Modes [Suggestion] How to incentivise open play and make it relevant

[NeilF]

So your argument is that you do not like how the devs have defined PVP and how they reward players for playing PVP as the devs have defined it? Correct?

Not quite sure what your question is?

TBH ED does little to even offer PvP. Players can just about attack each other, but as the game does little to orchestrate it and/or promote it, it's not really very accessible or meaningful IMHO.

Add to this the ever present invisible SOLO CMDRs able to undermine and outperform OPEN CMDRs, and therefore the game in effect rewards SOLO, it's all a bit of a sorry state TBH.

 

[Rampant]

You've started your argument with a strawman of *ALL* CMDRs being in OPEN?

But I understand your point, but I'm sure it's not as negative as you might suggest? If we take a Powerplay location where Power X are trying to deliver and Y to prevent? Could a knee jerk solution not be for the game to recognise a Powerplay location, with Powerplay CMDRs coming into it, and for it therefore to try and "even the instances"? ie: Not just populate one instance with 16 Y defending, and 16 Y delivering?

But I do understand the big problem of an instance having a significant number of one side, and for it therefore to then remain forever uneven as the other don't stand a chance of "fighting" back... It is a valid issue! But it just seems sad this problem - which exists at the moment - just further gives SOLO a bonus surely?




I know one way of looking at it is to give PP a bonus in OPEN, and of course there's been similar talks of giving CGs a bonus in OPEN. But my take is where possible to apportion the results between OPEN and non-OPEN and then use those results as regards any outcome (if possible).

I think you have mistaken a perfectly valid illustration for a strawman argument.
If the aim is to get "more" players into Open, then surely the *ultimate* aim would be to get *all* CMDRs into Open.
I'm simply taking the notion to it's natural conclusion.

Anyway, the fact remains that assigning any particular bonus to any one Mode or other is deliberately inserting inconsistency and imbalance into the system.

Again, it does not appear sensible to introduce imbalance to make things "balance" now, does it?

Finally, I have a sneaking suspicion that when FDev did consider exactly what you are saying about a year ago they came up with a technical hitch that meant it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to bend the figures with the current system they have in place. That's just my own suspicion, of course.


The most important part in all of this is the inconsistency and imbalance that cross-platform results and cross-instance results would introduce. Not to mention the time-of-play issues and the block function...

Just doesn't bear up to any kind of scrutiny.

I accept that you feel there is a need to balance (a view I don't share), but this method of attempting balance would be counter-productive (and I'm not saying that because I don't share your view - it is a predictable and demonstrable inconsistency that you are hanging your hat on).

Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[NeilF]

When ones play-style requires others to take part in it to be successful then it is entirely vulnerable to those others not wanting to take part in it.

Then don't...

The game should allow people to undertake PvP easily, and for it to have interesting and meaningful gameplay. It does precious little of either at the moment.

Note: The shallow PvP gameplay is of course partly because of the limp PvE gameplay. They both need to be improved hand in hand.

 

[Rampant]

Indeed... Tsunamis of untouchable SOLO activities can be best countered by Tsunamis of untouchable activities - Am I alone in seeing the problems with that? - Unbalanced mechanics are best countered by using the same unbalanced mechanics!

...

Yes you are amongst a very small minority that labels something which is clearly 100% balanced with the label of "imbalanced".

 

[Robert Maynard]

Then don't...

.... and when players complain about players who are not engaging in direct PvP affecting "their" BGS (after telling them to "git gud or go Solo")? (to be clear, I am not suggesting that you have said this - we are not the only participants that have ever engaged in this debate though)

The game should allow people to undertake PvP easily,

They can - if they can find opponents.

and for it to have interesting and meaningful gameplay. It does precious little of either at the moment.

More challenging given the single shared BGS - a BGS that does not count CMDR destruction more highly than NPC destruction (and if it did, it would be exploited trivially).

Note: The shallow PvP gameplay is of course partly because of the limp PvE gameplay. They both need to be improved hand in hand.

Opinions vary regarding the PvE gameplay, naturally.

 

[NeilF]

I think you have mistaken a perfectly valid illustration for a strawman argument.
If the aim is to get "more" players into Open, then surely the *ultimate* aim would be to get *all* CMDRs into Open.
I'm simply taking the notion to it's natural conclusion.

Anyway, the fact remains that assigning any particular bonus to any one Mode or other is deliberately inserting inconsistency and imbalance into the system.

Again, it does not appear sensible to introduce imbalance to make things "balance" now, does it?

Finally, I have a sneaking suspicion that when FDev did consider exactly what you are saying about a year ago they came up with a technical hitch that meant it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to bend the figures with the current system they have in place. That's just my own suspicion, of course.


The most important part in all of this is the inconsistency and imbalance that cross-platform results and cross-instance results would introduce. Not to mention the time-of-play issues and the block function...

Just doesn't bear up to any kind of scrutiny.

I accept that you feel there is a need to balance (a view I don't share), but this method of attempting balance would be counter-productive (and I'm not saying that because I don't share your view - it is a predictable and demonstrable inconsistency that you are hanging your hat on).

Yours Aye

Mark H

There is already an inbalance. The hope would be to try and reduce it.

Try a Powerplay paper round delivery task in SOLO and in OPEN. OPEN will almost certainly be hard, assuming anyone on the opposing Power is even opposing you given of course:-
1) The vapid Powerplay gameplay
2) The poor Powerplay game design with too many things to fight over in OPEN.
3) The fact the current tsunami of invisible SOLO players probably makes a lot of players interested in OPEN wonder why bother?


Consider this super simply example - Just one or two Powerplay tasks were made OPEN only... Therefore those results are dictated solely by OPEN results. The exact same gameplay elsewhere would available in other areas for SOLO for example?

Likewise, make some CGs, OPEN only.

Even this approach could at least make OPEN have some feeling of worth, while not penalising SOLO in truth.

 

[Rampant]

There is already an inbalance. The hope would be to try and reduce it.
.

As already said, I and others don't subscribe to the view it is unbalanced.

However, if it were...

....*Fundamentally*, you cannot combat imbalance by introducing further demonstrable and predictable imbalance.

Consider this super simply example - Just one or two Powerplay tasks were made OPEN only... Therefore those results are dictated solely by OPEN results. The exact same gameplay elsewhere would available in other areas for SOLO for example?

Likewise, make some CGs, OPEN only.

Even this approach could at least make OPEN have some feeling of worth, while not penalising SOLO in truth.

Personally, I wouldn't have any real objection to that as a suggestion. Although I don't PP, so would expect to have little say in the discussion.

PP is one area where, *perhaps*, there is scope for Open only content since I think it was supposed to be a focus for direct CMDR-to-CMDR gameplay???

The question is, though, can this be achieved technically within the game code, while catering for players mode-hopping in order they they do not generate a false bonus while also guarding against 5th column exploitation (direct cheating)?



Yours Aye

Mark H

 

[NeilF]

Yes you are amongst a very small minority that labels something which is clearly 100% balanced with the label of "imbalanced".

Possibly... But you try the next trade CG in OPEN only, and I'll try it in SOLO only... Let's see how well your 100% balanced stacks up.

 

[Roybe]

Possibly... But you try the next trade CG in OPEN only, and I'll try it in SOLO only... Let's see how well your 100% balanced stacks up.

I would lose about 5-10 minutes time...adding any player I see onto my block list, jump to a planet and repeat until I see no one...now we are back to even....less the 10 minutes to block everyone. Of course I could do my time at 1 AM local and be virtually guaranteed the same thing....

 

[NeilF]

As already said, I and others don't subscribe to the view it is unbalanced.

However, if it were...

....*Fundamentally*, you cannot combat imbalance by introducing further demonstrable and predictable imbalance.

Yours Aye

Mark H

Don't agree...



Let's assume along with all the regular CGs, a trade CG was created for OPEN only...

What's the downside? What the predictable imbalance?

 

[NeilF]

I would lose about 5-10 minutes time...adding any player I see onto my block list, jump to a planet and repeat until I see no one...now we are back to even....less the 10 minutes to block everyone.

That's a fair point... But more an issue with the (abuse of the) block feature surely though?

ps: Don't think the block feature is quite as black and white as you might suggest though?

 

[Roybe]

Don't agree...



Let's assume along with all the regular CGs, a trade CG was created for OPEN only...

What's the downside? What the predictable imbalance?

You haven't convinced anyone that there is an imbalance to start with....anything you have perceived as imba I have shown to be repairable in Open with a few button clicks....

That's a fair point... But more an issue with the block feature surely though?

ps: Don't think the block feature is quite as black and white as you might suggest though?

It would be enough for the purpose of this discussion....I would severely limit my ability to be messed with....my only sacrifice would be not seeing others....which is really the point of the discussion. I do agree, that PVP is a hindrance to CG's...because the PVP players lose out on all that time they could be actually playing the game...but thems their choices! Now you have to ask for the removal of the block feature....once you stop and think it starts to be obvious that the Devs only desire direct PVP to be a side show....for those that want to engage in it....

 

[Jockey79]

Possibly... But you try the next trade CG in OPEN only, and I'll try it in SOLO only... Let's see how well your 100% balanced stacks up.

Quite easy, I've got most of the player base on block - a feature Frontier introduced.

I can fly around Open all day and not see a soul... not unless someone on my friends list comes online.
Then I'll get help doing it, with trade vouchers and bounty vouchers.... how cool is that, them Solo Mode players don't get extra credit for working with people do they.

 

[NeilF]

...repairable in Open with a few button clicks....

"Repairable" being a clear abuse of the ignore feature?

If we ignore that issue for a moment, you don't think that some players who are more keen on PvP gameplay in ED wouldn't gravitate towards a dedicated OPEN only CG? Where they at least feel everyone is on the same footing?

Note: A questionable caveat of an OPEN CG could be that in such locations (systems) while in OPEN, the ignore list doesn't work to prevent your proposed "repair"

 

[bootsam]

I suspect an open only trade CG would be an entirely one sided affair. Lots of Vultures, FDLs etc hovering around the occasional madcap T6. Like a tourist accidentally driving through a favela wearing a rolex.

 

[Rampant]

That would be a complicated thing for us to achieve.

-- Might depend on the type of CG and host facility... (perhaps dictates which ship we choose, for instance??)
-- I don't know what your normal completion level...
-- You don't know mine...

I have no massive objection to this in principle, (although now that I've broadcast my play-times I fear that there may be some unusual external influences at play, LOL.)


Let's just say that I'll let you know...

Cheerz

Mark H

 

[Roybe]

"Repairable" being a clear abuse of the ignore feature?

If we ignore that issue for a moment, you don't think that some players who are more keen on PvP gameplay in ED wouldn't gravitate towards a dedicated OPEN only CG? Where they at least feel everyone is on the same footing?

Note: A questionable caveat of an OPEN CG could be that in such locations (systems) while in OPEN, the ignore list doesn't work to prevent your proposed "repair"

Can't abuse a feature that is working correctly...broken logic...not an ignorable issue....it IS the issue in your discussion. I can limit who I play with....puts the Open vs discussion on even footing again.

 

[Jockey79]

"Repairable" being a clear abuse of the ignore feature?

If we ignore that issue for a moment, you don't think that some players who are more keen on PvP gameplay in ED wouldn't gravitate towards a dedicated OPEN only CG? Where they at least feel everyone is on the same footing?

Note: A questionable caveat of an OPEN CG could be that in such locations (systems) while in OPEN, the ignore list doesn't work to prevent your proposed "repair"

And how about at the same time, an Open only CG where player to player damage is turned off in the areas used for it?

And neither CG be hooked into the BGS - but isolated events, just to see how they go.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Can't abuse a feature that is working correctly...broken logic...

Features like "every player experiences and affects the single shared galaxy state"?

(BGS unintended effects, like the influence tanking on being wanted and Security streaming in to be shot down, notwithstanding - that sounds like a bug....)

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Don't agree...

Let's assume along with all the regular CGs, a trade CG was created for OPEN only...

What's the downside? What the predictable imbalance?

You can answer your own question when I suggest to do that trade CG in Solo only.