(info) First bonus for playing in OPEN under consideration for PP
- Thread starter Abil Midena
- Start date
- Status
Rolled up galnet posts. Right on the snoot.
While reading this and similar threads I've encountered strange chasing me occasionally and not-so-pleasant impression that - ok, someone - has a strong intention to push me inside all that PP thing that is not actually of any interest to me. And now it sounds that there will be more complications on the way up if it will be chosen. I'm aware that PP is all about competitive AND cooperative player's interaction (the latter many tend to forgot), that there are many real enthusiasts of this game style and that this feature can uncover many interesting in-game possibilities and with this the game process itself can be really more entertaining. Also, taking all this in account it appears to me that the idea of making PP open-exclusive is absolutely natural (and I was an "only-in-open" player up to last month, now I need the hires screenshot feature, so solo only). But what at the side of all other players that for any means or reasons are not interested, unable or just temporally (or not) more interested in the other aspects of the game and don't want to participate in PP? And I'm aware that someone of them has never asked for this kind of game feature. So, speaking about "equality" and planned modifications, why at all means a PP-participant have any advantages with respect to non-participant in any non-PP related encounter? Benefits in nearby all aspects of game - PvE, PvP combats, special bonuses, etc? Oh, yes, one "disadvantage" - a PP-participant can be lawfully attacked!... by other PP-participant=) So, like one can already suspect, my opinion regarding PP is pretty evident: yes, this feature must be developed further and became an "open-exclusive", but, disregarding this, all benefits (at least permanent one's like weapons, outfitting, etc) must be retired or be effective only "inside" PP community (why, I don't see a big contradiction in fact of a weapon being in "advanced" mode in case of an encounter between two PP-participants and switched to "normal mode of operation" in any other). And I think that this change will not be devastating, exactly contrary: while the number of PP-participants will be surely reduced, there will be a big gain in quality and dedication (no more deserters and so on). Yes, I'm aware that this may be not at all in good accordance with game progress on the market or game's budget's wealth, but may be this time the quality is more important than overall "mass"?
Not as much, but I'd argue that's why we have such rigorous processes of peer-review for science, and accreditation for Engineering. The overlap, or coincidence of reliable, repeatable data is the cornerstone on which out industrial societies are built.
So it was not the fault of the banks for engaging in high-risk lending and tanking the global economy, but the fault of the economic/regulatory landscape that enabled them to do so?
People are responsible for their actions. Game mechanics are hard coded.
Because we can assume that people are likely to behave in a certain manner does not demand that they must, or that such behavior is inherent to the conditions which permitted it.
No, it is not integral to it. It is a likely consequence but there's nothing mandatory about it.
I agree with the premise, I do not concede that it is an integral factor, because free will (which, another topic, I'm not convinced is real either, but I have rationalized myself to the point where one has to assume we do have freewill other wise you end up in another nihilist spiral where there's not point to anything).
I agree but believe that the "equality in general" is the more important of the two regarding FD's promise of "three equal modes."
No, ED designed in the ability, or free agency, of players to take than mantle upon themselves. FD are not responsible for player choices.
I agree, the logical conclusion of that line of thinking is that the police are then forced to distribute their presence unequally across the three areas in order to provide equal protection for all three citizens.
Last edited:
I thought all modes were equal and just catering for a slightly different play style / demographic...
Thought SOLO was for when you have no friends online, thought Group was for a group session where your friends and you can team up to shoot stuff, and OPEN was for when you're in the mood to shoot someone else and be shot at..
Always figured that Power Play stuff was equal in all modes, and rewarding a certain mode was like telling everyone else they're playing ED wrong.. Figured ED wasn't in the game to force 'British bulldog' on players actively being baited into the crosshairs of a bored PvPer..
Maybe I figured wrong?
Thought SOLO was for when you have no friends online, thought Group was for a group session where your friends and you can team up to shoot stuff, and OPEN was for when you're in the mood to shoot someone else and be shot at..
Always figured that Power Play stuff was equal in all modes, and rewarding a certain mode was like telling everyone else they're playing ED wrong.. Figured ED wasn't in the game to force 'British bulldog' on players actively being baited into the crosshairs of a bored PvPer..
Maybe I figured wrong?
If I did that I'd have to resort to carrier pigeons.
Lets try this from a different angle and with some time having passed walking home. As always, we're arguing from ignorance. We're arguing about an advantage/edge, but we don't have any data on how big this advantage is. Because it's difficult to quantify because of the many variables, and because we don't have access. In the least frequented PP parts of the bubble, Open and Solo could have similar risks attached to it, in the busier parts, Open could be significantly more risky. (This by the way is an element in the Open vs Solo debate I've always had issues with. Open/Solo is treated as an homogeneous entity. While risk can vary wildly from one system to another. And this is dynamic. At the start of my career I settled in Arexe, where I saw the same 2 CMDRs going about their business on a daily basis. Never saw anyone else, and this is a system rather close to Lave. Lave on the other hand was a hot spot of activity and the risk of being interdicted by another CMDR was indeed significant.)
This is why I feel when people talk about risk vs reward, the Open/Solo dividing line is a poor one. Not that I know a better one, since it's not easy to quantify potential PvP hazards.
So that's one thing.
Another thing is my wing example. I was not bringing that up as: "in Solo I cannot wing up, in Open I can, so ....", my point was: Would it be fair that I, as a player who doesn't wing up, get an advantage in Open versus 4 CMDRs in a wing in Open, while doing the same activity. The background risk is the same for all 5 of us after all. So the link you posted did not address that. (and this was the reason for me saying I'm not coming through
)Back to my original point in more detail. And for that I will use the post you linked me. In it you said: "NPC interdictions are a joke, unless you are intentionally making your ship vulnerable. Submit, jump, simple as that." How is that different from Open? I get interdicted, submit, pick another system, high wake, cheerybye! Ask Majinvash about Braben's get out of jail for free card. If you have a boat that can withstand 10 seconds of abuse and know how to dodge boost, there's hardly any danger. These are not my claims mind you. I have to work from the info I get from those who are in Open and are telling me all this. I used to be in Open as well, but the only lifeforms I encounter are water- or ammonia based and hang around gas giants. So, why does the player skill matter when it's so easily escapable?
Seems so
And the feminist empiricist came in and ruined it all, aye? @_@
That's only if we work under the assumption that these behaviors are not desired, nor in design. But they are, combative PvP is as integral to the game as PvE.
Sandro disagrees with you.
Not necessarily as Nietzsche pointed out in Twilight of the Idols.
I'm not going to argue against nor for it since I believe that decision is beyond our scope, I can say it is, you can say it is not, but FD decides.
They are not responsible, no, but when these actions are considered a part of the design and an integral part of the game, it's unreasonable to say that it should be discouraged or considered less of an integral part of the design.
But either way, I think we identified the root of our dispute and have provided rational argument toward our perspectives, at least we are setting good examples as to how to hold a rational debate.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
Hah... another one...
There's a natural incentive to enter private and solo for PP which is uneven ground for equality of modes under the competitive scope...
This is the question that cannot be answered... To say it is not easily escapable, and means certain destruction for one party is to accept that 'forcing' unwilling players into open would be unfair, and would ruin the game for them. To say that it is easily escapable refutes the idea that the playing field is imbalanced. Players still get interdicted by NPCs, so it's no different, and to argue that interdictions by players increases the fact of interruption to gameplay falls victim to the same as the 'danger' argument. If it is so great as to be disruptive, then it's reasonable that players can choose to avoid it, if it's not, it's a non issue.
FD have simply said that players in Open are less effective (in PP), perhaps because they are not fortifying or undermining, but because they are flying around hoping to find an opposing player to shoot. That they have come down on any side is an unfortunate thing (IMO), as it has really damaged their credibility somewhat when they state that "all modes are equal".
There is no final purpose for any mode. The groups are equal and it's entirely up to player agency what that means in each mode, and players are free to use any mode for what ever reason.
Rewarding one mode over the others isn't directly forcing you to do anything, nor is it any indication that you're playing wrong. It IS an indication that contributions to the PP sim done in one mode over another are worth more in the eyes of the developers.
Another thing is my wing example. I was not bringing that up as: "in Solo I cannot wing up, in Open I can, so ....", my point was: Would it be fair that I, as a player who doesn't wing up, get an advantage in Open versus 4 CMDRs in a wing in Open, while doing the same activity. The background risk is the same for all 5 of us after all. So the link you posted did not address that. (and this was the reason for me saying I'm not coming through
Oh, okay. Well then the argument is that in inspection of the PP mechanics, winging up might not be the best approach to completing PP undermining activities due to the reason I listed in the link I gave you.
Your argument pertains more to a general, less PP mechanic focused debate whether independent Open players are at a disadvantage to winged up players in Open. Also, the wing mechanic is available to counter the potential "ganking" (happened even before wing was a thing). To not take advantage of this mechanic is to not use the mode to its fullest capacity for its advantage. This isn't the same as saying the Open is somehow "better," but it's an inspection within Open mode itself and the tools it provide to better cope with its difficulties. Unfortunately this mechanic doesn't provide the rational incentive to enter Open for PP since it cannot avoid disruption all together.
That's for battle-fit ships, a delivery ship in Open cannot stand up to focused fire from a wing, no friendly "RP text" and waiting around for 5-10 seconds. Also, highwaking itself is a manner of delay and disruption. I can't remember the last time an NPC made me high wake.
If you have a boat that is battle fit or fitted for tanking, sure. If you're doing delivery, that's a whole different question. Disruption of PP activity is the goal here for combative PvP activities, not necessarily to blow ships up (a perk if it happens, of course).
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
What's the last time an NPC forced you to highwake? How often does it happen? Under what circumstance?
...
So what happened to the solo players flying around doing non-PP things...
What happen to that statistic if you are arguing in this line of thought?
Last edited:
Don't get that one, sorry.
I disagree. PvE actives are all that is integral in the game. Trading, mining, Res hunting, Combat Zones, Power play, missions, are all PvE oriented activies (Yes, PP is "PvP," but it is accomplished/scored/made possible by PvE activities).
Until there are "kill player" missions or any direct rewards for killing a player that you can't get from killing an NPC, it's not integral to the game. There are no game activities that require PvP. I think that is unfortunate and a huge missed opportunity. I would like to see PvP become an integral part of the game, but at the moment that is not the case.
It is a part of the game, of course, but there are no game mechanics or reward systems in place that would make in integral to the game. The Elite experience is largely identical with or with out PvP in terms of accomplishing to goals the game gives you to accomplish.
That's fine. I do think he intended for PvP to be integral to the game, and I support him in trying to accomplish that. IMO, that hasn't yet happened.
Fair enough.
I could accept "intended consequence," but not integral design. If it were integral, they would/should have put mechanics in game that can only be accomplished through PvP.
Indeed. It's been a good one. Thanks.
- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -
PvP in its current state in game is nothing more than a side show. It is not required in any way shape or form to play the game Elite: Dangerous.
As long as that is the case, it cannot be considered "intregral" to the game. How can anything be "integral" if is superfluous and not necessary in anyway?
Last edited:
Oh basically Feminist Empiricism believes that all science are prone to background assumptions and personal values. Meaning that with the same set of data and the same goal, scientists can come to drastically different conclusions based on their personal assumptions. This doesn't apply at the level of 2+2=4 or the measurement of gravity, but how these numbers work with one another and what they're used to prove. Which kind of start to undermine the infallibility of science and the scientific method. Nietzsche and many other philosophers also poke at science being just another interpretation/religion.
Pessimistic induction, constructive empiricism, vitalism, unconceived alternative, blah blah blah are all rational objections, inquiries, criticisms about the scientific method and science itself.
Not to say that science is pointless, which obviously would be silly considering the advancements, but when people hold it up and fetishize it as if faith in religion of the old, it starts to get silly, and people begin to rebut like they always do to authorities and norms in the constant circularity of power as Foucault kindly pointed out.
Right, the activities themselves are PvE, but they are prone to combative PvP interruption, and it appears that the devs want this to happen in multiplayer modes and wish to reward it.
Well yes, personally I would say that in terms of pragmatic examination of the game, it isn't integral. But in design, it is, which is the reason why I quoted the Dev, since rectifying the current PP situation would be a step in the right direction.
No, it hasn't, hence why some PvP groups have fell off the map, and are falling off the map as we speak. Whether that is a good or bad thing is for the developers to decide.
I think that being an integral part of the design doesn't mean an integral part of the activities available in game. So yes and no, it's an integral part of the design, but not yet an integral part of the activities.
Any time.
Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Speziell die transzedentale Logik. <Critique of Pure Reason. Specifically, transcendental logic.>
Yes, read the german original, since all translations are mere interpretations and hence flawed. (hey, I learned enough japanese that I can follow a hachidan who doesn't speak english in his native language, so I have a chance at getting to the "fountain", instead of hand-me-downs)
And, like all "classics", it's a tad naive and limited, but has some nice food for thought.
An hour is an hour.
What exactly is to argue about that?
The worth of an hour? The price of an hour? The lenght of an hour (depends how close you are to a black hole and how fast you travel in relation to the speed of light)?
The impact of your actions? Is not exclusively determined by the time you spend on it.
If you do not know what your hour is worth *to you*, you will always have that feeling of being coerced.
Maybe in all the general philosophy here, I failed to make my point clear .. and to the point. So here, in a nutshell. The anthithesises (as per the Dialektik model) - and they apply to "both sides":
- Frontier are not really "dropping a bomb". They're doing what in my office buzzword bingo would be called "gauging the quick win". They're trying to find a quick to implement mechanic to fix some percieved imbalance (that is then "solidified by number crunching" -sigh-). That is nothing bad - that is something that should be applauded, alas ... ->
- People fear and hate change. It's an universal constant. (why "the advocates of open" don't fear or hate the quick win? because *to them* it's not a change, it's a righting of wrongs that have been done to them. It's Frontier *finally* acknowledging that THEIR chosen mode is really better, after exclusively giving solo the edge in everything)
- People are lazy. (always to be taken into account... if you could rush an hour and save yourself 20 minutes .. where's the modeswitch button?)
- The change will neither fix or save open, nor powerplay (would be nice if there was a "quick win" for that).
- It will not destroy them, either.
- The change *will* shift percieved inequality from one crowd to the other.
Can't please them all, now can you?
Well, actually you can. This is not Salomon the Wise's court, where you have to cut the baby in half to please both mothers.
Just go ahead with the change and add a quick win as compensation for the solo/group crowd, that "have been neglected forever and ever, not being able to use wings, not able to use multicrew.. all changes are always for open".
NPC wingmen has been brought up. Maybe too hard to implement.
Maybe dummy npc co-pilots that do nothing but sit there and look pretty?
And that is "living dialecticism".
Thesis - Antithesis - Synthesis (<- soon to be banned from the PvP league, since well .. really "open" PvP sucks - that grinder with his endless amount of hours can just turn the 10 minutes that matter to his favour - how dare he?).
Last edited by a moderator:
High wake, or just run away? It happens, I even get destroyed by NPCs... Sometimes.
Under what circumstances? If I think I will lose a fight, or if I am losing a fight.
As far as I understood the 'argument', it would appear that players engaging in PP in Open are less effective, so I guess players flying around in Solo / Group doing non-PP things (in PP) would be taken into account against that statistic.
Gotcha. The climate-denier's go to, the fallibility of and bias inherent to the human scientist. I understand that, it's why papers are peer reviewed, so that many different people view the same data and testing methods, and they decide if they agree with the conclusions or not. Kind of hard to say that it's naturally biased when it's scrutinized by so many individuals separately.
Prone to it? IMO, the fact that we are having conversation is testament to the contrary. If PP were prone to combative PvP we would not be seeing the imbalance in participation by mode that has prompted sandro's hand grenade. If PP lent itself to direct PvP, wouldn't the numbers be skewed in favor of Open?
The current PP mechanics lend-themselves to private or cooperative play, or are prone to encourage players to avoid combative PvP.
Design is to close to the pragmatic. Both are reflections of the final product. I would say in concept, PvP [was] integral to the game, but the design fell short, resulting in it being it superfluous in game under pragmatic examination.
Agreed.
Again, just semantic disagreements. Substitute "concept" or "intended design" for design and I agree. The actual design of the thing is done and it is concrete, it has been designed, and that design does not include integral PvP.
*shrug*
Last edited:
I only have mastery in English, Chinese and elementary understanding of Japanese.
True, but I've already pointed out in this thread. Language is of convention, and it only has true meaning when we have an absolute sovereign or some sort of intersubjectivity. As for critique of reason, I've read. You should read some of Hume's work and Locke's work. I already mentioned the issue with Uniformitarianism. As for transcendentalism, read how that might be a problem from Schiller, Whitman, Bergson.
But hey, then this will help too, food for thought from <Please provide a translation with foreign language text>
Yea, depends on how you spend it, there is no reason to spend that hour in Open right now in PP if you want to be competitive yet modes are suppose to be equally incentivized under the competitive scope, but they are not. I already argued about this.
Dialectics? Okay, so we're working in the line of questions and answers and strict reason when you claimed yourself:
Make up your mind please?
Did you know that I advocate for NPC wing long before Sandro started considering anything nice for Open for PP?
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=235327
Yea, I'm already aware of that, Oogie told me about it on the 14th.
Not to mention that I never advocated for either side of the argument and merely asked Oogie to decide on the fundamental root of the competition he hosts. So I'm perfectly aware.
Last edited by a moderator:
I agree they are not equally incentivezed, but I don't remember ever reading any statement saying that they were meant or intended to be.
Last edited:
- Status