am pretty competitive, that's why I limit me to competing with myself. Space invaders .. no happy end, no well done, just getting harder and harder until you're dead.

 

[GluttonyFang]

G-Fang, just use Solo already. If you want your advantage, take it.

You never responded to this: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showth...=1#post3684852

Also, again, no substantial rational argument, please throw your rhetorics somewhere else.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

How o.o?'

My thoughts exactly. I chuckled when I read it, but can't reproduce it.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=237773&p=3685353&viewfull=1#post3685353

That appears to be a link ...

I don't consider myself an Open advocate, I advocate for even ground on a competition for modes.

But you do play in Open. Why do you play in Open?

And why does game mode choice affects the even grounds in a competition? Treated equally? You mean this equality is based on an examination outside of the competitive scope, but PP is a competitive mechanic.

Which does not exist in a vacuum. Well ... it exists in space, sure ... you know what I mean!

Point: There is a thing that makes you want to play in Open. What that thing is, is up to anyone who plays in Open. Now your choice to play in Open seems to need reinforcement by adding a bonus.

You seem to use arguments from these "Open advocates" against me as if they are my own. Well, they are not.

I use them because Open Advocates tell me what they get out of Open.

I guess you find more enjoyment in Open as well, otherwise why else play in Open?

 

[GluttonyFang]

Then you advocate limiting the overall playtime of every other player to the 15 hours a week I can afford with a full time job (that I need to keep buying expensive DLCs and hardware), family and other junk?
Because if not, the competition is botched on arrival. Even ground between those mountains that are too big to fit the frame.

I am pretty competitive, that's why I limit me to competing with myself. Space invaders .. no happy end, no well done, just getting harder and harder until you're dead.

I don't see how that point can become a factor for argument. With the potential change, an hour spent in Open is now roughly equivalent to an hour spent in Solo, I don't see how your argument pertains to anything.

 

[Boomer Kay]

I don't see how that point can become a factor for argument. With the potential change, an hour spent in Open is now roughly equivalent to an hour spent in Solo, I don't see how your argument pertains to anything.

So even is even, as long as you define it as even, and if I disagree about your definition, I'm defaulted to "wrong".

You read Kant? Read again. You didn't get him.

Let me visualize ..
We can both whole heartedly agree that a door is a great idea to have in a house. You can leave, you can enter, without it, it's just a box.
This is your door:


Awesome, right? there's even an arrow pointing at it.
Now let's look at "the big picture":

Spoiler

Still pretty awesome .. because it's a door.
Now you can see... but I can't do the understanding part for you.

 

[GilliganTX]

See the above.

Yes.

Egalitarianism/Numeric Equality is the standard when considering treatment of [game mode] from an authoritative/administrative entity (Frontier).

Proportional equality is, IMO, far to subjective. It is to intermingled with perception and equity to ever be a true objective basis with which to determine a true sense of equality. Trying to make things proportionally, or perceptibly equal to all players across all modes is an impossible task.

Egalitarianism/Numeric equality is quantifiable, it's objective, it's measurable.


I R ingunear. I prefer the concrete to the abstract.

 

[GluttonyFang]

That appears to be a link ...

It's an example.

But you do play in Open. Why do you play in Open?

Only when I'm not PPing and actually trying to help out my power.

Which does not exist in a vacuum. Well ... it exists in space, sure ... you know what I mean!

Point: There is a thing that makes you want to play in Open. What that thing is, is up to anyone who plays in Open. Now your choice to play in Open seems to need reinforcement by adding a bonus.

I already answered why that is a necessity:

"As long as this issue doesn't concern me nor affect me in a negative way, it isn't an issue and isn't worth wasting the developers' time."

The advantage can't be perceived when it is a clear rational incentive to enter private and solo, there is no argument around it.

Players that like to play with other players competitively and cooperative has to enter solo/private to gain an edge that bars them from enjoying an uncontrolled environment which they deem to be a fun place to play the PP mechanic.

Competitive Edge [Yes]

Preferred Environment [No]

Players that like to play by themselves simply play in solo/private that has an edge and pertains to their preferred playstyle to play the PP mechanic.


Competitive Edge [Yes]

Preferred Environment [Yes]

Do you not see what is wrong here when devs make it clear that PP is a competitive mechanic and there should be an equal incentive in entering all modes to participate in PP?

I use them because Open Advocates tell me what they get out of Open.

I guess you find more enjoyment in Open as well, otherwise why else play in Open?

Outside of the competitive scope and mechanics, yes I play in Open, because it's an actual "equally incentivized" mode when not examined under the competitive scope.

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
I don't consider myself an Open advocate, I advocate for even ground on a competition for modes.

And there perhaps is the problem. (Not you Gluttony Fang, for FD.)

They introduced a competition between players, into a game that was designed initially as a non-competitive 'player against the galaxy' simulation / game, where mode equality was not an issue except for those who wanted targets. And then they went and drew a whole lot of attention to it...

Not sure how they will get out of this situation without breaking something.

 

[GilliganTX]

And there perhaps is the problem. (Not you Gluttony Fang, for FD.)

They introduced a competition between players, into a game that was designed initially as a non-competitive 'player against the galaxy' simulation / game, where mode equality was not an issue except for those who wanted targets. And then they went and drew a whole lot of attention to it...

Not sure how they will get out of this situation without breaking something.

Indeed.

 

[DaveB]

Chill, people. This is a perfectly valid discussion and one that can impact the future course of the game, yes. As such it's one that is almost guaranteed to provoke high emotions.

For my part, I'm glad the discussion is out there.

Even with "All modes equal" it's undeniable that there will be a qualitative difference in the player experience in different modes. That, on its own, is not sufficient to make them unequal.

I've no problem with FD recognizing the greater hazard that players going after other players presents as opposed to those that go purely after NPCs. I'm a trader/bounty hunter in the game and I'll freely admit that spending an hour or two blowing up wanted NPCs or taking a minute out from my trade run to fry that AI pirate that had the temerity to interdict me presents way less risk than seeking out or responding with fire to a pirate of MAjinvash's or GluttonyFang's caliber. Should players that go for that be rewarded for it? Maybe they should. For as long as whatever FD implement (if they implement anything at all) functions the same no matter what mode you're in, for as long as there's no line of code saying "if (playerMatchmakingMode == "open") then... " I'll be good with it.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Yes.

Egalitarianism/Numeric Equality is the standard when considering treatment of [game mode] from an authoritative/administrative entity (Frontier).

Proportional equality is, IMO, far to subjective. It is to intermingled with perception and equity to ever be a true objective basis with which to determine a true sense of equality. Trying to make things proportionally, or perceptibly equal to all players across all modes is an impossible task.

Egalitarianism/Numeric equality is quantifiable, it's objective, it's measurable.



I R ingunear. I prefer the concrete to the abstract.

If you prefer the concrete over abstract, I'm sure you know why Descartes believe that metaphysics are roots, and Cavendish's objection to Hobbes' mechanical philosophy is that it ultimately began in metaphysics, right?

There is nothing concrete/objective to begin with in this world, merely conventionally manufactured impartiality that Rousseau emphasized over and over. Why do you think morality/norm/law shifts every now and then, it's precisely due to the lack of an objective arbiter of some sort that possesses omnipotence.

I already showed you the example and I'll make another to prove how simple the concept is:

You are really thirsty (want to compete in the game in the way you prefer)

You have two neighbors.

The only source of water are three water fountains in front of your respective houses (You want to use the fountain in front of your house for obvious reasons).

House A's water fountain constantly gets surrounded and visited by potential robbers, gangsters, etc.

House B's water fountain has a police that is always on stand by and can always get rid of potential criminals as long as the user of the fountain presses a button on the fountain.

House C's water fountain is surrounded by police at all times, completely protected from criminals.

You want to tell me that there's so vague of a subjective difference that it is impossible to tell which house's fountain needs some compensation?

Really?

 

[GilliganTX]

Chill, people. This is a perfectly valid discussion and one that can impact the future course of the game, yes. As such it's one that is almost guaranteed to provoke high emotions.

For my part, I'm glad the discussion is out there.

Even with "All modes equal" it's undeniable that there will be a qualitative difference in the player experience in different modes. That, on its own, is not sufficient to make them unequal.

I've no problem with FD recognizing the greater hazard that players going after other players presents as opposed to those that go purely after NPCs. I'm a trader/bounty hunter in the game and I'll freely admit that spending an hour or two blowing up wanted NPCs or taking a minute out from my trade run to fry that AI pirate that had the temerity to interdict me presents way less risk than seeking out or responding with fire to a pirate of MAjinvash's or GluttonyFang's caliber. Should players that go for that be rewarded for it? Maybe they should. For as long as whatever FD implement (if they implement anything at all) functions the same no matter what mode you're in, for as long as there's no line of code saying "if (playerMatchmakingMode == "open") then... " I'll be good with it.

Agree completely with this.

If you prefer the concrete over abstract, I'm sure you know why Descartes believe that metaphysics are roots, and Cavendish's objection to Hobbes' mechanical philosophy is that it ultimately began in metaphysics, right?

There is nothing concrete/objective to begin with in this world, merely conventionally manufactured impartiality that Rousseau emphasized over and over. Why do you think morality/norm/law shifts every now and then, it's precisely due to the lack of an objective arbiter of some sort that possesses omnipotence.

I already showed you the example and I'll make another to prove how simple the concept is:

You are really thirsty (want to compete in the game in the way you prefer)

You have two neighbors.

The only source of water are three water fountains in front of your respective houses (You want to use the fountain in front of your house for obvious reasons).

House A's water fountain constantly gets surrounded and visited by potential robbers, gangsters, etc.

House B's water fountain has a police that is always on stand by and can always get rid of potential criminals as long as the user of the fountain presses a button on the fountain.

House C's water fountain is surrounded by police at all times, completely protected from criminals.

You want to tell me that there's so vague of a subjective difference that it is impossible to tell which house's fountain needs some compensation?

Really?

Kant: The concrete exists otherwise we could not form the abstract. Initial perception of the "real" is required prior to any metaphysical or abstract thought.

If all three water troughs were provided by the same entity, had the same quality of water, volume of water, then all three troughs are treated equally by the provider of the troughs and the troughs of water themselves are equal.

The incentive, because of influence/factors that are not inherent to the troughs themselves, to use any of the troughs is unequal.

 

[Jockey79]

Not sure how they will get out of this situation without breaking something.

They wont get out of it.

Any change that is meaningful for open players / advocates will result in drama on the forums and people learning the fun behind UPnP / P2P.
Any change not meaningful enough for folks to do the above, also wont be worthwhile adding for the open players / advocates and we are right back to square one.

 

[GluttonyFang]

So even is even, as long as you define it as even, and if I disagree about your definition, I'm defaulted to "wrong".

You read Kant? Read again. You didn't get him.

Unless you want to point out which part of Kant you are referring to, if it's the typical categorical imperative argument, you should already know the objection to it.

As for you believing you disagreeing with me defaults you to "wrong" in my book, then you have no idea how I operate. Provide substantial argument or don't, it's simple as that.

The gist of my argument is "With the potential change, an hour spent in Open is now roughly equivalent to an hour spent in Solo." Don't avoid the argument.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

On the phone, so can't continue the quote shotgunning. So excuse the paraphrase.

"Players who enjoy playing in Open have to play in private/solo to get an edge."

I guess it's down to the type of player that I am that this would be a nobrainer for me. Gaining an edge or enjoying myself playing a game. Screw the edge... wheeeee!

Could I make a similar case being a non-winged CMDR by default that I'd get perks over winged CMDRs in the same mode?

 

[Faded Glory]

They wont get out of it.

Any change that is meaningful for open players / advocates will result in drama on the forums and people learning the fun behind UPnP / P2P.
Any change not meaningful enough for folks to do the above, also wont be worthwhile adding for the open players / advocates and we are right back to square one.

Indeed, although I think the outcomes have the potential to be somewhat greater than forum noise.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Kant: The concrete exists otherwise we could not form the abstract. Initial perception of the "real" is required prior to any metaphysical or abstract thought.

But that's the fun part, this perception of "real" is completely subjective. Or rather it's regionally limited to an un-extended part of ourselves as we see in The Meditation by Descartes and his justification for knowledge. Anything that is extended is susceptible to doubt.

If all three water troughs were provided by the same entity, had the same quality of water, volume of water, then all three troughs are treated equally by the provider of the troughs and the troughs of water themselves are equal.

The incentive, because of influence/factors that are not inherent to the troughs themselves, to use any of the troughs is unequal.

Even with that distinction, do you think it's justified to leave things the way they are while the politician of the state goes on about his speech of "I promote equality" when this becomes a problem not just for three houses but the entire state?

 

[knowles2]

Good idea, it should be extended to every part of the game so that playing in open play has a benefit overall.

 

[GluttonyFang]

On the phone, so can't continue the quote shotgunning. So excuse the paraphrase.

"Players who enjoy playing in Open have to play in private/solo to get an edge."

I guess it's down to the type of player that I am that this would be a nobrainer for me. Gaining an edge or enjoying myself playing a game. Screw the edge... wheeeee!

Could I make a similar case being a non-winged CMDR by default that I'd get perks over winged CMDRs in the same mode?

But the "fun" you are referring to is derived from the adversarial competition for PP, outside of PP it's a different case.

Also, I gave you this link, it answered your question:

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=237773&page=37&p=3685353&viewfull=1#post3685353

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

Good idea, it should be extended to every part of the game so that playing in open play has a benefit overall.

No no no =-=