Goose4291
Banned
With the places I've worked in the past, you don't get paid it, because you're not in that role.
Modes Open mode balancing proposal
- Thread starter CMDR EDGEL0RD
- Start date
- Status
With the places I've worked in the past, you don't get paid it, because you're not in that role.
Goose4291
Banned
Except you're not competing against other mountain climbers.
Also, thats some pot calling kettle black nonsense in your second paragraph. Everything you write stinks of selective criticism, whereas I have made it clear numerous times (including one hillarious argument with the old SDC leader Sundae) that I hate silly real world comparisons.
Stop trying to square hole round peg me into some sort of pro-griefer archetype.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Exactly my point.
Goose4291
Banned
Yep. Which is why people argue for a 'danger pay' multiplier or something similar for powerplay.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If it could be guaranteed to only be paid when there was actually any "danger" to be paid for then great!
.... however, as players love to collude to gain rewards that assume a combative interaction whereas they could trigger the payment with minimal upset, it'd be exploited.
Goose4291
Banned
Youre paid the extra for the 'risk' of falling off.. not the actual falling off, which seens to be the way youre looking at it.
And I wouldn't worry about collusion in the manner you seem to think with Powerplay. It would infact be counter productive to engage in such activities from my experiences.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
I'm suggesting that if no opposing players are encountered then one is still on the ground, i.e. not even in a position to fall off anything.
Goose4291
Banned
Okay, however I think this is the way everyone supporting such changes regard it.
Bad real world analogy: Hazard pay for risk of falling off.
Powerplay Open Mode: Hazard pay for risk of encountering player opposition
Last edited:
This is where the blocklist and router rules come back into play - the OP addresses the blocklist but router rules are beyond the scope of the game. Fundamentally the risk is not from the mode you select but the players you encounter.
Offering a reward for the mode selection is exploitable by a single player. Rewarding PvP is exploitable too, but requires collusion that can be mitigated by other players.
Last edited:
Except the danger is not necessary to engage in PowePlay.
See, the reason high steel and iron workers (let's use proper terminology) get hazard pay is because it is in fact necessary for someone to climb that high steel and work it. That's not a task robots can do. Yet. That's a necessary risk. Someone's got to do it, so they get paid for the risk.
The reason you don't get "hazard pay" for PowerPlay is because it isn't a necessary risk. Because of the existence of equal modes it is not necessary for you take extra risks when engaging in PowerPlay. You want a risk/reward system, where increasing risk demands extra reward. Most game developers acknowledge the risks and thus implement the reward. FDev just gets rid of the risk, thus eliminating the need for the reward. See? This design philosophy is evident throughout their entire development course. I love it and think it's hilarious, of course not everyone agrees.
They did this with the Crime and Punishment system. Remember when players with bounties would remove hot modules and then complain that the cleaning fees were too high? The obvious desire was for FDev to completely remove the entire concept of hot modules. They did, but not in the way the whiners wanted. Instead, FDev just locked outfitting for wanted ships completely and removed all cleaning fees on currently stored hot modules! Problem fixed! You will no longer have a problem with players being shocked with high cleaning fees for hot modules. Of course, now they can't do anything at all with a wanted ship!
That's FDev. You want reward for your risk? No, you just lose the risk.
Last edited:
Nice try but no... and I don't square hole round peg you into anything. Your words kinda do that themselves. Numerous times someone has said something about griefers and you jump at the bit thinking they are talking about you. Now why would that be? And Mountain Climbers do compete against each other... who can reach the top faster, who can do a certain ascent with the least amount of difficulty, etc.. so the analogy works, you and Phisto Sobanii have jump down Robert's and My throats over making "real world" comparisons, even when mine was not comparing the game but the type of fallacy argument, yet all we get from your subset of PVPers over the numerous ones that Edgy has made has been crickets... nothing.
Except the danger is not necessary to engage in PowePlay.
See, the reason high steel and iron workers (let's use proper terminology) get hazard pay is because it is in fact necessary for someone to climb that high steel and work it. That's not a task robots can do. Yet. That's a necessary risk. Someone's got to do it, so they get paid for the risk.
The reason you don't get "hazard pay" for PowerPlay is because it isn't a necessary risk. Because of the existence of equal modes it is not necessary for you take extra risks when engaging in PowerPlay. You want a risk/reward system, where increasing risk demands extra reward. Most game developers acknowledge the risks and thus implement the reward. FDev just gets rid of the risk, thus eliminating the need for the reward. See? This design philosophy is evident throughout their entire development course. I love it and think it's hilarious, of course not everyone agrees.
They did this with the Crime and Punishment system. Remember when players with bounties would remove hot modules and then complain that the cleaning fees were too high? The obvious desire was for FDev to completely remove the entire concept of hot modules. They did, but not in the way the whiners wanted. Instead, FDev just locked outfitting for wanted ships completely and removed all cleaning fees on currently stored hot modules! Problem fixed! You will no longer have a problem with players being shocked with high cleaning fees for hot modules. Of course, now they can't do anything at all with a wanted ship!
That's FDev. You want reward for your risk? No, you just lose the risk.
Modes kill the purpose.
Risk reward?
We've been down this road plenty of times before. Give a bonus for open, people will find a way to get that bonus without additional risk.
The block feature exists, just block everyone you don't trust. Open uTorrent or whatever you use and let it rip, ensure that even if the matchmaker somehow decides to instance you, the ping will be so bad nobody will be aiming where you are, they will be aiming where you were 30 seconds ago. And there are probably other methods, some of which that are not against the TOS.
Since Solo mode exists there is no necessary risk, so no reward. That's why they (PvP players) want modes separated in some fashion, in order to justify the traditional tiered risk/reward system. Unfortunately for them that's just now how FDev works, thankfully. So, yes you're right, the modes kill the purpose and do so by design.
Think of Solo as a developer's version of trollface. In most MMOs the PvP communities pretty much run rough shod over everybody else with their elitism. FDev grins and does what other developers say you should never do, which is reward all activities individually and uniquely instead of rewarding by risk. They do this rationally by literally stripping the risk. That balances the equation. Of course, that's considered a slap in the face to PvPers who have always viewed their gameplay as superior and expect the associated rewards.
Elite doesn't like elitism.
Last edited:
Modes kill the purpose, risk reward
Modes kill the purpose, risk reward
In my mind and in my car
We can't rewind, we've gone to far
Pictures came and broke your heart
Put all the blame on VCR
Warm Considering I find, I agree here with your summarization, just not in your conclusion.
I doubt PvP is elitism or PvPers regard themselves as an elite, at least not all, how ever, Elite D. allows recklessness and ruthlessness in Open. At the same time you're able to avoid and deny it, switching mode which in a sense, de facto, grants an "elite status" by way of forcing a certain play stile over others.
The game contradicts itself. Everyone not accepting the design decisions made by Frontier, is now facing a dilemma.
Except the danger is not necessary to engage in PowePlay.
See, the reason high steel and iron workers (let's use proper terminology) get hazard pay is because it is in fact necessary for someone to climb that high steel and work it. That's not a task robots can do. Yet. That's a necessary risk. Someone's got to do it, so they get paid for the risk.
The reason you don't get "hazard pay" for PowerPlay is because it isn't a necessary risk. Because of the existence of equal modes it is not necessary for you take extra risks when engaging in PowerPlay. You want a risk/reward system, where increasing risk demands extra reward. Most game developers acknowledge the risks and thus implement the reward. FDev just gets rid of the risk, thus eliminating the need for the reward. See? This design philosophy is evident throughout their entire development course. I love it and think it's hilarious, of course not everyone agrees.
They did this with the Crime and Punishment system. Remember when players with bounties would remove hot modules and then complain that the cleaning fees were too high? The obvious desire was for FDev to completely remove the entire concept of hot modules. They did, but not in the way the whiners wanted. Instead, FDev just locked outfitting for wanted ships completely and removed all cleaning fees on currently stored hot modules! Problem fixed! You will no longer have a problem with players being shocked with high cleaning fees for hot modules. Of course, now they can't do anything at all with a wanted ship!
That's FDev. You want reward for your risk? No, you just lose the risk.
And exactly this kills Open mode and makes this game a full-on PvE one. While this is the desired result for some people, this is not the expected gameplay for others.
Exactly because there is no hazard pay, no one works in the Open, exept maybe a few. Everyone chooses to work in less riskier conditions, while PvP people take their fun in the Open mode. And this mode switching shatters the game for them, transforming it into some kind of session PvP one. And I propose to regulate it exactly how any goverment/employer would do. And I see no other way to regulate it: supply of work is infinite and there is no taxes (lessened rebuys would not mean anything). Only other way would be creating new separated Open mode, with different BGS and different save files.
And you have to work for your PvP expenses in this game, with current state of balance. I cannot even bring myself to wrap it in quotation marks, it is exactly that.
Statement that hazard pay cannot be added because it will make people to play in the Open BUT stating that PvP people should be fine working there without any compensation in the same sentence is kinda hypocritical, innit?
Last edited:
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Flash Topic on PowerPlay from Sandro: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/426940-FLASH-TOPIC-Powerplay-Proposal
- Status