Page 14 of 35 FirstFirst ... 9121314151619 ... LastLast
Results 196 to 210 of 524

Thread: Powerplay should not be made Open-only. Here's why... [EDITED]

  1. #196
    Originally Posted by Sterling MH View Post (Source)
    Not to mention that we have no evidence that this IS what most players want. I don't. But I dont pretend to speak for most of the playerbase either.
    I want to believe the developer has at least some understanding of that. They are not going to have recommended this because hell why not.

    Sandy is a bit gung-ho, granted, but even so. If there are genuine and fundamental concerns sufficient to drive this, then I think more consideration than "Sod off m8" is probably warranted.

  2. #197
    Originally Posted by kofeyh View Post (Source)
    Chess doesn't usually include tokens. Do you mean pawns?
    He means the chess pieces are the outcomes of the player activity, whatever that activity is and how many participate in whatever mode.

    If anything is invisible, it's the bit FD never think about. Outcomes are called such as they are planned for, affected, but not guaranteed. Like an ad going viral, you may want it to, but if it does or not is up to the potential audience for your product. Or in this case, group or individual action to move a chess piece.

    As such it is a terrible analogy, and one I've used before in exactly this fashion to highlight how little understanding the Designers have over the difference between Closed (two player driven chess) and Open (ecosystem driven not chess) Systems Theory. It's like experiencing vertigo.

    Now FD are making exactly the same set of errors by even suggesting all this.

  3. #198
    Originally Posted by Sterling MH View Post (Source)
    Not to mention that we have no evidence that this IS what most players want. I don't. But I dont pretend to speak for most of the playerbase either.
    Ouch a bit of snark there eh? Feeling some feelings I guess

    No one knows what the majority of players want but the assumption is, since fdev have proposed this publicly, is that fdev have data on what the majority of players do want and this might be it. Also it looks like, from my point of view, that the general sentiment of elite players on here/YouTube/Reddit is for pp to be open only. But I guess we'll see.

  4. #199
    Originally Posted by kofeyh View Post (Source)
    I want to believe
    And that means nothing. Want to believe anything you want. Crystal healers and flattearthers do so all the time. But this is irrelevant to what is happening in reality.

    Originally Posted by vanya234 View Post (Source)
    Ouch a bit of snark there eh? Feeling some feelings I guess
    Struck a nerve I see, otherwise that would not have come to your mind there.

    Originally Posted by vanya234 View Post (Source)
    No one knows what the majority of players want
    Uh, where were you when someone claimed what most players wanted, then?
    Originally Posted by vanya234 View Post (Source)
    ...
    Oh, that's where you were... Odd. Split personality?

  5. #200
    Originally Posted by Sterling MH View Post (Source)
    And that means nothing. Want to believe anything you want. Crystal healers and flattearthers do so all the time. But this is irrelevant to what is happening in reality.



    Struck a nerve I see, otherwise that would not have come to your mind there.
    So smug yeesh.

    So, are you trying to argue that the developer has no understanding of what players want? I'm confused here

    Originally Posted by Sterling MH View Post (Source)
    And that means nothing. Want to believe anything you want. Crystal healers and flattearthers do so all the time. But this is irrelevant to what is happening in reality.



    Struck a nerve I see, otherwise that would not have come to your mind there.



    Uh, where were you when someone claimed what most players wanted, then?

    Oh, that's where you were... Odd. Split personality?
    Stop snipping posts to suit yourself and cutting my argument out.

    Edit: also it would be appreciated if we could focus on the content of the discussion and you could refrain from ad hominem attacks please thanks

  6. #201
    Originally Posted by Sterling MH View Post (Source)
    And that means nothing. Want to believe anything you want. Crystal healers and flattearthers do so all the time. But this is irrelevant to what is happening in reality.



    Struck a nerve I see, otherwise that would not have come to your mind there.



    Uh, where were you when someone claimed what most players wanted, then?
    My statement stands. The developer would be irresponsible to recommend this change without input data and reasons.

    I said I want to believe, because I cannot know them all in the absence of them all being provided.

    That has nothing to do with faith healers. It's a statement that the developer would not even be going near this with a 5000 foot pole ordinarily. It's a hell of an adminission, lset alone recommendation.

    Try taking a step back. For someone against open power play, you're rather good at attacking. Actually did you want to wing up some time, AI wouldn't stand a chance.

  7. #202
    Originally Posted by kofeyh View Post (Source)
    Chess doesn't usually include tokens. Do you mean pawns? Because if you are going to mock someone, at least be accurate. Unless you are referring to alternate pieces unusual chess variants can use.

    Presumably you meant to try and asert a superior understanding. It doesn't help your cause, either way

    Powers are kings and queens; well, minor factions are probably more queens, but I digress. We are the pawns. Sacrificial in nature. Frontier included AI as pawns to make up the numbers and ensure undermining (for example) would function across modes.

    Honestly I don't care at this point. Folks just want to be right and win arguments and what ostensibly happens to the game seems to be less important.

    Again, if the developer is unable to progress changes, even with consultation, then that should be a huge concern for the future of the game, it's growth and the ability of the developer to solve the issues they've been asked to address.
    Honestly not mocking anyone. Objectively pointing out it was a bad analogy. Mocking would be me resorting to veiled insult and laughing at the poster, which I most certainly am not.

    Powerplay. The closest analogy to chess is the pieces are the Powers and PvE tokens, and then you have the players - seen and unseen.

    And that's the second time you've said something about trying to be right and win arguments - I mean, the whole point of debating the merits or not of making Powerplay playable only in Open game client connectivity mode is that some arguments/reasoning may be better than others - and in my opinion, trying to say the folks who move the pieces are the pawns, is incorrect, if you're trying to cite chess as an analogy. The folks who move the PvE tokens are the players of the game, the pieces are the tokens.

    Now, it is being suggested that "all players should be seen" - i.e. if a player is moving stuff to or from a Powerplay system, their ship should be visible. This, again, on the face of it is reasonable. However, this is E: D, a P2P-based game, and I predict right now that if Frontier go ahead with this, that;

    1) It removes content from those who do not desire to play in Open game client connectivity mode

    2) The unscrupulous players who run bots will just find ways of playing in Open without their game clients connecting to other game clients

    3) Those who desire to still not encounter other player ships will find ways of playing in Open without their game client connecting to other game clients

    resulting in

    4) No overall change in Powerplay outcomes or the amount of cannon fodder for those wishing to solve Powerplay by way of blowing up other ships.

    The Powerplay conundrum is a direct result of trying to fit Powerplay into a game with P2P architecture. That's the cause. Trying to treat the symptom in the proposed manner is no cure, nor will it be a way to convert Powerplay into a purely-direct-PvP game, which is what seems to be the thinking behind Sandro's proposal.

  8. #203
    Originally Posted by vanya234 View Post (Source)
    So smug yeesh.

    So, are you trying to argue that the developer has no understanding of what players want? I'm confused here



    Stop snipping posts to suit yourself and cutting my argument out.
    S/he's good at that, isn't s/he. I think the mentality comes from playing in solo too much. See something that threatens you? No problem, just ignore it.

  9. #204
    Originally Posted by Genar-Hofoen View Post (Source)
    The Powerplay conundrum is a direct result of trying to fit Powerplay into a game with P2P architecture. That's the cause. Trying to treat the symptom in the proposed manner is no cure, nor will it be a way to convert Powerplay into a purely-direct-PvP game, which is what seems to be the thinking behind Sandro's proposal.
    That.

  10. #205
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    True - however as there is no requirement to own the game to create a forum account and that the total number of forum users is small in relation to the number of franchise units sold, simply asking forum users does not necessarily give an accurate picture of what "most players want".

    The method used last time Frontier wanted to find out what the player-base wanted was an official poll - not on the forums. We'll see if they do that again. Arguably this topic is hotter than the last one polled.
    Actually I'd welcome an official poll-via-email to all customers with an E: D account, like the last time.

    That'd be way more decisive than the forum bickering

    Besides, even if a vote is that Open-only wins, and it goes ahead, I predict the Powerplay situation stays exactly the same due to the P2P nature of E: D

  11. #206
    Originally Posted by Genar-Hofoen View Post (Source)
    Honestly not mocking anyone. Objectively pointing out it was a bad analogy. Mocking would be me resorting to veiled insult and laughing at the poster, which I most certainly am not.

    Powerplay. The closest analogy to chess is the pieces are the Powers and PvE tokens, and then you have the players - seen and unseen.

    And that's the second time you've said something about trying to be right and win arguments - I mean, the whole point of debating the merits or not of making Powerplay playable only in Open game client connectivity mode is that some arguments/reasoning may be better than others - and in my opinion, trying to say the folks who move the pieces are the pawns, is incorrect, if you're trying to cite chess as an analogy. The folks who move the PvE tokens are the players of the game, the pieces are the tokens.

    Now, it is being suggested that "all players should be seen" - i.e. if a player is moving stuff to or from a Powerplay system, their ship should be visible. This, again, on the face of it is reasonable. However, this is E: D, a P2P-based game, and I predict right now that if Frontier go ahead with this, that;

    1) It removes content from those who do not desire to play in Open game client connectivity mode

    2) The unscrupulous players who run bots will just find ways of playing in Open without their game clients connecting to other game clients

    3) Those who desire to still not encounter other player ships will find ways of playing in Open without their game client connecting to other game clients

    resulting in

    4) No overall change in Powerplay outcomes or the amount of cannon fodder for those wishing to solve Powerplay by way of blowing up other ships.

    The Powerplay conundrum is a direct result of trying to fit Powerplay into a game with P2P architecture. That's the cause. Trying to treat the symptom in the proposed manner is no cure, nor will it be a way to convert Powerplay into a purely-direct-PvP game, which is what seems to be the thinking behind Sandro's proposal.
    You can't halt change because well the topology of the network is peer to peer.

    That's a very weak argument and reads more as a convenient excuse, knowing full well that's the model the developer is using and likely cannot now change.

    This is not really a valid argument to wholesale suspend changes. Some of the other concerns? Fair enough.

  12. #207
    Originally Posted by vanya234 View Post (Source)
    Stop snipping posts to suit yourself and cutting my argument out.
    Nope. The post links back to the original so it can be seen. And theres a reason why the post decorum is to not keep nesting back to the OP in replies: it means there's redundant noninformation making the signal impossible to read.

    You DO know what it means when it says "(Source)", right?

    Originally Posted by kofeyh View Post (Source)
    You can't halt change
    Ah, so when someone breaks into your house and changes the contents of it to contain less of it, you shrug your shoulders and go "Well, can't halt change, can we?"

    No. No, not even you buy that hogwash. Oddly enough, neither does anyone else when you use it on them

  13. #208
    Originally Posted by Genar-Hofoen View Post (Source)
    Actually I'd welcome an official poll-via-email to all customers with an E: D account, like the last time.

    That'd be way more decisive than the forum bickering

    Besides, even if a vote is that Open-only wins, and it goes ahead, I predict the Powerplay situation stays exactly the same due to the P2P nature of E: D
    Chapter and verse.

  14. #209
    Originally Posted by kofeyh View Post (Source)
    You can't halt change because well the topology of the network is peer to peer.

    That's a very weak argument and reads more as a convenient excuse, knowing full well that's the model the developer is using and likely cannot now change.

    This is not really a valid argument to wholesale suspend changes.
    That's true - I can't halt any change Frontier want to make - it's their game, not mine.

    I still do have the privilege of pointing out where their intended change may not succeed in its goals, and why. It's up to Frontier to weigh up the pros and cons of the proposed change and to decide, and as someone with some background in IT and programming, I can point out why their game architecture isn't allowing Powerplay to live up to the potential lots of folks think it should or can.

    It'll be interesting to see how things pan out if Frontier go ahead with this change. If I'm wrong, and it all works out as intended, then I've learned from it.

  15. #210
    Originally Posted by Genus View Post (Source)
    Yes, indeed. But what you're doing is talking about cybernetic open systems relationships.

    Which also just flew over the heads of the Designers.

    As for players, just get more stealth troops. Same for everyone and what Squadrons are for.
    The sonic boom is just now coming in...

Page 14 of 35 FirstFirst ... 9121314151619 ... LastLast