Page 93 of 138 FirstFirst ... 83899091929394959697103 ... LastLast
Results 1,381 to 1,395 of 2069

Click here to go to the first staff post in this thread.
Thread: (info) First bonus for playing in OPEN under consideration for PP

  1. #1381
    Originally Posted by Tuub t Tute View Post (Source)
    Quick question: have you ever been blown up delivering pamphlets for the Pirate King in Open?
    I got chased out of CZs trying to stop player from undermining and got chased out when I was undermining. People tried to stop me from delivering cargo, but my Conda shrugged them off.

    I've never been killed doing PP activities, but definitely had resistance. I know the game too well to be blown up when I don't want to be blown up in Open.

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

    Originally Posted by Liqua View Post (Source)
    I didn't even read your post as my comment was meant tongue in cheek - it's what many people say when they complain about open being full of PvP combat players.
    I get that, that's why I ignored it and gave an example to show PP can easily disadvantage certain groups if implemented in certain ways, and now it's creating an disadvantage for Open, and we should look at it as if it's disadvantaging any other mode or modes.
    http://i.imgur.com/rgHEfe6.jpg

  2. #1382
    Originally Posted by Murgle View Post (Source)
    Sheesj! I'm trying alright, I'm trying! is just there's so many systems and so little me!
    Well, I was wrong - the 0% shows up because the system is in turmoil and is supposed to represent "no data". The fortification is already completed according to 3rd party sites.
    Maybe a "no data" on the galaxy map would be a bit clearer.

  3. #1383
    Originally Posted by CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost View Post (Source)
    Bad example.

    In your example the reason for the imbalance isn't the mode used, the imbalance is between lone player and player in wings. The imbalance is part of the design of that specific gameplay element you came up with.
    It doesn't matter if the player in in solo or open mode as long as the player is alone that player will have an disadvantage based on the game design of that specific feature.

    In PP the disadvantage is a result of something else that is not directly related to the PP game design. It doesn't matter if a player in Solo or Open participates in PP as the game is designed in a way that the direct PP related actions are equal.
    The disadvantage is a result of Open Mode and the possibility of PvP combat.

    If PP should get a boost/compensation of the ineffectiveness that results form the risk of PvP combat in Open mode, then that bonus would have to be applied to your example too as players in Open Mode would face the opposition of other players. Your example game design punishes lone players in all modes, while at the same time putting the players in Open Mode into the disadvantage of facing opposition form other players.

    The current implementation of PP doesn't do what your example shows.
    The game design of PP is not in favor of private or solo.
    The problem is that Open Mode PvP combat affects the PP gameplay in a negative way.
    The problem is that an unrelated aspect of Open Mode affects PP and Sandro's suggestion tries to fix it by applying a bonus to something that isn't causing the imbalance.
    Again, you seem to not fully understand my examples before trying to undermine them.

    The disadvantage PP inflicts is an integral part of the game design, by extension, PP's design.

    My example clearly shows that blowing up that hard NPC in any mode will count as one kill regardless, hence it's equal in design. The execution/pragmatic observation is that lone players have it harder on them whereas cooperative players have a competitive edge. How does that deviate anywhere from the current situation of natural incentives toward solo and private?

    Lone players can take on the hard NPC, but it requires a tremendous amount of skill and proper outfitting. Then will people argue that lone players should "just work with other people in private group to be competitive?"

    How different is that from saying "just play in private and solo?"

    It shows how suddenly one type of player gets disadvantaged and it will cause people to raise up in arms about inequality whereas this inequality is ignored when other players are suffering from it.

    As for your last few points, don't make statements, support them, otherwise they're empty and I'm not going to reply to them since I can just say the opposite of what you say and provide no supporting reasoning. Suggesting that combative PvP is a detriment to PP gameplay is simply betraying the concept that PvP is an integral component to the game.

    Edit:

    PP disadvantage shows a inequality of modes under the competitive scope, which is the design of the mechanic.
    http://i.imgur.com/rgHEfe6.jpg

  4. #1384
    Originally Posted by Mohrgan View Post (Source)
    If that is the case, why don;t they just reward PP aligned players for actually facing the risk, rather than the threat of a risk.
    There is no such thing as 'the threat of a risk'. Risk is already a potential thing. Whether it crystalizes into something bad actually happening to you or not doesn't change that a priori. If your knowledge of a system is too incomplete for you to hold absolute certainty either way, then risk exists and needs to be compensated priori, or else nobody will take that risk.
    What you seem to want is to compensate players not for the risk, but to compensate them only whenever something bad occurs. Sadly this means that, to reach Sandro's goal of closing the gap between solo and open, that compensation would have to come in the shape of total reparation (in credits and merits) in the case the player loses his ship and his merits. That's obviously very bad game design, as it removes personal responsibility and the sole point of attacking another player in PP.

    Now what can be done, is to make the bonus vary depending on how dangerous a system is. IMO We know some systems will be safer than others, so the compensation for operating in them can be lowered. But there still need to be a bonus a priori, however small.

  5. #1385
    Originally Posted by Boomer Kay View Post (Source)
    Well, I was wrong - the 0% shows up because the system is in turmoil and is supposed to represent "no data". The fortification is already completed according to 3rd party sites.
    Maybe a "no data" on the galaxy map would be a bit clearer.
    Turmoil is bugged but if you're logged in a while it should (sometimes) should the right data...

    Oh and the top turmoil system in the list for Aisling Duval was sitting at 0 when I was last there..

  6. #1386
    Originally Posted by Robert Maynard View Post (Source)
    Hazard becomes risk when probability of occurrence is taken into consideration: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazard_(risk)#Hazard_vs_risk

    In the multi-player game modes there is an additional hazard of being attacked / destroyed by a player. For that to be considered to be an increased risk, the probability of occurrence needs to be determined.
    This distinction is only done for risk assessment, and guess what if you know and understand the Elite mechanics and if you know what a dedicated PK and griefe ris you know exactly that riks= hazard. because you know which ships are able to take you down and which not. There is no "exposure" in the terms of the given equation the Wiki page gives. Because Exposurer here is 100% if you ae close to this kind of opponent and the hazard just equals the risk. if ushc a player is able to get you he will, if he isn't he won't. It is actually that simple unless someone makes a total derp style maneuver.

  7. #1387
    Originally Posted by Murgle View Post (Source)
    Turmoil is bugged but if you're logged in a while it should (sometimes) should the right data...
    Ok, add that to the list of
    - bandwidth monitoring
    - network "optimization"
    - jumprange "optimization"
    - shield and weapon "optimization"
    - teleporting out of a station "optimization"

    and probably half a dozen more mechanics used by players to "optimize" their risk vs. reward, that make open such an inviting, gentlemanly environment to share with fellow players.
    (sad but true, that's the junk you stumble upon while looking for useful information on reddit)

  8. Click here to go to the next staff post in this thread. #1388
    Sandro Sammarco is offline
    Lead Designer- Elite: Dangerous
    Frontier Employee
    Hello Commanders!

    Lots of lively debate here, for sure, but let's keep things civil, please. I understand that this is an emotive subject, but remember, that's never an excuse for being rude.

    So, just to let you folk know a little more of the reasoning behind the concept of an Open Play bonus, I thought I'd pop this out.

    Elite Dangerous is a game where you can just as easily play solo, in groups or as part of a nation, as it were.

    In general, there aren't mechanical befits within the game to push you towards one style of play over another.

    However, there are a few aspects of the game that are specifically aimed at utilising the fact that the game has multiplayer facets, one of these is Powerplay.

    Powerplay is unique in that it explicitly *enforces* adversarial multiplayer by making Commanders choose sides. You are no longer fighting against the vagaries of the galaxy; you are competing directly with Commanders pledged to opposing powers.

    In addition, Powerplay has rules to handle direct Commander-Commander confrontation. Indeed, this is the core conceit: the system encourages justifiable piracy and homicide for a higher purpose. It’s my belief that Powerplay will always be at its best when opposing Commanders interact directly, whether in an expansion conflict zone or through interdiction.

    So it feels natural (to me) to look at ways to encourage Commanders to use Open Play. However, It’s also fairly clear that human opposition is potentially, and generally speaking, much more of a significant threat than NPCs.

    Now we have to consider probabilities. Yes, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that you might never run into a human opponent in a control system, even playing in open. The fact remains however, that you *might* instead run into several. And this is on top of the standard NPC threat, which is identical in all play modes.

    What’s more, the more pledged Commanders that play in Open, the greater the likelihood there is of human interaction and conflict.

    There are thousands of Commanders that engage to some degree or another in Powerplay. Some play in Open, some don’t. If we are successful in getting more Commanders into Open, then the potential for them bumping into each other could increase rather significantly.

    And there’s another point to make here, that’s quite simple but also fairly undeniable, is that playing in Open you don’t just meet other Commanders pledged to Powers. You meet *all* other Commanders. That includes all sorts of scum and villainy (character persona only, of course).

    So what would an Open Play Success bonus actually achieve? The idea is that it’s a reward for taking the additional risk, whether the risk actually manifests or not.

    If you care about Powerplay, and care that you power does well in it, then playing in Open is a “force multiplier” for your Power’s strength.

    If you generally play in a Private Group or in Solo, it’s also a gamble, because in addition to all the NPC challenges you have the possibility of opposing Commanders engaging you.

    If you already play in Open then you could treat this bonus as a reward for working with the game to make it the best it can be for all involved.

    As to the size of the bonus, well, that’s up for grabs. Clearly it would have to be reasonably large to have the potential to cause significant change, but I’m not too worried about the details of that at the moment, I’m more interested in what folk make of the concept in general.

    Of course, it’s equally important to remember that this is, at the moment, just being raised as an idea, nothing more. Everyone’s opinion is equally valid, even in disagreement, and all feedback is useful.

  9. #1389
    Has there ever been any thought about allowing changes between the various modes to be made only when docked and empty of cargo?
    .
    maybe to go along with the thoughts above?
    .
    The elite dictionary does not have the word sympathy in it but has about 500 definitions of stupidity

  10. #1390
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    Lots of lively debate here, for sure, but let's keep things civil, please. I understand that this is an emotive subject, but remember, that's never an excuse for being rude.

    So, just to let you folk know a little more of the reasoning behind the concept of an Open Play bonus, I thought I'd pop this out.

    Elite Dangerous is a game where you can just as easily play solo, in groups or as part of a nation, as it were.

    In general, there aren't mechanical befits within the game to push you towards one style of play over another.

    However, there are a few aspects of the game that are specifically aimed at utilising the fact that the game has multiplayer facets, one of these is Powerplay.

    Powerplay is unique in that it explicitly *enforces* adversarial multiplayer by making Commanders choose sides. You are no longer fighting against the vagaries of the galaxy; you are competing directly with Commanders pledged to opposing powers.

    In addition, Powerplay has rules to handle direct Commander-Commander confrontation. Indeed, this is the core conceit: the system encourages justifiable piracy and homicide for a higher purpose. It’s my belief that Powerplay will always be at its best when opposing Commanders interact directly, whether in an expansion conflict zone or through interdiction.

    So it feels natural (to me) to look at ways to encourage Commanders to use Open Play. However, It’s also fairly clear that human opposition is potentially, and generally speaking, much more of a significant threat than NPCs.

    Now we have to consider probabilities. Yes, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that you might never run into a human opponent in a control system, even playing in open. The fact remains however, that you *might* instead run into several. And this is on top of the standard NPC threat, which is identical in all play modes.

    What’s more, the more pledged Commanders that play in Open, the greater the likelihood there is of human interaction and conflict.

    There are thousands of Commanders that engage to some degree or another in Powerplay. Some play in Open, some don’t. If we are successful in getting more Commanders into Open, then the potential for them bumping into each other could increase rather significantly.

    And there’s another point to make here, that’s quite simple but also fairly undeniable, is that playing in Open you don’t just meet other Commanders pledged to Powers. You meet *all* other Commanders. That includes all sorts of scum and villainy (character persona only, of course).

    So what would an Open Play Success bonus actually achieve? The idea is that it’s a reward for taking the additional risk, whether the risk actually manifests or not.

    If you care about Powerplay, and care that you power does well in it, then playing in Open is a “force multiplier” for your Power’s strength.

    If you generally play in a Private Group or in Solo, it’s also a gamble, because in addition to all the NPC challenges you have the possibility of opposing Commanders engaging you.

    If you already play in Open then you could treat this bonus as a reward for working with the game to make it the best it can be for all involved.

    As to the size of the bonus, well, that’s up for grabs. Clearly it would have to be reasonably large to have the potential to cause significant change, but I’m not too worried about the details of that at the moment, I’m more interested in what folk make of the concept in general.

    Of course, it’s equally important to remember that this is, at the moment, just being raised as an idea, nothing more. Everyone’s opinion is equally valid, even in disagreement, and all feedback is useful.

    Thanks for your comments Sandro. It's always great to see some elaboration and clarification from the Dev team.

    I recently made a lengthy reply to your initial thread in the power-play section now that I have formed an opinion and slept on it.


    While I agree with pretty much all of the above:

    "PP is better in open."
    "PP is meant to encourage PvP action"
    and so on.

    I agree with the direction you're going here, but I do feel that it is important to keep the groups "equal" in doing so. IMO, buffing the effect that one mode has on the BGS over others is making them unequal, and that is something I would handle very carefully here, considering FD's promise of "Three equal modes."

    I think what ever change is made to the PP mechanics needs to respect that promise. I'm not sure this proposed change does that.
    Skipper, should I pick the yellow bananas or the red bananas, because the yellow bananas are green?
    Golf.India.Lima.

    Anaconda: FNCS-2706 'New Horizons'
    Fer-De-Lance: FNCS-2704 'Predator'
    Vulture : FNCS-2703 'Negative Ghost Rider'
    Asp Explorer - Han Shot First
    Cobra Mk. III- Eastbound & Down
    http://earthdefensefleet.net/

  11. #1391
    I completely agree with the "Equality through different Treatment" concept.

    The matter of fact is that the 3 modes are not equal between them, no matter how much the masses bark. The developers have the final consideration about where, when and how to adjust the inequalities.

  12. #1392
    Originally Posted by Jesse Blue View Post (Source)
    I completely agree with the "Equality through different Treatment" concept.

    The matter of fact is that the 3 modes are not equal between them, no matter how much the masses bark. The developers have the final consideration about where, when and how to adjust the inequalities.
    That is not equality. Equality requires everything to be treated equally regardless of output/effect/mitigating factors. Everyone gets one box. The results that come from that equal treatment are inequitable.

    Treating the modes differently to create equitable output between them is treating them unequally.
    Skipper, should I pick the yellow bananas or the red bananas, because the yellow bananas are green?
    Golf.India.Lima.

    Anaconda: FNCS-2706 'New Horizons'
    Fer-De-Lance: FNCS-2704 'Predator'
    Vulture : FNCS-2703 'Negative Ghost Rider'
    Asp Explorer - Han Shot First
    Cobra Mk. III- Eastbound & Down
    http://earthdefensefleet.net/

  13. #1393
    Originally Posted by Sandro Sammarco View Post (Source)
    Hello Commanders!

    Lots of lively debate here, for sure, but let's keep things civil, please. I understand that this is an emotive subject, but remember, that's never an excuse for being rude.

    So, just to let you folk know a little more of the reasoning behind the concept of an Open Play bonus, I thought I'd pop this out.

    Elite Dangerous is a game where you can just as easily play solo, in groups or as part of a nation, as it were.

    In general, there aren't mechanical befits within the game to push you towards one style of play over another.

    However, there are a few aspects of the game that are specifically aimed at utilising the fact that the game has multiplayer facets, one of these is Powerplay.

    Powerplay is unique in that it explicitly *enforces* adversarial multiplayer by making Commanders choose sides. You are no longer fighting against the vagaries of the galaxy; you are competing directly with Commanders pledged to opposing powers.

    In addition, Powerplay has rules to handle direct Commander-Commander confrontation. Indeed, this is the core conceit: the system encourages justifiable piracy and homicide for a higher purpose. It’s my belief that Powerplay will always be at its best when opposing Commanders interact directly, whether in an expansion conflict zone or through interdiction.

    So it feels natural (to me) to look at ways to encourage Commanders to use Open Play. However, It’s also fairly clear that human opposition is potentially, and generally speaking, much more of a significant threat than NPCs.

    Now we have to consider probabilities. Yes, it’s perfectly reasonable to say that you might never run into a human opponent in a control system, even playing in open. The fact remains however, that you *might* instead run into several. And this is on top of the standard NPC threat, which is identical in all play modes.

    What’s more, the more pledged Commanders that play in Open, the greater the likelihood there is of human interaction and conflict.

    There are thousands of Commanders that engage to some degree or another in Powerplay. Some play in Open, some don’t. If we are successful in getting more Commanders into Open, then the potential for them bumping into each other could increase rather significantly.

    And there’s another point to make here, that’s quite simple but also fairly undeniable, is that playing in Open you don’t just meet other Commanders pledged to Powers. You meet *all* other Commanders. That includes all sorts of scum and villainy (character persona only, of course).

    So what would an Open Play Success bonus actually achieve? The idea is that it’s a reward for taking the additional risk, whether the risk actually manifests or not.

    If you care about Powerplay, and care that you power does well in it, then playing in Open is a “force multiplier” for your Power’s strength.

    If you generally play in a Private Group or in Solo, it’s also a gamble, because in addition to all the NPC challenges you have the possibility of opposing Commanders engaging you.

    If you already play in Open then you could treat this bonus as a reward for working with the game to make it the best it can be for all involved.

    As to the size of the bonus, well, that’s up for grabs. Clearly it would have to be reasonably large to have the potential to cause significant change, but I’m not too worried about the details of that at the moment, I’m more interested in what folk make of the concept in general.


    Of course, it’s equally important to remember that this is, at the moment, just being raised as an idea, nothing more. Everyone’s opinion is equally valid, even in disagreement, and all feedback is useful.
    Alrighty, so Open gets the love they wanted, can Solo, and by extension everyone else, be next on the list Sandro?

    Specifically, NPC wingmates for hire, and NPC crew in 2.3?

  14. #1394
    Originally Posted by GilliganTX View Post (Source)
    That is not equality. Equality requires everything to be treated equally regardless of output/effect/mitigating factors. Everyone gets one box. The results that come from that equal treatment are inequitable.

    Treating the modes differently to create equitable output between them is treating them unequally.
    So according to you, everyone have to pay the same taxes?

    1000$ of taxes! What, you are without job and with three babies? That's not my problem! Everyone is the same, everyone pays the same! Look at that billionarie! See? he pays his 1000$ without complaining! Equality man!

    Sorry but, "Equality through different treatment" exists precisely because outputs/effects/mitigating factors DO matter. That's why lots of people don't pay taxes at all.

  15. #1395
    Originally Posted by Boomer Kay View Post (Source)
    The analysis of the data I have access to (and have shared with y'all, so you can doublecheck and correct me)
    If it's the HIP 95... example that you posted a little back, I have bad news for you, systems in turmoil don't show the amount of fortification/undermining (it's a bug).


    https://maxwellcorp.wordpress.com

    In-game: John F Casey

Page 93 of 138 FirstFirst ... 83899091929394959697103 ... LastLast