Continuous play in the Open is more risky hence should be rewarded

If anything, it's just another indication of how badly Open is actually designed, if you can even call it "design" anymore. Maybe it will take a very big reward indeed to get me to participate in this nonsense.




So, now we have arrived at axioms. What kind of axiom do you have in mind, the classical (material), physical or the modern (formal) concept of axioms? In any case, in our context, this is nothing but a pompous, pseudo-intellectual remark straight from the land of Absurdistan. With this attitude it will hardly be possible to have a conversation that allows any other result than "I am right". Certainly not an overly promising way to fight for a lost cause.

I will leave the last inevitable word on this to you. These days I'm quite allergic to any form of "alternate reality", sorry and thanks for your time.
Errrr.... Is not a video game, an 'alternate reality?'
 
Okay, but here's a thing that happened when I was pirating a while back and some people decided they'd rather attack me than pay.
I wouldn't exactly call myself an experienced PvPer, and while these guys aren't top tier, I wasn't making any evasive moves until I turned around and decided to actually fight the cutter and conda.


I fired my first volley at the 40 second mark. I fat-fingered the targeting controls (was still getting used to the new stick, haha) so I didn't have the python targeted, but you can hear them starting to pop before the 50 second mark. There is nothing those escorts could have done to stop me popping the python and getting out of there.
If a halfway competent ganker (which I am not) gets into an instance with a newbie, the newbie will either have died or escaped on their own merits before their escort wing have a chance to join the fight. If the target is weak enough to kill in the time it takes to high-wake, a dedicated gank fit can certainly accomplish that task and survive long enough to get out no matter what the escorts are doing.
The way to escort someone(s) through is to clear the supercruise instance as best you can. Interdict everyone you can that you judge suspicious, preferably before the escortee enters the system. No need to kill anyone as such, just keep them pinned to give the escortee a window to their destination. Reduce any chance of them instancing with their mark, is the aim. How it's done in powerplay expansions 🙂
 
If anything, it's just another indication of how badly Open is actually designed, if you can even call it "design" anymore. Maybe it will take a very big reward indeed to get me to participate in this nonsense.
I'm not sure how it's bad design - they had a 3 to 1 numbers advantage, but the 1 was significantly more dangerous than their weakest member.
Even when you're moving in a wing, the question isn't "can our wing beat that guy" but "can we engage that guy without taking losses".
Likewise, when you're outnumbered yourself, the question you should ask yourself isn't "can I beat their entire wing", but "can I inflict any serious losses before I'm forced to withdraw".
It's the old street gang thing - you don't need to outnumber your opponents, just present enough of a threat that nobody wants to be the first guy to get popped in the face. Even if you can't win, you can at least make it a lose-lose scenario to them engage you.

As @Bulbulunufus pointed out, the goal of an escort is to ensure that any hostiles don't get the opportunity to engage the person you're escorting. Even if you're outnumbered - picking a fight with a wing that you know you can survive engaging will tie them up and allow your escortee to have a clear shot at the destination.
 
I would point out that the range is only 1.8 km, meaning this is the space going equivilent of a sawed off shotgun.
Considering the spread on frags, there's not exactly much point in firing them at any range other than literally pressing the barrel up against their hull anyway.
 
What kind of axiom do you have in mind, the classical (material), physical or the modern (formal) concept of axioms?

The informal dictionary definition will suffice.

I consider it self-evident and readily (if redundantly) demonstrable that escorts are a waste of time outside of Open, and result in a net loss of profit (credits/merits/influence) vs. the sum that could be obtained if all participants just went their separate ways and worked toward goals independently in Solo.

In any case, in our context, this is nothing but a pompous, pseudo-intellectual remark straight from the land of Absurdistan.

You misinterpret my original meaning by referring to my list as 'examples', and I when I clarify by using the most apt word I have in my vocabulary, this is your response? Try not to assume any tone with respect to my posts, because you're going to be wrong, and not liking how I speak, or write, isn't going to change what I'm saying.

The underlying premise for any hypothetical Open play reward is that Open play is disadvantageous in terms of rewards that are beyond the purview of what Open play is supposed to entail.

People click Open to have the possibility for direct interactions with others and this is the only criteria that should influence their decision to click Open. However, in practice, this is not the case. Plenty of people, who desire, or would be accepting of any encounter that came their way, realize that Open is less efficient when it comes to various profit criteria. I play in Open despite this Open handicap or "tax" on my CMDR's agency with regard to the setting, but others find that price too high.

Nothing you have said has begun to challenge that premise and the scenarios you've floated--most of which I don't find credible, because of considerable experience in the area--do nothing to refute the imbalance I, or others, have been citing. If anything, it accentuates them.

Certainly not an overly promising way to fight for a lost cause.

You are grossly mistaken if you assume I'm fighting for any cause beyond pointing out the underlying, seemingly unintended, imbalance that currently exists between mode rewards. Well, maybe the cause is lost on you, but you're not the only one here.

The way to escort someone(s) through is to clear the supercruise instance as best you can. Interdict everyone you can that you judge suspicious, preferably before the escortee enters the system. No need to kill anyone as such, just keep them pinned to give the escortee a window to their destination. Reduce any chance of them instancing with their mark, is the aim. How it's done in powerplay expansions 🙂

As @Bulbulunufus pointed out, the goal of an escort is to ensure that any hostiles don't get the opportunity to engage the person you're escorting. Even if you're outnumbered - picking a fight with a wing that you know you can survive engaging will tie them up and allow your escortee to have a clear shot at the destination.

Exactly.

It can be fun, challenging, and even successful...from the perspective of the interactive gameplay Open is supposed to provide and the in-character goal of getting everyone to the destination in one piece.

However, it still results in a net reduction of tangible (in-game) gains...which is not supposed to be a 'feature' of Open.
 
Considering the spread on frags, there's not exactly much point in firing them at any range other than literally pressing the barrel up against their hull anyway.
Once, attracted by the DPS headline figure, I re-equipped my multicannon FdL with frags. They're tricky to use; I've gone back to multis now.
 
The informal dictionary definition will suffice.

I consider it self-evident and readily (if redundantly) demonstrable that escorts are a waste of time outside of Open, and result in a net loss of profit (credits/merits/influence) vs. the sum that could be obtained if all participants just went their separate ways and worked toward goals independently in Solo.



You misinterpret my original meaning by referring to my list as 'examples', and I when I clarify by using the most apt word I have in my vocabulary, this is your response? Try not to assume any tone with respect to my posts, because you're going to be wrong, and not liking how I speak, or write, isn't going to change what I'm saying.

The underlying premise for any hypothetical Open play reward is that Open play is disadvantageous in terms of rewards that are beyond the purview of what Open play is supposed to entail.

People click Open to have the possibility for direct interactions with others and this is the only criteria that should influence their decision to click Open. However, in practice, this is not the case. Plenty of people, who desire, or would be accepting of any encounter that came their way, realize that Open is less efficient when it comes to various profit criteria. I play in Open despite this Open handicap or "tax" on my CMDR's agency with regard to the setting, but others find that price too high.

Nothing you have said has begun to challenge that premise and the scenarios you've floated--most of which I don't find credible, because of considerable experience in the area--do nothing to refute the imbalance I, or others, have been citing. If anything, it accentuates them.



You are grossly mistaken if you assume I'm fighting for any cause beyond pointing out the underlying, seemingly unintended, imbalance that currently exists between mode rewards. Well, maybe the cause is lost on you, but you're not the only one here.





Exactly.

It can be fun, challenging, and even successful...from the perspective of the interactive gameplay Open is supposed to provide and the in-character goal of getting everyone to the destination in one piece.

However, it still results in a net reduction of tangible (in-game) gains...which is not supposed to be a 'feature' of Open.
Returning to the question I posed yesterday, what percentage would you say the "tax" is for playing in Open.

I mean, including times you get exploded when doing something that could have earned credits, not times where you get diverted into a fun PvP bout. :)
 
Returning to the question I posed yesterday, what percentage would you say the "tax" is for playing in Open.
Answer should be probably based on some data available only to Frontier Development.
The point is that there is a disbalance that should be tackled.
 
Right on above post. Why is it the popcorn brigade jump on all the stuff they scorn with gusto. Open only to alot of players is the biggest issue this game has. I'm convinced if it were only one galaxy instead of 3 we would all benefit. Care bears would be more appreciative of a good build. Realism immersion and stress as well as reward.
So whats not to like.
We could just stay the same and watch elite become niche again. 8 players from Loughborough all pallywally silencing everything outside their comfort zone
If there were 3 galaxies the nearest thing the open only people have to a convincing argument wouldn’t exist.
There is only one galaxy with 3 different filter modes for possible players to encounter.

My major issue with open is the same as @Nadreck
 
Open isnt open if i want to engage a PC player or faction i cant because they have their own PC private group , same as xbox and PS . So should we then take it the PC open is more dangerous than the Xbox open and PS open ? because there are more commanders ??? so they should get better rewards?
 
Answer should be probably based on some data available only to Frontier Development.
The point is that there is a disbalance that should be tackled.
Maybe. But as I suggested yesterday, I think that if the extra bonus was set at a level which accurately represented the losses due to playing in Open, it would be so small that no-one would be influenced in their choice of mode.

So I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I just think it's so small that it's not worth FD implementing it or us arguing about it.

For example, it would be far smaller than the cut a SLF pilot takes, and people don't usually think about that.
 
Returning to the question I posed yesterday, what percentage would you say the "tax" is for playing in Open.

I mean, including times you get exploded when doing something that could have earned credits, not times where you get diverted into a fun PvP bout. :)

I'd want to see Frontier's figures on a variety of metrics, regarding how and why people use the modes, before I tried to assign any figures. I'm sure Frontier could look at how often people mode switch or block to avoid risk from CMDR encounters, and what the average influence/merit/reputation/credit/transaction rate was between modes.

Even 'fun PvP bouts' are part of the tax, and being exploded quickly can be less costly than winning, or being driven off. My CMDR does not get shot down often, but frequently has to abandon the field (by going somewhere else and doing something else) for hours or days due to CMDR opposition, or put off the activities I was going to have him engage in while I have him directly counter said opposition, which is not remotely as profitable in any metric tracked by the underlying game.

The whole premise of my argument is that, irrespective of the activities one finds enjoyable, or disagreeable, about Open, the degree of influence/merit/reputation/credit profit should be generally indistinguishable between the modes. Ideally, the contextual threats should be all-round more dynamic and the same between modes, but since they often are not, and probably cannot be, it would not be unreasonable to abstract the discrepancy into a weight that applies to returns to these various profit metrics.

If I like the opportunity for unorganized PvP, or organic Coop play, I should be in Open. If, for whatever reason, I don't want to directly encounter any player controlled characters, I should be in Solo. My ability to influence the BGS or accumulate assets for my CMDR should not factor in to that decision. Choosing the right mode for me should not feel like a trade-off. That's all I'm really saying.
 
Open isnt open if i want to engage a PC player or faction i cant because they have their own PC private group , same as xbox and PS . So should we then take it the PC open is more dangerous than the Xbox open and PS open ? because there are more commanders ??? so they should get better rewards?
Well that (PC vs console risk) is certainly true from what I regularly hear. To make the concession you refer to represents the most rudimentary level of risk modelling, and would seem fair, tbh, though I guarantee some would complain.

You could, still fairly straightforwardly, extend this to be a pan-modal, rather than open only, feature by modelling the risk in the mode selected. The simplest way would be to use the number of (logged on?) users in the mode the CMDR logs into, and, for a PG, whether or not that PG has a "no PvP" tag. I think this would be fairly easy and nicely circumvents the suggestion that it is an "open-only" locked feature 🙂.
 
Well that (PC vs console risk) is certainly true from what I regularly hear. To make the concession you refer to represents the most rudimentary level of risk modelling, and would seem fair, tbh, though I guarantee some would complain.

You could, still fairly straightforwardly, extend this to be a pan-modal, rather than open only, feature by modelling the risk in the mode selected. The simplest way would be to use the number of (logged on?) users in the mode the CMDR logs into, and, for a PG, whether or not that PG has a "no PvP" tag. I think this would be fairly easy and nicely circumvents the suggestion that it is an "open-only" locked feature 🙂.
Ah, if only a PG could have a "no PvP" tag. :)
 
Oh I assumed e.g. Mobius had this - guess it's only within their 3rd party manifestation. Given it's only a user generated tag, seems like the least difficult part of all this to implement.
No, I'm afraid there's nothing in-game to stop you exploding someone in Mobius. Infiltrators do this when they get the chance. The only sanction is that eventually you get chucked out of the group and find you can't re-enter it at next login.
 
No, I'm afraid there's nothing in-game to stop you exploding someone in Mobius. Infiltrators do this when they get the chance. The only sanction is that eventually you get chucked out of the group and find you can't re-enter it at next login.
And is a potential Code of Conduct violation because you intentionally join the private group to violate its specific rules for griefing:
https://www.frontierstore.net/code-of-conduct said:
We do not tolerate harassment within our community or our games. (...) This also includes the prolonged, extensive, and/or malicious targeting of an individual or group of individuals through Frontier-owned platforms for the purposes of disruption or agitation.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom