Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Rubbernuke]

Which would favour Open players as they would choose either Open or Solo/PG to suit their Power on a weekly basis - whereas Solo/PG players, who don't enjoy PvP would be effectively limited in their "choice".

But thats not conducive to team play long term- thats just upholding dogma for the sake of it.

Again, if you have missions that help your power, what are you losing? You get a great deal and do as much as you like. Open players get the confrontation when it matters, and solo players get action via NPCs in missions (which can have viable and reactive NPC difficulty using the matured mission generation system).

By doing that, you play to the games strengths and not highlight its weaknesses.

 

[leeG]

Thats far too inflexible- I could see a toggle (like voting) for each week where you select your role for that cycle, and that groups could weigh up needs for that week.

You and Robert were almost there, until we hit this all players are equal, but open are more equal.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

If you hate it that much, and these improvements work, you've lost nothing.

That wouldn't entice me into Open,
You insist that I hate it though all I said was it's useless, I don't hate it, I do think it's a waste of developer time and effort for the handful of small groups playing the game that way.

But that aside I've not seen an suggestion enticing to to entice me to open yet.

 

[Rubbernuke]

You and Robert were almost there, until we hit this all players are equal, but open are more equal.

Because that idea is daft, coming from someone who has actually engaged in Powerplay and organized it for years. You want flexibility and responsiveness, not inflexibility. What will happen is people getting frustrated and de pledging to swap roles.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You see no compelling need to do anything other than repeat yourself. And that includes reading what people are actually saying and understanding it.

The idea that you shouldve fully understood if every design feature is done well or not before you buy the game, that buy purchasing you are no longer entitled to ask it to change for the better, is moronic at best.

Tons is offered in exchange ever single time a suggestion is made regarding this. You liking what is offered is irrelevant to the fact it is offered.

Stating what the game is and not engaging in the discussion as to why change is even suggested, which is because there's a problem with what it is currently is, is not a compelling reason for you to taken seriously, and seen as anything other than a hamster spinning your wheel in a circle.

Is there a suggestion that the periodic reiteration of "make [feature / whole game] Open only" proposals / demands is anything but repetitive?

The hamster analogy describes these threads well - a change proponent starts the wheel spinning and thread participants keep it going - to no effect, as any "agreement" reached has no bearing on the game design.

The idea that the game should be changed to suit players who chose not to inform themselves with regard to it's quirks and features while disregarding the wishes of existing players is equally unreasonable. Whether proposed changes are "for the better" for all players remains a matter of opinion.

The motives of change proponents seem clear - to remove the choices of other players not to play with other players when engaging in one or more game features being either a direct aim or a side-effect of the proposals. Nothing of substance is offered in return.

When players opine that "there's a problem to be solved" they often forget that not every player will agree that the status quo constitutes a problem in the first place.

When change is proposed, the assumption is that it will go the way the change proponents desire - however, if fundamental change is in the offing, to expect the "I can shoot at any thing I instance with" feature to remain intact seems a little naive.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That wouldn't entice me into Open,
You insist that I hate it though all I said was it's useless, I don't hate it, I do think it's a waste of developer time and effort for the handful of small groups playing the game that way.

But that aside I've not seen an suggestion enticing to to entice me to open yet.

You said bin it- which means you did not care about it.

The other aspect is that, it might not be for you- just as not everyone wants to play CQC, mine, or own a FC.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But thats not conducive to team play long term- thats just upholding dogma for the sake of it.

It would encourage team play - but requires team players committed to more than one game mode.

Again, if you have missions that help your power, what are you losing? You get a great deal and do as much as you like. Open players get the confrontation when it matters, and solo players get action via NPCs in missions (which can have viable and reactive NPC difficulty using the matured mission generation system).

Only the Open players get to shift merits for the Power - that's lost to Solo/PG in the proposal. Open players lose nothing.

By doing that, you play to the games strengths and not highlight its weaknesses.

Whether the game modes are a weakness, or a strength, remains a matter of opinion.

 

[Rubbernuke]

When players opine that "there's a problem to be solved" they often forget that not every player will agree that the status quo constitutes a problem in the first place.

You have seen Powerplay, right? The amazing lack of players, its exploitable, malformed and missing systems yes?

 

[Dagwit]

I reckon that when we find Raxxla it will prove to be a gateway to the Greater and Lesser Magellanic Clouds. When players pass through it, Solo players will be sent to the Greater Magellanic Cloud, and Open players will be sent to the Lesser Magellanic Cloud.

Cue endless threads about how it should be the other way round because obviously players in Open are Greater than the equally obviously Lesser players in Solo.

 

[Robert Maynard]

You have seen Powerplay, right? The amazing lack of players, its exploitable, malformed and missing systems yes?

Got my Prismatics....

.... and I was referring to more than just Powerplay.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

You said bin it- which means you did not care about it.

The other aspect is that, it might not be for you- just as not everyone wants to play CQC, mine, or own a FC.

But I didn't say hate... though you claimed that twice.
And not everyone wishes to play open.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It would encourage team play - but requires team players committed to more than one game mode.

It would not, because its not a responsive or flexible function. Powerplay is also about responding to threats.

Only the Open players get to shift merits for the Power - that's lost to Solo/PG in the proposal. Open players lose nothing.

But you still need players to generate that cargo. You can't do both since this is moving in real time- the division of labour is down to time and willingness to go into open to deliver.

Whether the game modes are a weakness, or a strength, remains a matter of opinion.

Unless you can demonstrate (as I have done repeatedly) why NPCs, instancing, EDs game loops are unsuitable for Powerplay, and how they cannot replicate players in a feature driven by players.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Because that idea is daft, coming from someone who has actually engaged in Powerplay and organized it for years. You want flexibility and responsiveness, not inflexibility. What will happen is people getting frustrated and de pledging to swap roles.

Following the discussion only in chunks...
I like your ideas of incorporating all modes into PP - but I do see the counter side of merits not being 'earned' by non-open players - if your proposal permitted the ferrying of merits to station X in solo/PG and then to their final destination in open, it would permit all players to 'enjoy' the benefits of PP.

Just an idea

 

[Rubbernuke]

Got my Prismatics....

Which says it all.

Powerplay has devloved into an exploit fest and inconvienient gated shopping feature.

 

[Rubbernuke]

But I didn't say hate... though you claimed that twice.
And not everyone wishes to play open.

Which, shock horror means this feature as suggested might not be for you.

 

[[VR] M4st0d0n]

Open is undeniably the superior mode, thanks to the block function you can filter out anyone for whatever reason, be it a trainer user, a lagwizard or a roleplaying Kylo Ren angry juvenile. Of course we could have had some proper instancing matchmaking, if this game was a bit more worked on. But I guess it's more fun to have an endless debate about forcing everyone in a "competivite public lobby". This argument just proves most wannabe MLG pilots here are just fresh virgins from xbox, or ex-Eve online players really trying to push squares in circles anyway. Decades of online videogames already proved competition in public lobbies is simply never happening.

 

[Mohrgan]

Which says it all.

Powerplay has devloved into an exploit fest and inconvienient gated shopping feature.

It was always about the Modules. Any game feature is essentially about the rewards. Most everyone has the modules they want. I will remind you that this discussion is about more than PP.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Following the discussion only in chunks...
I like your ideas of incorporating all modes into PP - but I do see the counter side of merits not being 'earned' by non-open players - if your proposal permitted the ferrying of merits to station X in solo/PG and then to their final destination in open, it would permit all players to 'enjoy' the benefits of PP.

Just an idea

Thats pretty much where I saw the suggestion- its solo and PG players generating what Open risks moving. In the end you need to fit the gameplay to the game, because thats just not possible currently.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Is there a suggestion that the periodic reiteration of "make [feature / whole game] Open only" proposals / demands is anything but repetitive?

The hamster analogy describes these threads well - a change proponent starts the wheel spinning and thread participants keep it going - to no effect, as any "agreement" reached has no bearing on the game design.

The idea that the game should be changed to suit players who chose not to inform themselves with regard to it's quirks and features while disregarding the wishes of existing players is equally unreasonable. Whether proposed changes are "for the better" for all players remains a matter of opinion.

The motives of change proponents seem clear - to remove the choices of other players not to play with other players when engaging in one or more game features being either a direct aim or a side-effect of the proposals. Nothing of substance is offered in return.

When players opine that "there's a problem to be solved" they often forget that not every player will agree that the status quo constitutes a problem in the first place.

When change is proposed, the assumption is that it will go the way the change proponents desire - however, if fundamental change is in the offing, to expect the "I can shoot at any thing I instance with" feature to remain intact seems a little naive.

The proposals are made to improve the features and depth of the game, the people I see consistently saying "but what about meeeeeee" are the solo players when a change is suggested.

"Hey let's improve pp with a change that makes it so pledges can generate pp materials in solo via missions, but have to be hauled in open"

Keeps the solo player in mind so they can participate and tries to solve the issue faced by power players where they meet no direct competition even though it is a directly competitive mode, and lose interest over time, causing the mode, and communities built around it, to bleed out.

But all you see is a change to make open the only choice for a very specific aspect as if it is the end all be all.

 

[Rubbernuke]

It was always about the Modules. Any game feature is essentially about the rewards. Most everyone has the modules they want. I will remind you that this discussion is about more than PP.

And if you were paying attention I offered Powerplay as a way to have Open in ED but away from the rest of the game.