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

[GluttonyFang]

Gotcha. The climate-denier's go to

Hah, what can you say, when the earth's in ruin, they'll get it.

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.

Well, more the reason to rectify it now.

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.

Well, that's an assumption made only if we believe the the PP's state of being is the final state. The game is in development, so I think what is missing will be filled in eventually. Commentary on the design without having actual access to the blueprint requires inspection of a "final state of the product," which I don't believe PP is within that state, nor is ED itself.

 

[Ian Phillips]

English only please Gluttony Fang, or at the very minimum provide a translation as well.

 

[GluttonyFang]

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.

And I explained how if that is not implied nor intended, then it's like telling oppressed racial minority to deal with either betraying their own identity to attain the quality of life of the non-oppressed population or remain oppressed and a second class citizen.

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

English only please Gluttony Fang, or at the very minimum provide a translation as well.

Sure, then I shall assume the judgment and warning goes to this:

Kritik der reinen Vernunft. Speziell die transzedentale Logik.

If so, I gladly comply.

 

[Boomer Kay]

And I explained how if that is not implied nor intended, then it's like telling oppressed racial minority to deal with either betraying their own identity to attain the quality of life of the non-oppressed population or remain oppressed and a second class citizen.

Chill a second.
Not that it would matter for the discussion, but my daughter's half asian and half european. She's a racial minority wherever she goes.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Chill a second.
Not that it would matter for the discussion, but my daughter's half asian and half european. She's a racial minority wherever she goes.

Did you read the original example?

Also, the example involves "oppressed" racial minority.

 

[GilliganTX]

Well, more the reason to rectify it now.


Well, that's an assumption made only if we believe the the PP's state of being is the final state. The game is in development, so I think what is missing will be filled in eventually. Commentary on the design without having actual access to the blueprint requires inspection of a "final state of the product," which I don't believe PP is within that state, nor is ED itself.

Probably, and I can agree with that.

And I explained how if that is not implied nor intended, then it's like telling oppressed racial minority to deal with either betraying their own identity to attain the quality of life of the non-oppressed population or remain oppressed and a second class citizen.

IMO, that analogy is flimsy for numerous reasons. Oppression implies it is some authoritative/administrative force that is creating the inequality, and that is not the case here. FD has not imposed any unequal rules or mechanics on one game mode in favor of another. One game mode is not being oppressed by any outside entity.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Did you read the original example?

Also, the example involves "oppressed" racial minority.

Yes, and I pretended I didn't until now, when you had to bring it up again.
Seriously, those issues are not the least game related.
I made my points last page.

All this arguing from stick to stone to Einstein is not helping the cause you try to make either, since it looks like FD actually has to justify any game design decision they make.
Which they don't. It's not a democracy with majority votes or anything. It's just nice of them to get customer feedback and "gauge", before they shoot. Shows they actually care and are working on their communication.

And I'm agnostic.

 

[Ozram]

All this thread is reminding me of is how long it's been since I graduated from college and read an actual book on western philosophy and psychology. My my... I only vaguely recollect some of this stuff that used to be second nature. I think I'll have to go back and start rereading

 

[GluttonyFang]

IMO, that analogy is flimsy for numerous reasons. Oppression implies it is some authoritative/administrative force that is creating the inequality, and that is not the case here. FD has not imposed any unequal rules or mechanics on one game mode in favor of another. One game mode is not being oppressed by any outside entity.

The PP mechanic currently is unequal for modes under the competitive scope of examination, and it's is implemented by not other than FD.

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

Yes, and I pretended I didn't until now, when you had to bring it up again.
Seriously, those issues are not the least game related.
If you want to talk about that stuff, we can take it to PM. If not ... I made my points last page.
And I'm agnostic.

It's an analogy, not a reciting of historical occurrence. If you want to talk about it, feel free to PM.

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

All this thread is reminding me of is how long it's been since I graduated from college and read an actual book on western philosophy and psychology. My my... I only vaguely recollect some of this stuff that used to be second nature. I think I'll have to go back and start rereading

Read a book everyday

 

[Robert Maynard]

The PP mechanic currently is unequal for modes under the competitive scope of examination, and it's is implemented by not other than FD.

.... but the players who cause the average reduction of efficiency of other players are outwith Frontier's control. They could *choose* to all work together for one Power - but don't.

 

[GluttonyFang]

.... but the players who cause the average reduction of efficiency of other players are outwith Frontier's control. They could *choose* to all work together for one Power - but don't.

That is if we work under the assumption that combative PvP is an undesirable part to PP, which is something Sandro tries to rectify since it's a symptom/belief developed by the way PP is implemented.

You are supposed to be opposed to by other players in PP directly and indirectly.

 

[GilliganTX]

The PP mechanic currently is unequal for modes under the competitive scope of examination, and it's is implemented by not other than FD.

IMO, it's a bit of a stretch, that. Having to invent a particular frame of reference in order to develop and unequal view of the game modes. Taken at face value, the modes are even. Any amount of mental acrobatics will eventually find some manner of "inequality" in anything.

The modes are currently unequal under a population scope of examination.
The modes are currently unequal under a cooperative scope of examination.

If you were to try and break down every aspect of the game under a microscope you are going to find inequality relative to other game modes everywhere. It becomes an exercise in futility attempting to correct or compensate for every minor facet of the game that could be taken as unequal in relation to another.

Far better to simply ensure that each game mode has the same tools, and that all those tools perform equally, and let player agency take its course.

 

[Robert Maynard]

That is if we work under the assumption that combative PvP is an undesirable part to PP, which is something Sandro tries to rectify since it's a symptom/belief developed by the way PP is implemented.

You are supposed to be opposed to by other players in PP directly and indirectly.

.... only if you are pledged to a different Power. It's down to each player's choice of Power. Similarly, players may choose to engage in PvP in relation to Powerplay is a choice - which generally requires players to play in Open as it is the most likely mode to encounter PvP in. Player opposition is expected. Direct opposition is not required (but is possible).

 

[GluttonyFang]

IMO, it's a bit of a stretch, that. Having to invent a particular frame of reference in order to develop and unequal view of the game modes. Taken at face value, the modes are even. Any amount of mental acrobatics will eventually find some manner of "inequality" in anything.

The modes are currently unequal under a population scope of examination.
The modes are currently unequal under a cooperative scope of examination.

If you were to try and break down every aspect of the game under a microscope you are going to find inequality relative to other game modes everywhere. It becomes an exercise in futility attempting to correct or compensate for every minor facet of the game that could be taken as unequal in relation to another.

Far better to simply ensure that each game mode has the same tools, and that all those tools perform equally, and let player agency take its course.

But the scopes you use as examples don't demand any sort of "even ground."

Population inequality implies distributed player preference for mode.

Cooperative inequality excludes solo since it doesn't involve player cooperation. Solo is a mode of player preference of playing alone, and it lacks competitive elements per se. Private has a controlled environment for cooperation, by player choice, without competitive elements per se, and Open has an uncontrolled environment for cooperation, by player choice, without competitive elements per se.

A competitive scope has more of a priority in terms of relative fairness and even ground.

The atmosphere of PP as a competitive mechanic is mutually exclusive to the atmosphere of the game in general, as Sandro implies where he doesn't wish to expand this effect onto anything outside of PP.

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

.... only if you are pledged to a different Power. It's down to each player's choice of Power. Similarly, players may choose to engage in PvP in relation to Powerplay is a choice - which generally requires players to play in Open as it is the most likely mode to encounter PvP in. Player opposition is expected. Direct opposition is not required (but is possible).

But then you are merely giving a directionless explanation of player options for PP. Precisely because player opposition isn't required, people have a natural incentive to PP in private and solo, and Open becomes an irrational choice. Those that originally wants to play in Solo and Private have their preferred mode to play in and the competitive edge whereas Open players have to gain a competitive edge by losing their preferred mode of play. That doesn't sound quite proportionately equal.

Direct opposition is not required, no, but it doesn't make it any less of an integral part of the design that doesn't require attention/consideration as any other integral parts of the design.

 

[GilliganTX]

But the scopes you use as examples don't demand any sort of "even ground."

Population inequality implies distributed player preference for mode.

Cooperative inequality excludes solo since it doesn't involve player cooperation. Solo is a mode of player preference of playing alone, and it lacks competitive elements per se. Private has a controlled environment for cooperation, by player choice, without competitive elements per se, and Open has an uncontrolled environment for cooperation, by player choice, without competitive elements per se.

Right, and by following the arguments in favor of this change, hypothetically, that means that these are all unequal parts of the game that make a particular game more more/less difficult depending on exactly what activity you're engaged in, and should be compensated for that.

I know you are not advocating this, but it is the end conclusion of that line of thinking.

A competitive scope has more of a priority in terms of relative fairness and even ground.

That's an opinion, but I'm inclined to agree. However, with regard to Elite and it's ethos of "blaze your own trail" and not showing preference for one playstyle over another, I think it's difficult/futile to try an enforce that.

The atmosphere of PP as a competitive mechanic is mutually exclusive to the atmosphere of the game in general, as Sandro implies where he doesn't wish to expand this effect onto anything outside of PP.

It's possible that with the introduction of player powers that this will not be feasible in the future.

 

[GluttonyFang]

Right, and by following the arguments in favor of this change, hypothetically, that means that these are all unequal parts of the game that make a particular game more more/less difficult depending on exactly what activity you're engaged in, and should be compensated for that.

Get those solo players the NPC wings they deserve!

That's an opinion, but I'm inclined to agree. However, with regard to Elite and it's ethos of "blaze your own trail" and not showing preference for one playstyle over another, I think it's difficult/futile to try an enforce that.

Precisely because "blazing one's own trail" it's important that players' decisions in deciding in a mode they wish to play in doesn't somehow cripple them in a competitive mechanic.

It's possible that with the introduction of player powers that this will not be feasible in the future.

Factions will become Powers when they get large enough, there is a dichotomy between minor faction and becoming an actual power, I think the distinction is clear enough.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But the scopes you use as examples don't demand any sort of "even ground."

Population inequality implies distributed player preference for mode.

Cooperative inequality excludes solo since it doesn't involve player cooperation. Solo is a mode of player preference of playing alone, and it lacks competitive elements per se. Private has a controlled environment for cooperation, by player choice, without competitive elements per se, and Open has an uncontrolled environment for cooperation, by player choice, without competitive elements per se.

A competitive scope has more of a priority in terms of relative fairness and even ground.

The atmosphere of PP as a competitive mechanic is mutually exclusive to the atmosphere of the game in general, as Sandro implies where he doesn't wish to expand this effect onto anything outside of PP.

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



But then you are merely giving a directionless explanation of player options for PP. Precisely because player opposition isn't required, people have a natural incentive to PP in private and solo, and Open becomes an irrational choice. Those that originally wants to play in Solo and Private have their preferred mode to play in and the competitive edge whereas Open players have to gain a competitive edge by losing their preferred mode of play. That doesn't sound quite proportionately equal.

Direct opposition is not required, no, but it doesn't make it any less of an integral part of the design that doesn't require attention/consideration as any other integral parts of the design.

From what Sandro has said, he seems to be attempting to encourage those players who are min/maxing Powerplay in a non-preferred game mode back into Open. Whether he is successful (as while merits will get an Open Play Success Bonus, ship losses will still incur a rebuy screen - possibly more often in Open) remains to be seen.

I well remember Sandro's post which refers to player vs player (and player vs environment and co-op play) as integral parts of the game. Two of those elements are completely optional on the part of individual players, should a player choose not to engage in them.

 

[GilliganTX]

Get those solo players the NPC wings they deserve!

So long as you can use them in Group/Open too.

Precisely because "blazing one's own trail" it's important that players' decisions in deciding in a mode they wish to play in doesn't somehow cripple them in a competitive mechanic.

Claiming that playing in open will somehow "cripple" a player is a massive exaggeration.

Since December, if I'm doing powerplay, I've done it in open. I have been "crippled," hindered, or obstructed, exactly zero times in doing so. I lost a ship once after making deliveries, returning home and was caught off guard. But since it was after I had completed my power-playing, I don't consider it to have hindered my doing so.

Factions will become Powers when they get large enough, there is a dichotomy between minor faction and becoming an actual power, I think the distinction is clear enough.

For now it probably is, we'll have to wait and see where/how clear that line ends up in the future.

 

[GluttonyFang]

From what Sandro has said, he seems to be attempting to encourage those players who are min/maxing Powerplay in a non-preferred game mode back into Open. Whether he is successful (as while merits will get an Open Play Success Bonus, ship losses will still incur a rebuy screen - possibly more often in Open) remains to be seen.

I well remember Sandro's post which refers to player vs player (and player vs environment and co-op play) as integral parts of the game. Two of those elements are completely optional on the part of individual players, should a player choose not to engage in them.

Right...

Which means you're not arguing against me.

 

[Boomer Kay]

That's an opinion, but I'm inclined to agree.

I'm inclined to disagree. A competitive environment has to provide a framework. That's all.
When I was 15 and into chess, I could have beaten any reigning world champion in chess in his 50ies by not making a move and waiting until he passes away. The framework has to make sure I only have a "fair" amount of time for a move (there were "letter chess" rules that allowed you weeks for your next move ^^ ). Not that his and my IQ are equal.
And nowadays, no human has won a chess match against a halfwit chess computer in a pretty long time. So much for "human competition being harder to beat".

(as for the PowerPlay framework being all that I could be .. not really .. comment about it is a few pages back under "realm vs. realm")