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

[Aewarin Jameson]

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 was a guy I met a long time ago .. Lovely chap, liked the things I did, enjoyed beer and a good smoke, but was always banging on about music .. "surely you have heard this" and "you must know this group" .. and on and on he rattled always making reference to some band or what have you. It was incredibly annoying - You see, he was a music buff and I wasn't - I couldn't give a damn about who was in what band or who produced what .. and worse, I knew vaguely some things but I really couldn't care who wrote it or sung it .. I just knew I enjoyed tunes ... I found conversing with him at times was a pain as he always wanted to demonstrate how smart he was .. One day I snapped and kindly reminded him that whilst his music was obviously important I couldn't talk with him when he went about it - I told him that I was big on security - done bouncer work .. protected important people blah blah .. but that I didn't go on about it to him as he had no interest in the subject nor was it important to him. He got the message, and to this day I still speak to him (That was about 20 years ago)

 

[Mohrgan]

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.



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?[/QUOTE]

Maybe it's because not everyone believes that there is an inherent bonus involved between the modes, like the one you so carefully crafted. Or that the farmer should care which of his watering holes gets used. If Trough B is the favorite, what does that matter to the farmer. Use B then.

P.S. I don;t know what happened to the quote above.

 

[GilliganTX]

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 question.

That is a question of return. That is a question of equity. Equal compensation is equity. Creating equitable compensation between the requires making the game mechanics apply unequally to the game modes.

To rephrase: "With the potential change, an hour spent in Open is now roughly equitable to an hour spent in Solo." Equal compensation is equity. It is the output. The inputs, at present, are equal.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ok ... I'm going to coerce myself out since I'm not getting through

 

[GluttonyFang]

There was a guy I used to know a long time ago .. Lovely chap, liked the things I did, enjoyed beer and a good smoke, but was always banging on about music .. "surely you have heard this" and "you must know this group" .. and on and on he rattled always making reference to some band or what have you. It was incredibly annoying - You see, he was a music buff and I wasn't - I couldn't give a damn about who was in what band or who produced what .. and worse, I knew vaguely some things but I really couldn't care who wrote it or sung it .. I just knew I enjoyed tunes ... I found conversing with him at times was a pain as he always wanted to demonstrate how smart he was .. One day I snapped and kindly reminded him that whilst his music was obviously important I couldn't talk with him when he went about it - I told him that I was big on security - done bouncer work .. protected important people blah blah .. but that I didn't go on about it to him as he had no interest in the subject nor was it important to him. He got the message, and to this day I still speak to him (That was about 20 years ago)

If a guy like that talks to me about an irrelevant point to the discussion, of course I would remind the guy that he is getting off topic. But this is a debate over semantics, thus philosophy and anthropology comes into the image with other relevant fields in humanities.

If this was a discussion about say chemistry, I would probably not even reply to the thread or frequently ask questions as to what is what. But that is not the case here.

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

Ok ... I'm going to coerce myself out since I'm not getting through

Oh come on =-=, I gave you substantial arguments ;-;

 

[Jockey79]

Ok ... I'm going to coerce myself out since I'm not getting through

Just sit back and enjoy the read.

I'm sure the S.O.G thread will be popular again one day.

 

[Faded Glory]

[snip]
But this is a debate over semantics, thus philosophy and anthropology comes into the image with other relevant fields in humanities.

I thought it was a debate over whether players thought Sandro's ideas for giving a bonus to Open play in PP were a good idea or not...

 

[GluttonyFang]

That is a question of return. That is a question of equity. Equal compensation is equity. Creating equitable compensation between the requires making the game mechanics apply unequally to the game modes.

To rephrase: "With the potential change, an hour spent in Open is now roughly equitable to an hour spent in Solo." Equal compensation is equity. It is the output. The inputs, at present, are equal.

Input in this case represents players' effort, which are definitely not equal in the different modes due to the respective features they offer.

Output, on the other hand, represents the effect one causes through his actions. Which will be relatively equal due to the pros and cons of the modes after the potential PP change.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

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.

That isn't true though.

An hour of my time in solo will promote my power by 100 merits (for example)
An hour of my time in open will promote my power by 200 merits, or if I am very unlucky zero.

Why ?

My time zone is not really EU time so the chances of meeting anyone is very slim. 4pm when I get home is 1pm EU time .. most people are at work / school.

Also, unlike CGs which are a player magnet as there's only 1 place to go (drop off point) PP systems are scattered and far apart .. that lowers the odds of meeting someone else - perhaps not reducing it to zero, but close to it.

You get the point ?

There is no longer equality for time spent especially if you don't meet anyone else in game.

Sure, peak time EU the numbers maybe skewed, but this isn't just an EU player base.

Linking someones merit rewards for your power if you blow someone up / escape from combat is much fairer than if you simply add it carte blanche.

 

[GluttonyFang]

I thought it was a debate over whether players thought Sandro's ideas for giving a bonus to Open play in PP were a good idea or not...

And we got into equality vs equity/numerical equality vs proportionate equality, what can we say.

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

That isn't true though.

An hour of my time in solo will promote my power by 100 merits (for example)
An hour of my time in open will promote my power by 200 merits, or if I am very unlucky zero.

Why ?

My time zone is not really EU time so the chances of meeting anyone is very slim. 4pm when I get home is 1pm EU time .. most people are at work / school.

Also, unlike CGs which are a player magnet as there's only 1 place to go (drop off point) PP systems are scattered and far apart .. that lowers the odds of meeting someone else - perhaps not reducing it to zero, but close to it.

You get the point ?

There is no longer equality for time spent especially if you don't meet anyone else in game.

Sure, peak time EU the numbers maybe skewed, but this isn't just an EU player base.

Linking someone merit rewards for your power if you blow someone from the opposing team is much fairer than if you simply add it carte blanche.

You read my proposal on the matter, right?

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

Maybe it's because not everyone believes that there is an inherent bonus involved between the modes, like the one you so carefully crafted. Or that the farmer should care which of his watering holes gets used. If Trough B is the favorite, what does that matter to the farmer. Use B then.

The problem is that I've shown in the example and through rational reasoning that there is an inherent incentive to use private and solo many times already.

The houses are suppose to represent player preference. A house's favorite fountain is the one closest to it/in front of it.


I'll quote this as many times as I need:

"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?

Also, you still haven't answered my example: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=237822&p=3684852&viewfull=1#post3684852

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

You read my proposal on the matter, right?

It's linked offsite, so no ... same with the people who do video responses to things.

If it's not here then I am not really interested. I don't have time to read all offsite stuff / watch all vids .. sometimes I do : I think I skimmed your other mega post but that took some effort (your writing style is waffle)

 

[GilliganTX]

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.

Isn't it? I had a hard time reconciling that one when I was younger. Basically I thought myself down to the point that if we cannot rely on reality actually being concrete, then the whole point of science and engineering and human endeavor becomes moot. "Nothing exists, save empty space, and 'you'."

If nothing is all that reliably exits is, why do anything? I got very nihilistic. I had to go back through Kant and basically get to the point that we have to start from the assumption that our perceptions are the result of something real. Following up on that assumption, and collecting "subjective" perceptions and making them into data, and comparing them with the subjective perceptions of others, reveals the nature of the objective reality of which those perceptions are made. The repeatable agreement of these perceptions is the only reliable way to understand what does and does not exist.

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?

If they had promised to treat all the troughs equal, then yes, it is justified.


Probably an analogy you could better use to drive your point of proportional equality: Police presence and safety/security.


You have three citizens, A, B, and C.

They live in locations X, Y, and Z.

Police are distributed evenly across all three areas. 33%.

The assumption is all citizens are equally protected.

-However-

The crime rates in all those locations varies heavily from location to location.

Crimerate(X) = .5
Crimerate(Y) = 1
Crimerate(Z) = 1.5

So the actual proportional police protection per citizen by crimerate breaks down as:

Protection(A) = .33/.5 = 0.66 rate of protection
Protection(B) = .33/1 = .33 rate of protection
Protection(C) = .33/1.5 = .22 rate of protection


So the three citizens are not protected equally by the state, despite an equal amount of police force being present at all three locations.




That is much more compelling.

 

[GluttonyFang]

It's linked offsite, so no ... same with the people who do video responses to things.

If it's not here then I am not really interested. I don't have time to read all offsite stuff / watch all vids .. sometimes I do : I think I skimmed your other mega post but that took some effort (your writing style is waffle)

I didn't write in a formal way since that bores people considering there were math involved. But if you read the proposal, then you should know you're not disagreeing with me to the scale you believe you are.

 

[GilliganTX]

Input in this case represents players' effort, which are definitely not equal in the different modes due to the respective features they offer.

Output, on the other hand, represents the effect one causes through his actions. Which will be relatively equal due to the pros and cons of the modes after the potential PP change.

But it's not a question of "equal player input/output"

It's a question of "equal mode treatment by development."

Regarding the role that "equality" plays in each mode.

FD is not obligated to balance "player effort," in anyway.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

I didn't write in a formal way since that bores people considering there were math involved. But if you read the proposal, then you should know you're not disagreeing with me to the scale you believe you are.

So you're advocating for it not to be a flat rate across the board, but linked to actual engagements in combat ?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Oh come on =-=, I gave you substantial arguments ;-;

I'm blaming it on having to do this on a phone.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Isn't it? I had a hard time reconciling that one when I was younger. Basically I thought myself down to the point that if we cannot rely on reality actually being concrete, then the whole point of science and engineering and human endeavor becomes moot. "Nothing exists, save empty space, and 'you'."

If nothing is all that reliably exits is, why do anything? I got very nihilistic. I had to go back through Kant and basically get to the point that we have to start from the assumption that our perceptions are the result of something real. Following up on that assumption, and collecting "subjective" perceptions and making them into data, and comparing them with the subjective perceptions of others, reveals the nature of the objective reality of which those perceptions are made. The repeatable agreement of these perceptions is the only reliable way to understand what does and does not exist.

Then I'm sure you've read the flaw and bias of uniformitarianism proposed by Hume and how ampilative inference as useful as it might seen, is quite dangerous to rely on, as well?

I got nihilistic too, at one point, but then I read more modern philosophers and realize that the fetichization of Stoicism is merely a symptom of human condition, not some absolute lost cause.

If they had promised to treat all the troughs equal, then yes, it is justified.


Probably an analogy you could better use to drive your point of proportional equality: Police presence and safety/security.


You have three citizens, A, B, and C.

They live in locations X, Y, and Z.

Police are distributed evenly across all three areas. 33%.

The assumption is all citizens are equally protected.

-However-

The crime rates in all those locations varies heavily from location to location.

Crimerate(X) = .5
Crimerate(Y) = 1
Crimerate(Z) = 1.5

So the actual proportional police protection per citizen by crimerate breaks down as:

Protection(A) = .33/.5 = 0.66 rate of protection
Protection(B) = .33/1 = .33 rate of protection
Protection(C) = .33/1.5 = .22 rate of protection


So the three citizens are not protected equally by the state, despite an equal amount of police force being present at all three locations.




That is much more compelling.

I think I get where we are diverging in terms of the fundamentals:

We arrive at the issue whether combative PvP is integral to the overall image of equality or not for FD (Which Sandro states it is). Then in my example, bandits/criminals around fountain A is not some "uncontrolled/unforeseen" factor outside of the concept of equality, but a part in it.

Basically, the question is: Is direct player opposition via combative PvP an integral part of the design or not. If it is, then it is a factor within the equation that leads to equality. Due to that, there were never any equality under the competitive scope for modes. Just because modes have equal access to the PP mechanic doesn't mean that the gameplay they incorporate don't factor into the measurement of equality.

"Modes' equality under the scope of competitive mechanic known as PP and the modes' equality in general are two different things."

This is why I didn't use equity but use proportionate equality to begin with.

We didn't design "criminals" in either of our examples, but ED designs it, thus should take the responsibility in weighing that within the equation for equality. No police department in their right mind would distribute their forces in the way you suggest, because they know, and know for sure that there will be an equal distribution of forces due the the inherent differential between areas, even under the concept of proportionate equality.

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

I'm blaming it on having to do this on a phone.

Bash the phone in >:3

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

But it's not a question of "equal player input/output"

It's a question of "equal mode treatment by development."

Regarding the role that "equality" plays in each mode.

FD is not obligated to balance "player effort," in anyway.

Read the above.

It's not the balance of player effort. But the effect of player effort in respective modes.

 

[DaveB]

Gilligan! Gluttony! Imma swat you both with a corvette-on-a-stick! You're so close in what you want you really shouldn't be tearing chunks out of each other like this.

 

[GluttonyFang]

So you're advocating for it not to be a flat rate across the board, but linked to actual engagements in combat ?

So you didn't read it thoroughly >_>

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RRRd5m6X87sB7uEi8K-11U4-bWrxhx3MbW4bxVqDUWs/edit

Read the part about "Bonus" and you'll see.

But tl;dr, yea, pretty much.

 

[Derath]

FD isn't obligated to do anything in any way, thats why they don't