Modes Balancing Grind and Risk

Hello FDEV, CMDRs.

Happy new year 3304 (2018) to everyone.

It is the end of the year and still people are complaining about the same things as they have been at the start of 2017. Mainly, the grinding and the lack of players, at least in Open.

The recent Crime & Punishment changes did not manage to bring more players out into the social domain.

People are saying it is very risky to play in the Open because there are more people who are PVP centric and less people who are doing hauling and mining therefore the risk is higher because the chances that you will meet someone who will specifically aim to kill you is higher as there are less other targets around. We are effectively experiencing the Tinkerbell Effect.

The Tinkerbell Effect : The more people who believe something is true, the truer it becomes.

The only way to counteract this effect is to reverse the process, that is, increasing the number of preys so that a single specific prey will have less likely chance of being targetted. In the limit, the chance of a single prey being targetted as the number of potential targets increase would approach zero.

To increase the number of non-aggressive players in the world, FDev would have to appeal to the type of gameplay we enjoy.

For example, haulers would seek to maximize profit and miners would seek to maximize the metals & minerals of the type we are after. People who would grind ranks would love it if they could get a higher rank gain rate.

Therefore I would suggest starting with a 200% increase in these gains for players who play in Open. The specifics of the gains would be decided by the FDev team but it should in the end translate to a measureable significant gain over playing in other modes. This could be incrementally adjusted to 150% or 300% depending on how it affects the world as time goes along.

Nothing should be done to players who play in other modes (i.e. no nerfing), the game will progress as it does to players who opt to stick to those modes.

This would serve to address the risk vs reward factor in the game. The risks will, of course, decrease as more non aggressive players enter the world from Solo or Private Groups.

Ideally, the reward percentage increase would be automatically calculated based on a factor that divides the number of wanted pilots vs the number of non-wanted pilots multiplied by a function of the number current pilots in the two other game modes.

If there is another way to address this Tinkerbell effect do write it below.

Cheers
masCh KisieL
 

verminstar

Banned
So its not nerfing the modes but it is buffing open? I get this strange feeling of deja vu...like we been here before...many times as it happens.

Hotel california incoming bladeblabla heard it all before...its an old one this but still never loses its charm ^

I do believe in fairies I do I do I do!

Oh and happy new year ^
 
Last edited:
People are saying it is very risky to play in the Open because there are more people who are PVP centric and less people who are doing hauling and mining therefore the risk is higher because the chances that you will meet someone who will specifically aim to kill you is higher as there are less other targets around. We are effectively experiencing the Tinkerbell Effect.

The Tinkerbell Effect : The more people who believe something is true, the truer it becomes.

The only way to counteract this effect is to reverse the process, that is, increasing the number of preys so that a single specific prey will have less likely chance of being targetted. In the limit, the chance of a single prey being targetted as the number of potential targets increase would approach zero.

You do realize that because Solo is single player and PG's like Mobius are PVEcentric that the chances are astronomical higher in Open that you will meet a player whose specific aim is to kill you. This isn't a "Tinkerbell effect" this is fact. EVEN if the chance is rare that you will meet someone who will do it while you are in Open.... it is still there because Open is the PVP mode...

I find it interesting that the "only way" to counteract this effect as you say is to increase the number of "Prey". You idea is mainly hoping that if you get more people into open then they will PVP that poor sod over there and leave you alone, this is like a herd defense. But you are ignoring the realization that those "hunters" that pvp on others have been screaming for years for exactly what you are proposing. Many have claimed they are "starving" so in reality you are not proposing a way to help the majority (prey) who don't want to deal with PVP and have left open, but the hunters (certain Pvpers) who demand those of us who don't pvp be their targets.

Your "prey" analogy is pretty accurate though. Carnivores don't hunt each other, they hunt prey that cannot or have a low risk of hurting them, or as a pack take down larger prey... you see this in Open where the targets are many times those that have no possibility of hurting the aggressor's ship.

You may say that the "Tinkerbell Effect" is that Open is a Player vs Player Mode... when in reality it's become a Domination mode. Cause if people really don't have a chance to defend against someone else... there isn't really a vs part of the engagement.
 
Last edited:

verminstar

Banned
You do realize that because Solo is single player and PG's like Mobius are PVEcentric that the chances are astronomical higher in Open that you will meet a player whose specific aim is to kill you. This isn't a "Tinkerbell effect" this is fact. EVEN if the chance is rare that you will meet someone who will do it while you are in Open.... it is still there because Open is the PVP mode...

I find it interesting that the "only way" to counteract this effect as you say is to increase the number of "Prey". You idea is mainly hoping that if you get more people into open then they will PVP that poor sod over there and leave you alone, this is like a herd defense. But you are ignoring the realization that those "hunters" that pvp on others have been screaming for years for exactly what you are proposing. Many have claimed they are "starving" so in reality you are not proposing a way to help the majority (prey) who don't want to deal with PVP and have left open, but the hunters (certain Pvpers) who demand those of us who don't pvp be their targets.

Your "prey" analogy is pretty accurate though. Carnivores don't hunt each other, they hunt prey that cannot or have a low risk of hurting them, or as a pack take down larger prey... you see this is Open where the targets are many times those that have no possibility of hurting the aggressor's ship.

You may say that the "Tinkerbell Effect" is that Open is a Player vs Player Mode... when in reality it's become a Domination mode. Cause if people really don't have a chance to defend against someone else... there isn't really a vs part of the engagement.

Its just like bein in the army again...see the weedy looking guy standing all on his own looking scared witless and clueless? Hes the guy ye make go first cos they gonna catch a bullet...rather him than me so ye dont even care what their name is cos they wont be around long enough to matter. Hes the get outta jail free card when the enemy decides they dont like the way ye looked at his girl. The sacrificial lamb...so long as its not you, its always gonna be someone else.

Simply put op...open was a hunting ground in the beginning, but the hunters got selfish and overfished the pond and the stock inevitably either fled the scene or moved to a different mode. Others stayed and adapted either by changing the way they played or flat out cheat and clog. Bribing players outta the modes they fled to in the first place will merely do more harm than good because history will only repeat itself and the hunters will overfishb the available stock again. Players will flee the scene or move modes just as before.

Nothing achieved other than a mountain of salt which started when ye intentionally unbalanced the modes to favour an open only game...such an idea is literally unthinkable in the first place. Ye also managed to divide the playerbase even worse than it already is by feeding the trolls the very thing they have wanted since the game went live...their content in terms dictated by them.

And lets not mention those who just gave up and left the game entirely never to be seen or heard from again. In fact one has to wonder what the biggest casualty here is...the pvp community or the potential player loss because they exist at all.

Food fer thought. Thats not to say all pvprs are bad horrible players who gank with wild glee and abandon...it just takes a few and when those few become elevated to some sorta community hero? Sends out all sorts of signals...people dont appear to think through the consequences of their actions too well, do they :rolleyes:

The damage that was done is gonna take a lot more than bribery to fix, because lets be honest here...thats exactly what the gist of this idea is. Bribery. The whole concept is so flawed, its not even worth considering. Ye got more chance of standing on the beach ordering the tide not to come in ^
 
Its just like bein in the army again...see the weedy looking guy standing all on his own looking scared witless and clueless? Hes the guy ye make go first cos they gonna catch a bullet...rather him than me so ye dont even care what their name is cos they wont be around long enough to matter. Hes the get outta jail free card when the enemy decides they dont like the way ye looked at his girl. The sacrificial lamb...so long as its not you, its always gonna be someone else.

Always send the mouthy one first he's mostly likely to ignore warnings and stick his head round the corner he shouldn't or argue the toss over taking cover.
 

verminstar

Banned
Always send the mouthy one first he's mostly likely to ignore warnings and stick his head round the corner he shouldn't or argue the toss over taking cover.

And thats why combat vets have what many describe as a personal hygeine issue...thing is the enemy can smell soap downwind which tells them more or less exactly who they are and where they are. Not so much a personal hygeine issue but a survival tactic...depending on how ye look at it. Those who regard such things as an issue are the mouthy ones ye send out first...they wanna be heroes then let them...we can salute their sacrifice later in the naafi while we all try and remember what their name was.
 
And thats why combat vets have what many describe as a personal hygeine issue...thing is the enemy can smell soap downwind which tells them more or less exactly who they are and where they are. Not so much a personal hygeine issue but a survival tactic...depending on how ye look at it. Those who regard such things as an issue are the mouthy ones ye send out first...they wanna be heroes then let them...we can salute their sacrifice later in the naafi while we all try and remember what their name was.

BO carries as well, unperfumed antiperspirant and bland soap is best (along with an absolutely filthy jacket). Livestock can smell people from even further away than humans, just follow them.

You may have just worked out why the unknown soldier was unknown.
 
"Therefore I would suggest starting with a 200% increase in these gains for players who play in Open."

As a privateer trader in Open, I welcome and approve this message.
 
Open doesn't require "bonuses" to play in it, anymore than any other mode needs "bonuses".

Playing in Open is an optional choice available to all players, as it should be.

Just as Solo and Private Groups is an optional choice available to all players.
 

verminstar

Banned
Sorry Charlie... Open doesn't deserve "padding" like that.

Its just like they always say...the ability to socialize with other people is the reward. So if thats not the reward and they need more reward...then either the socializing part isnt working out or they want their cake and eat it by getting well paid just fer choosing one mode over another. Easy mode basically...which makes a mockery of pvp players claims that open is hardcore mode...gotta love irony...forum is full of it ^
 
Thats 23,758 threads showing the imbalance of those wonderful game mode options.

Weird.


More like 23,758 of the same group who can't stand that the modes are balanced and hope by continuing their charades that people will start to believe the .
 
Thats 23,758 threads showing the imbalance of those wonderful game mode options.

Weird.
Dear 90s

Big threads only happen when there's no consensus. Because then everyone agrees. So 23,758 threads means there is no consensus, not the imbalance of the brilliant game modes.

In this case it shows there's a few posters, about 5 I think, who keep bringing up that they play in Open, so they are special (like the olympics) and they want mo money, and other players should not have fun, only them and boo hoo and waa waa. Now these unfortunate people have to be shown the light again and again. But the whaaaaaambulances go: I plays Open! I wants you to play Open! Why can't I make you play Open. With some half baked reasoning that if you play 'indirect' PvP you should have to play direct PvP because the voices in their head told them so.

Meanwhile, the modes are excellent and players are enjoying them on a daily basis. Or to put it in a way you understand.

I am right, you are wrong, and I am winning, you are losing, I have evidences and proofs, you have the same old irrelevant youtoob vids to spam this forum.

Cue unrelated reply!
 
Dear 90s

Big threads only happen when there's no consensus. Because then everyone agrees. So 23,758 threads means there is no consensus, not the imbalance of the brilliant game modes.

In this case it shows there's a few posters, about 5 I think, who keep bringing up that they play in Open, so they are special (like the olympics) and they want mo money, and other players should not have fun, only them and boo hoo and waa waa. Now these unfortunate people have to be shown the light again and again. But the whaaaaaambulances go: I plays Open! I wants you to play Open! Why can't I make you play Open. With some half baked reasoning that if you play 'indirect' PvP you should have to play direct PvP because the voices in their head told them so.

Meanwhile, the modes are excellent and players are enjoying them on a daily basis. Or to put it in a way you understand.

I am right, you are wrong, and I am winning, you are losing, I have evidences and proofs, you have the same old irrelevant youtoob vids to spam this forum.

Cue unrelated reply!


+10000lbs of Cubeo Bacon
 
Dear 90s

Big threads only happen when there's no consensus. Because then everyone agrees. So 23,758 threads means there is no consensus, not the imbalance of the brilliant game modes.

In this case it shows there's a few posters, about 5 I think, who keep bringing up that they play in Open, so they are special (like the olympics) and they want mo money, and other players should not have fun, only them and boo hoo and waa waa. Now these unfortunate people have to be shown the light again and again. But the whaaaaaambulances go: I plays Open! I wants you to play Open! Why can't I make you play Open. With some half baked reasoning that if you play 'indirect' PvP you should have to play direct PvP because the voices in their head told them so.

Meanwhile, the modes are excellent and players are enjoying them on a daily basis. Or to put it in a way you understand.

I am right, you are wrong, and I am winning, you are losing, I have evidences and proofs, you have the same old irrelevant youtoob vids to spam this forum.

Cue unrelated reply!

Indeed. Just as some seem to think that "the bigger the thread, the more valid the point" when in fact all it merely shows is the divisiveness of said topic.

Creating more and more threads about a given topic doesn't increase its "validity"- as has been clearly demonstrated over time.

As I've also pointed out in various other threads, FD's forums aren't a "democracy" where groups of customers get to decide the direction of the game. If someone wants that sort of power, it's available in the form of joining the Board of Directors or becoming a majority shareholder. And guess who the biggest majority shareholder is? (I'll give you a hint... it's not T90K)
 
Back
Top Bottom