Open-Only in PP2.0?

[Rubbernuke]

That it may - and, in terms of balanced risk/reward, the haulers risk/reward should be sufficient for haulers to want to engage in it.

But you also want it so that (based on your effort and where) its not 100% winning all the time. After all, you are hauling against other rival powers who should press you.

All of them some of the time, none of them some of the time - it's a case by case. location by location, interaction by interaction factor, not a blanket covering the whole of Open just because Open may contain opponents, somewhere, maybe.

And like I suggested before, the BGS does know the relative makeup of who is in the system. V1 for example had / has (depending on bugs) system reports on PP player bounties, and shipping lost- you could use that as a scaling factor inside such systems.

The premise behind a risk/reward approach to Powerplay 2.0 is to remove inequity, not perpetuate it.

.... and it should not reasonably be balanced around the 1%ers at the top of the skill ranks in meta-combat ships.

You are doing more in Open- even if you meet no-one, you are still approaching a run differently (or taking a massive gamble). You build differently, fly differently, strategise differently.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But you also want it so that (based on your effort and where) its not 100% winning all the time. After all, you are hauling against other rival powers who should press you.

No problem with that - it's a game, after all, and no-one should reasonably expect to win all the time.

And like I suggested before, the BGS does know the relative makeup of who is in the system. V1 for example had / has (depending on bugs) system reports on PP player bounties, and shipping lost- you could use that as a scaling factor inside such systems.

No need to - as the actual rather than statistical data should be used. Meet no-one >> player opposition factor = 0; play in a wing >> risk/difficulty factor reduces; play in a stock Sidewinder >> risk / difficulty factor increases; etc.; etc....

You are doing more in Open- even if you meet no-one, you are still approaching a run differently (or taking a massive gamble). You build differently, fly differently, strategise differently.

That depends on where one resides globally, how good ones internet connection is, ones friends list and/or block list, what time of day one chooses to play, etc... To pretend otherwise is to ignore the reality of 24/7 gaming using P2P connections.

 

[Rubbernuke]

No problem with that - it's a game, after all, and no-one should reasonably expect to win all the time.

And thats the balance V1 gets badly wrong and why Open has become one option to avoid it. If V2 gets it wrong again, it will make the case for mitigations stronger.

No need to - as the actual rather than statistical data should be used. Meet no-one >> player opposition factor = 0; play in a wing >> risk/difficulty factor reduces; play in a stock Sidewinder >> risk / difficulty factor increases; etc.; etc....

It makes more sense to have the bonus for actual danger and outcomes though (in this case destroyed ships / pledges), given that the PP UI is real-time (or is very close to it).

Having hauling based on who you come across would make sense though, whereas you have to balance attackers would be redundant (the Sidewinder would have a hard time of it).

That depends on where one resides globally, how good ones internet connection is, ones friends list and/or block list, what time of day one chooses to play, etc... To pretend otherwise is to ignore the reality of 24/7 gaming using P2P connections.

Connections aside (which is a consideration), from my own experiences organising Powers does not suffer from those problems- for example in Utopia we had an Australian, a Norwegian, a French guy, a few British guys (me included), an American, fighting Australians, Germans, more British guys, Americans, a few Russians, someone in Israel at a moments notice. These days powers have players across timezones, and work to the cycle (so you know activity will ramp up at the end, or know what to watch for in station reports).

Blocking is a design issue. In a feature about being able to stop someone, its silly being able to block someone for strategic gain. Block language and chat? 100% yes. The rest? No- its part of the feature.

 

[Rebel Yell]

Are you, perchance, practicing in the school of the Marquis de Sade, a kind of 'libertine' rebel yell?

Pleasure is a feeling that has no rank, a fleeting moment that is to be appreciated, savoured. When pleasure is inappropriately correlated with status, rank, or, as you say, height, one becomes little more than a hamster on a wheel. Grinding for kicks, without ever knowing what pleasure is, whilst you are inadvertently chasing a high.

I'm more inclined to the modern psychiatric dopamine correlation with pleasure and pain...

 

[Darrack]

PP NPCs could indeed bother you in 2015. Its 2024 now, with player v 2015 level ships. Its why I keep on saying NPCs need to be far more capable and credible.

In PP PGs where hyper focused groups rack up merits it leads to AFK exploits, something not possible in Open where even one enemy pledge could end it. Take Darracks comment from a while back -



How exactly, in a group that forbids PvP, in a mode that allows you to choose who you fly with, can you be randomly and routinely bothered?



That and wing merits, which we are talking about and the relative value between PG and Open.

Agree (sorry to jump back a few pages but im on a busy festival site with only a little time in the office!), however look at it from a PVE point of view, why should Open get any form of bonus when thats the mode you choose?
No one forces you to take that risk, its the burdon you bare for going Open.
Why should the rest of us suffer?
I enjoy doing hauling with a few friends just having fun and killing a few pirates (npcs) along the way, no stress, just chilling.
PvPers see us as having an easier time, we on the PVE side see it as you folks just making it harder for yourselves, is that our problem?

O7

 

[Robert Maynard]

And thats the balance V1 gets badly wrong and why Open has become one option to avoid it. If V2 gets it wrong again, it will make the case for mitigations stronger.

Indeed - but we're talking about v2 not v1, so v2 should not be balanced based on the shortcomings of v1 that don't exist in v2.

It makes more sense to have the bonus for actual danger and outcomes though (in this case destroyed ships / pledges), given that the PP UI is real-time (or is very close to it).

Where actual danger and outcomes are bespoke to / results of each instance containing one or more player(s), certainly.

Unless, of course, the suggestion is that the reward/effect should relate to goings on in the system due to players that one doesn't instance with? In which case players in all modes would benefit, unless Open were to be treated as a special case, again.

Having hauling based on who you come across would make sense though, whereas you have to balance attackers would be redundant (the Sidewinder would have a hard time of it).

The Sidewinder was not necessarily an attacker - the ship factor would be for any role.

Connections aside (which is a consideration), from my own experiences organising Powers does not suffer from those problems- for example in Utopia we had an Australian, a Norwegian, a French guy, a few British guys (me included), an American, fighting Australians, Germans, more British guys, Americans, a few Russians, someone in Israel at a moments notice. These days powers have players across timezones, and work to the cycle (so you know activity will ramp up at the end, or know what to watch for in station reports).

How many had their opponents on their friend list to facilitate instancing?

Blocking is a design issue. In a feature about being able to stop someone, its silly being able to block someone for strategic gain. Block language and chat? 100% yes. The rest? No- its part of the feature.

We'll see.

 

[Darrack]

Blocking is a design issue. In a feature about being able to stop someone, its silly being able to block someone for strategic gain. Block language and chat? 100% yes. The rest? No- its part of the feature.

Blocking would be essential if it was Open only, many folks would just use PP as an excuse for griefing.

O7

 

[Robert Maynard]

Blocking would be essential if it was Open only, many folks would just use PP as an excuse for griefing.

O7

Yup - if block was broken so as to not block Powerplay pledgers then all of those who are prone to being blocked for their behaviour would pledge to Powerplay to be unblockable by those engaged in Powerplay.

 

[Cmdr Derzelat]

My unworthy and 2 low currency on the matter : if the game allows it in pp 2.0 , people may still rely on me to be their column! the 5th one as i see they call it ..... solo is my way , as it is for some other shadow entrepreneurs , stealthy supporting/bribing presidents and head states all over, out there in the real world or game world. I can see you doing PP as much as you see me doing PP , and based on how instancing works ,doesn`t help much to hope for big pvp wars, unless we do it old way : call your friends, i call mine and meet at dusk ( utc , gmt , ct, est ). PS... don`t get mad , i play little to almost two hours a night , so i won`t do too much damage! if Yuri reads this, sorry i betrayed you bro, i just wanted some time alone....you know independent as in...really independent ! o7

 

[Rubbernuke]

Agree (sorry to jump back a few pages but im on a busy festival site with only a little time in the office!), however look at it from a PVE point of view, why should Open get any form of bonus when thats the mode you choose?

Because you have more considerations in that mode, which affect outcomes. From a strategic level you gain time and efficiency by removing other rival players- like I said in an earlier response its here where the work is needed- if its done right then the need for mitigations is less.

 

[Jockey79]

Thats not in question- the issue is that they don't affect your run like a capable NPC does (say Spec Ops) or another player who can strike at any time after you take off.

Yes, they do. They slow me down and make sure I'm paying attention and not dozing off or AFK.
So even though I'll fight them off, they still have an impact on my gameplay.

The NPCs work to the same rules for everyone. Sec, NFZs, dropzones, PP NPC pirates, adjusters- the timings are the same, the spawns are the same.

Which is what I said, you were the one who said otherwise - and have been arguing.

I get that, but you don't seem to join the fact innefectual NPCs allow for the higher strategic layer of PP (as in keeping things solvent and out of turmoil) easier.

And I keep saying we need better NPCs - we are in fact 100% in agreement there.

And for most people in PP (going by Kumo, Antal, ZYADA, LYR, FUC discords) you are very atypical, since most players want as many advantages as they can to allow them to do more against other people who are doing the same, since they are both in competition. V2 will amplify this with the Top 10 commanders leader board too.

There is no advantage, as you can all do the same as everyone else. We all have equal access to the game and the content.
An advantage would be to give bonuses to a single mode - then that mode (and the players in it) have an advantage over the others.

Of course you can play the game without engineering- the point is it puts you at a disadvantage if others don't have that limitation.

And it's a personal choice, no one else chose it for me. So even if I were to agree I'm at a disadvantage, I put myself there - no one else did.
Chaging the modes to weight up peoples efforts differently is not a person choice of those who will be effected - a disadvantage would be forced on them

Its just the use of PG in PP is not like that at all when you are grouped with people who are dedicated to the power- these are not randoms. I know its not valid in your eyes, but I did run and be part of organising powers and not once did we have someone run amok in one. I'm sure accidents do happen, but someone deliberately attacking another over?

You are comparing very dedicated, small PGs of people doing the same thing. And it still doesn't take away the fact if any of those people become disgruntled for any reason (or just complacent in their own actions) can still kill another member - against their will.

What happened in the Mobius Group is a perfect example, people joined for the sole reason of forcing their gameplay preferences on others.
And nothing is stopping an unscrupulous person from joining your PP PG's for the same reason, because PGs are as "safe" as open as far as the game mechanics are concerned.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Indeed - but we're talking about v2 not v1, so v2 should not be balanced based on the shortcomings of v1 that don't exist in v2.

Yes, but like I said you still have (on paper) similar activities. We will have to see what comes to fully judge.

Where actual danger and outcomes are bespoke to / results of each instance containing one or more player(s), certainly.

You might have both approaches, given that hauling can record who you come across and who you kill.

Unless, of course, the suggestion is that the reward/effect should relate to goings on in the system due to players that one doesn't instance with? In which case players in all modes would benefit, unless Open were to be treated as a special case, again.

It depends on how much abstraction is tolerable- we have trading heatmaps, this is much like that.

The Sidewinder was not necessarily an attacker - the ship factor would be for any role.

The problem being that past a certain point those ships won't ever feature. It would get too complex rapidly if you had to calculate wings of opposing players.

How many had their opponents on their friend list to facilitate instancing?

None AFAIK. Personally, the only person from a rival group I've ever done that with is someone from AEDC a long time ago. A while back I also talked about two guys who undermined Utopia top to bottom. There five of us (from Utopia) got together within minutes when we worked out where the two attackers would be. We found them without fuss. Other times I've had randoms prepping strange places, flown out on a whim and seen them seamlessly. YMMV, obviously.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Blocking would be essential if it was Open only, many folks would just use PP as an excuse for griefing.

O7

Which goes against a features direct action ethos- especially so since you can't call it griefing since thats an objective (V2 has this in the UI).

Foul language and blocking comms? No problem with that, though.

 

[Jockey79]

Yup - if block was broken so as to not block Powerplay pledgers then all of those who are prone to being blocked for their behaviour would pledge to Powerplay to be unblockable by those engaged in Powerplay.

Exactly, and Frontier have only ever improved and made it easier to use the block feature (v1 block feature was horrible)

Within a month of any content being "Open Only" or "Open weighted" - every single person who wants to engage with the feature, will have put all the known PvP'ers / Griefers and Gankers on their block list. Then they are right back to square one. Plus how many player sites will then post a list of names to block if you see them in the system?

So people are demanding Frontier put effort into a system, their own game will ultimately undermine.
Not to mention their choice of networking infrastructure was ridiculous and also undermines the whole concept of multiplayer (but it was the cheapest to slap an MMO sticker to game box)

 

[Robert Maynard]

Which goes against a features direct action ethos- especially so since you can't call it griefing since thats an objective (V2 has this in the UI).

.... and restricting a game feature to a game mode where one may be forced to encounter players one would have blocked for their behaviour goes against the design premise of the game, i.e. other players are optional.

If there's a suggestion that if one does not want to play among those who would be unable to be blocked then one should not engage in particular game content that has, up to now, been pan-modal in nature, then that would be quite the departure for this game, and not in a good way.

 

[Jockey79]

Which goes against a features direct action ethos- especially so since you can't call it griefing since thats an objective (V2 has this in the UI).

Foul language and blocking comms? No problem with that, though.

Trying to push people into a mode they don't want to play goes against the game design ethos - yet you don't seem to have a problem with that.

So if Frontier were to ever make Open Mode weighted, I'd have the largest block list in the entire game. I can assure you of that.
I'd even clear my friends list of people I know in real life, just in case. So the instancing system would have no excuse to put me in an instance with anyone else.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Yes, they do. They slow me down and make sure I'm paying attention and not dozing off or AFK.
So even though I'll fight them off, they still have an impact on my gameplay.

These NPCs were so effective people made bots to deliver goods in Powerplay....

Which is what I said, you were the one who said otherwise - and have been arguing.

You were suggesting that your NPC experience is radically different from mine- but in reality its not.

And I keep saying we need better NPCs - we are in fact 100% in agreement there.

Excellent!

There is no advantage, as you can all do the same as everyone else. We all have equal access to the game and the content.
An advantage would be to give bonuses to a single mode - then that mode (and the players in it) have an advantage over the others.

Of course there is more advantage- you become tougher, faster and able to survive better against NPCs and other players.

If you use your logic, PG is 'the' mode because it has bonuses without downsides.

And it's a personal choice, no one else chose it for me. So even if I were to agree I'm at a disadvantage, I put myself there - no one else did.
Chaging the modes to weight up peoples efforts differently is not a person choice of those who will be effected - a disadvantage would be forced on them

In the end it has to be a game that works at both a ED level (flying about) and a strategic level. Some modes don't work on both these.

You are comparing very dedicated, small PGs of people doing the same thing. And it still doesn't take away the fact if any of those people become disgruntled for any reason (or just complacent in their own actions) can still kill another member - against their will.

What happened in the Mobius Group is a perfect example, people joined for the sole reason of forcing their gameplay preferences on others.
And nothing is stopping an unscrupulous person from joining your PP PG's for the same reason, because PGs are as "safe" as open as far as the game mechanics are concerned.

You are correct that they are very dedicated, thats why they don't turn on each other- that group has a job and thats its reason for being. Its not like someone can force their way in. In the end of course its possible- but in my time its never happened.

 

[Rubbernuke]

.... and restricting a game feature to a game mode where one may be forced to encounter players one would have blocked for their behaviour goes against the design premise of the game, i.e. other players are optional.

If there's a suggestion that if one does not want to play among those who would be unable to be blocked then one should not engage in particular game content that has, up to now, been pan-modal in nature, then that would be quite the departure for this game, and not in a good way.

What we are discussing is not just open only, though. For the last few(?) pages I'm coming from the perspective of all modes. If you don't want PvP in this context you have solo or PG.

 

[Robert Maynard]

What we are discussing is not just open only, though. For the last few(?) pages I'm coming from the perspective of all modes. If you don't want PvP in this context you have solo or PG.

... with as large a penalty applied to player effects as the PvP proponents think they can get away with, noting that there have been ridiculous numbers proposed, in terms of the multiplier for actions in Open, when the subject has come up in the past.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Trying to push people into a mode they don't want to play goes against the game design ethos - yet you don't seem to have a problem with that.

So if Frontier were to ever make Open Mode weighted, I'd have the largest block list in the entire game. I can assure you of that.
I'd even clear my friends list of people I know in real life, just in case. So the instancing system would have no excuse to put me in an instance with anyone else.

Like I said to Robert- the last few pages have been assuming all modes exist and its the tweaks to Open itself to make it actually a functional part of Powerplay with actual workable rules. Such as, wing merit changes, cargo locked to mode (and removed on exit).