Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
While a participation award for playing in Open represents a reduction in scope of demand from the proponents of change it is not a compromise.
Open-Only in PP2.0?
- Thread starter August Lagrange
- Start date
I feel you're trying to add as many 'what if' variables to dilute the core point being made, which is that if two or more players encounter each other in a competitive manner (be it a CZ, PP Merit Hauling/Undermining or whatever), with the way the game is now, one of them is going to have a considerably 'harder' challenge at succeeding with their goals than they would if they rolled into the same situation in either Solo or a Private Group.
No one is talking about 'blanket bonuses' for Open. What they're mostly expressing (fairly reasonably) is that for the added potential risk of 'losing' you face while playing in open engaged in these activities, and the adjustments you need to make to your build/tactics etc which players conducting the same activities in the other modes do not, that wieghting the outcomes for PP conducted in open for them to remain a competitive viable option.
Yet competition for who choose open is harder and unfair vs Solo/PG. I'd say "no one force you to play solo/pg" but is not getting us to any touch point.
This is up to who play the game mode, not to the cmdrs playing other game modes that won't notice differences anyway
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
The core point dilutes itself as it assumes risk at a level that may not be encountered.
They are indeed talking about "blanket bonuses" - that's what the "weighting for playing in Open" equates to.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Every player has access to the same PvE activities in all three game modes - that some choose to play among other players then complain that it's in some way "unfair" that they may possibly be directly opposed by other players due to their choice of game mode is ultimately of their own doing. Such complaints are akin to those of players who choose to play in Open and then complain that another player attacked them.
Game mode or game feature?
But we would like to be evaluated both the "may" (weighting probability rewards for accepting the little risk) and the risk itself (killing a player in a cz should weight more both in money and cz outcome)
I'm sorry, but from my perspecitve you are wrong: The risk of it being present is the point (versus the zero sum risk in a PG/Solo instance). Particularly when engaging in a system such as powerplay which encourages players into very compressed smaller areas of space than in a normal gaming session. This is why (and I know you know this, as you would be regularly posting in such threads) that most of the complaint posts in the old days about being 'griefed' occured at such hotspots, Community Goals, or whichever grind exploit route was being touted on the forums at the time.
And that weighting being talked about is in relation to Powerplay in open, which is what the thread, by its title is about (not Open as a whole). I think we've potentially become sidetracked by talking about The Other Space Game.
PvP is indeed an additional activity with higher difficulty and often without balanced rewards. I'm speaking purely in terms of game design, not personal opinions.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Yet the design of this game makes it completely optional - and all players backed or bought it on that basis. Noting that some don't accept that and want the game changed for all players to suit their play-style preference.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
If Powerplay 2.0 thrives then it is unlikely to remain "very compressed smaller areas" for long - as there are c.20,000 inhabited systems for the twelve powers to fight over.
Those inclined to attack non-combatants often gravitate to places where non-combatants will be found - it still happens at trade CG destination systems.
Which would represent a blanket bonus for playing the game in Open while pledged (as Powerplay 2.0 seems to simply be "play the game while pledged", until any additional aspects are announced).
Nope, I’m talking about game design, which is like architecture. Once a building (the game) is constructed, it doesn’t mean you can’t suggest improvements if the design is flawed. Just because it would modify the original blueprint doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be done. Similarly, a game might need changes to ensure it functions better for everyone, not just one group of players. Improving a structure, whether a building or a game, isn’t about betraying the original plan, it's about making it work as intended.
I can suggest some good lectures:
Game Balance by Ian Schreiber & Brenda Romero
The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses by Jesse Schell
Players Making Decisions by Zack Hiwiller
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
One player's perceived flaw is another player's welcome feature.
The game has changed a lot in the near ten years since launch, noting that the mode system and pan-modal nature of game features has not. Whether the game should be modified to accommodate those who don't accept it for what it is, when doing so risks adversely affecting players who accept the game for what it is, remains to be seen. Put differently, the risk of changing the game to suit the PvP subset of the player-base may not be well received by the PvE subset of the player-base - and only Frontier know the relative size of each population (noting that one Dev commented some years ago that Frontier were "well aware" that the majority of players don't engage in PvP).
I'm at the point now where open only or any variable thereof isn't worth pursuing until ganking & griefers are addressed.
Hauling or merits running into a wall of murder boats (not PP affiliated jus ooc sitting there waiting for them) isn't gonner be fun for anyone.
If this game has real meaningful affiliated pvp designed around opposing sides with their own interests and outcomes at heart then that's in character.
The rest is definitely not.
And this is the fundamental reason why soloists don't want it. Which I'm sure everyone can understand.
Hauling or merits running into a wall of murder boats (not PP affiliated jus ooc sitting there waiting for them) isn't gonner be fun for anyone.
If this game has real meaningful affiliated pvp designed around opposing sides with their own interests and outcomes at heart then that's in character.
The rest is definitely not.
And this is the fundamental reason why soloists don't want it. Which I'm sure everyone can understand.
I'm fine with multi modes if NPCs are far better / PvE is more complex and that Open has some form of material reward for intentionally making life more difficult for yourself.
Open Only was suggested in PP V1 because NPCs and EDs PvE could not do the job. V2 is different enough not to warrant that, but, at the same time has to address how solo and PG have flaws that undermine the feature to make it inconsistent.
^^^
This right here.
Those who keep saying that playing in Open is a huge risk pretty much ignores the what the decision matrix in Open really is, because they always choose the fun option, even if it’s inefficient. Which is fine, IMO. I have the utmost respect for anyone who chooses fun over efficiency.
A blanket bonus to Open will attract those who choose efficiency over fun. And that is a losing scenario for everyone.
What I want most from PowerPlay 2.0 is a change to my decision matrix, where the most likely antagonistic player encounter in Open is a scenario where the fun and efficient decision is to choose “fight.” And that means actual risky behavior needs to be rewarded, not just a blanket bonus to open where the goal is to avoid “fight” at all costs, because that option is neither fun nor efficient.
? PvP in Powerplay is not CQC. Its you doing your job at the time and dealing with who you find- i.e, its situational.
It depends on what that bonus is- its why I suggest having the wing bonus for Open alone in Powerplay. It also depends on how much of a bonus it is- because you are still putting yourself in a mode where just one ship could shoot you down.
People will choose PG for efficiency, because of the wing bonus- its why AFK in V1 is so effective. In Open an AFK turretboat is useless.
With weighted content your "decision matrix" would be the same while efficiency would be balanced, seems a win/win case to me
This is false.
Beyond a couple of 'popular systems' (which we can actually name off the top of our heads) there is no appreciable difference in risk between modes.
Seeing others paintjobs/decals. In a busy instance you might get a flash of another Cmdrs paintjob, (or suit if they're on foot) you won't see their decals and certainly won't see their bobbleheads. The cosmetics are for your appreciation, and making pretty screenshots, nothing more.
It depends in my opinion how Fdev sets up Pp 2.0. This thread is talking about Open Only play and that is supposedly needs an extra bonus for the extra risk associated. Both of which I disagree with because 'potential' risk is not the same actual risk. A 1v2 Hydra's vs my KMK2 vs 2 scouts for example. Anyone in any ship taking on 2 Hydra's alone did face extra risk and the reward should show that. However just flying through a thargoid controlled system is not a risk the game will reward hopefully. Just look at the recent update to the tharg war, if you help an invasion get beaten back you get rewards. Because you did something useful, ie missions, or killing scouts and interceptors outside of Jameson Memorial. Not for just visiting Shin Dez in Open. I expect the same for PP2.0, and Fdev have all the pieces in place from the current Tharg war
1) There is no extra risk in Open vs PG/Solo depending on how Fdev codes PP2.0. A wing of 4 G5'd killing machines will face no risk from a single opposing pledged commander if they are alone. So potential risk vs actual risk again. The single pledged hot shot pilot if they were to win against 4 opposing powers' pilots whether npc's or other commanders did face extra risk, depending on combat rank. A 1v1 PP2.0 could be risky (combat rank should be used, Elite vs Harmless for example), it depends on the correct load outs, the skills of the opposing Cmdr's, etc. 4v1 is not. I am still against any extra bonus or rewards for an individuals choice to play in Open vs PG/Solo. The only rewards and bonus should be getting something useful done, not which mode you choose to get work done in!
2) Combat is the slowest and least efficient way to farm 'merits' or whatever Fdev chooses as the new PP2.0 currency. Finding others, instancing with others, timezone differences etc all will make combat the least effective way to get work done for your power in any mode potentially. Again in depends what Fdev codes up for us. I expect playing the game, running missions, and getting things done to be rewarded if you are pledged as all of that will help your chosen power. Playing in Open should not add any extra bonus except extra flair, suspense or mystery, which is each players choice
And Fdev has decided all of this long ago. And we only have to wait a few more weeks...
PS:
I really expect Fdev to use the Thargoid war as an example or template. The way system states work and ways to attack/defend and grow/shrink have all now been tested under the Tharg war narrative.
For PP2.0 - Replace the Titan with the new stronghold cap and supporting ships. Replace scouts, interceptors, glaives and hunters with the new as yet unseen PP2.0 power police. They will be the threat in all modes if you are pledged and wander someplace you should not have. Tharg war allows all modes, and rewards in all modes, but no extra 'bonus' because you did anything in Open, that is just another choice the Cmdr made on the path to getting something useful done