Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Rubbernuke]

Stealth favours the sneaky attacker - snipers are quite often derided as "easy mode" in some other games, I expect for good reason.

That a consequence of planetary lighting changes and the introduction of night-vision result in a significant change to stealth may, or may not, be an oversight - it might be looked on, by some, as a synergy.

Sneak attacks were run by small or medium cold ships that had to balance an overwhelming strike to break shields and either lucky PP strikes or PP hits. It takes skill to do that, and is by no means guaranteed if your opponent is cautious. If you fly a rubbish ship you'll get killed regardless of ambushes or not.

I expect those who accept the choices of others still make use of them with willing opponents in Open.

It seems strange exactly why FD designed such a system that minimised the need for understanding the motives of your opponent then.

Whether it's poor design, or not, rather depends on ones acceptance of Frontier's fundamental design for the game. Selective acceptance of one aspect and rejection of others does not make those rejected any less valid.

It is poor design. Powerplay has so many inconsistencies and holes its crazy. Its doubly crazy why FD have never attempted to at least plug them in a timely way. Its not hard to accept that in some cases pan modal gaming does not work- Powerplay being the best example of that. Its very design promotes grind when its features promise real time direct co-op teamplay....to win you have to essentially avoid this potential.

Adversarial features need not require any player to engage in PvP.

From the perspective of a developer making a game with optional PvP, why not?

They don't- the BGS and PMFs being a prime example in game. However, why have such a great feature overhadow a shrivelled and outmoded duplicate? Either use what you know works intelligently or bite the bullet and make the lesser feature compliment the BGS- after all, CQC compliments in game 1:1 PvP, why not have Powerplay mirror the BGS in this respect? Every feature in ED has to pull its weight to justify its dev time. Powerplay sucked up a whole update, and promptly died on its feet.

The game is not balanced around the challenge posed by players who engage in PvP, nor is it balanced around the engineered combat ships that they choose to create, mitigating risk to themselves while doing so.

So how do you balance a feature which is totally 100% player driven then? Up the fort totals again?

Players choose to engage with other players in this game - so any additional risk posed by potentially meeting players in Open is itself optional.

Opting into Powerplay should be the option, in a feature about player driven conflict.

Which presupposes that Frontier would consider that Solo and Private Groups to require to be as challenging as encountering players in Open. Sandro's post referred to this:

"The challenge of playing in solo being too low (without taking sides) is a valid argument to make, although it might better be phrased as "the opportunities for challenge are too low in Elite Dangerous". It's actually something we are interested in looking at."

followed by:

"However, cranking up difficulty will not make Open more enticing. Conflict between actual people, even within a game, is a very different matter to taking on NPC ships. It has many psychological and social elements that would otherwise not be present. Incidentally, increasing the difficulty of NPC engagements would also make Open harder rather than fairer, so there's also that.

Perhaps the bottom line is the different modes are there to enable Commanders to play how they want to."

Which is indeed saying Solo is unbalanced.

The core issue is:

Do you want to win, or have fun in Powerplay? Choose one, because you can't have both. Either you grind in solo and 'win' or have fun with emergent situations in open.

So it seems, to me at least, that players playing how they want to is of a higher priority to Frontier than players being forced to play in a particular way.

FD seem blind to the issue that making something pan modal automatically makes it 'good'. For a feature to work you need rules and boundaries, and Powerplay has too few boundaries to make it work in a cohesive way thats also consistent. Sometimes having less choice is actually better.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

If the counter argument is strong, and supported by observation, why cook up another one? If the oft repeated counters seem repetitive, what do you think the suggestions seem like? Earth shatteringly unique? Sorry, they're just not. When someone manages to suggest inclusive, pan-modal type changes to improve the game, then you'll get different answers. Until then, Robert's answers will just have to suffice.

It's not strong, hes using the problem people are trying to address as the counter to their suggestion. Hence why he takes things in circles.

 

[Mohrgan]

It's not strong, hes using the problem people are trying to address as the counter to their suggestion. Hence why he takes things in circles.

Or, he's pointing out that there is no problem here, that can't be solved by you understanding the developers intentions, as layed out by thier statements and actions since the kickstarter. That during all of the years of development, none of the suggestions you have made, and the multitude of like-minded ideas offered by others, have ever left the 'let's talk about it' stage. And, now they don;t even want to talk about it.

I would have to say that Roberts counters, are just as strong, nay stronger, than your suggestions. He has facts and sources to back up his assertions. You have 'But everyone shoutd have to play like me'. Not compelling in the least.

 

[Robert Maynard]

The first two are indeed facts as the game sits currently. But everyone knows they are facts and repeating them ad nauseum isn't an argument.

Some may consider the existence of the facts as detrimental to their arguments and subsequent likelihood of success - that does not reduce their efficacy in an argument - as every player bought the game on the basis of the design as it stands (whether they knew it or not).

That some players engage in selective acceptance of Frontier's design and demand changes to the parts they don't agree with does not mean that the parts they don't agree with are "wrong" - it just means that they don't agree with bits of the game we all bought - and no player has any more, or less, entitlement to engage in the extant features of the game.

Considering your discussion with rubbernuke was around the single feature where open only had consideration by devs, your donkey mentality of pulling that same plow through that same field in that same pattern like you do is just funny to behold.

Open only was presented as one possible change to a long-standing feature in an investigation, made clear not to be a fait accompli, yes. That some players supported the proposed change is not in question - neither is the fact that the support was far from unanimous.

During the Flash Topics players were swift to express their expectation that not only would Powerplay go Open only, but the BGS would follow. Sandro rather quashed their hopes in that regard with repeated statements to the effect that Powerplay was the only feature under consideration for a possible change in this regard.

The plough mentioned is attached to two ropes - and Frontier are holding the end of one of those ropes, much to the chagrin of those seeking changes that would remove features from players who don't engage in PvP in a game sold to all with PvP as an optional extra.

But the best part is that your reply to me was exactly the same.

-pvp is optional
-the game is designed panmodal
-you think the first two are entirely dependent on no changes to create incentive in open.
-non commital what about person x

Indeed - it works.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Or, he's pointing out that there is no problem here, that can't be solved by you understanding the developers intentions, as layed out by thier statements and actions since the kickstarter. That during all of the years of development, none of the suggestions you have made, and the multitude of like-minded ideas offered by others, have ever left the 'let's talk about it' stage. And, now they don;t even want to talk about it.

I would have to say that Roberts counters, are just as strong, nay stronger, than your suggestions. He has facts and sources to back up his assertions. You have 'But everyone shoutd have to play like me'. Not compelling in the least.

Which is rubbish, from years of observation. FD created a feature that took the worst aspects of already weak features and glued them together.

My suggestions instead take the best parts and join those instead, so everyone can have a role. I've shown as well the basic gameplay is the same regardless of what you do, its just Solo and PG do that via missions (which suit the limited instancing of NPCs) and that Open suits the confrontational parts and avoids instancing and weak NPC issues.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Or, he's pointing out that there is no problem here, that can't be solved by you understanding the developers intentions, as layed out by thier statements and actions since the kickstarter. That during all of the years of development, none of the suggestions you have made, and the multitude of like-minded ideas offered by others, have ever left the 'let's talk about it' stage. And, now they don;t even want to talk about it.

I would have to say that Roberts counters, are just as strong, nay stronger, than your suggestions. He has facts and sources to back up his assertions. You have 'But everyone shoutd have to play like me'. Not compelling in the least.

Taking an argument in a circle is the opposite of the sign of a strong argument. You take it to it's conclusion, whether that's a compromise, agree to disagree, or agreement, if you cannot, then youre not actually discussing the topic, just repeating yourself, which makes the circle.

People making suggestions are fully aware of the current state of the game, stating it as though it's done sort of revelation is to ignore the actual reason for the suggestion.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Taking an argument in a circle is the opposite of the sign of a strong argument. You take it to it's conclusion, whether that's a compromise, agree to disagree, or agreement, if you cannot, then youre not actually discussing the topic, just repeating yourself, which makes the circle.

I see no compelling need to seek compromise - given that the change proponents offer nothing in exchange - it's all take and no give in that regard.

That some players bought (or even backed) a game with a design that they don't agree with and thereafter want it changed to suit them (and disregard the fact that such changes may very much not suit existing players happily playing the game as designed) is not a compelling reason for change - it is suggestive of the fact that some players bought a game that does not suit them - and rather than just accept that they demand change.

That they quite often then call the players that enjoy the game for what it is "selfish" when they don't roll over in acceptance of the change proposals is therefore quite ironic....

 

[Rubbernuke]

I see no compelling need to seek compromise - given that the change proponents offer nothing in exchange - it's all take and no give in that regard.

Except when they actually do give something in exchange, something that suits their playstyle and the limitations of the game itself?

 

[Robert Maynard]

Except when they actually do give something in exchange, something that suits their playstyle and the limitations of the game itself?

Only if one considers that removing features from Solo and Private Groups, i.e. from players who may eschew PvP and therefore not play in Open, and offering a "support role" to players in Solo and Private Groups (that Open players can also participate in) is a fair exchange.

 

[leeG]

I've worked in stealth professionally. The basic Elite radar is actually an IR (temperature) sensor. Match you background temperature and you aren't detected. We don't have real radar (transmitting and receiving reflected electromagnetic wave echos). We do have visual, and night vision is an enhancement of visual where the low light image is intensified. If you truly want stealth, you have to defeat both the IR signature, visual signature and the enhanced visual signature. Blend in visually with your background, match you background temperature and not have any photon emissions or reflections that can be intensified. I use night vision mining and on dark planet surfaces. I suspect from a combat perspective it's a bit over done, although not as much as some think. Another balance item for Frontier's consideration.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

The first two are indeed facts as the game sits currently. But everyone knows they are facts and repeating them ad nauseum isn't an argument.

Considering your discussion with rubbernuke was around the single feature where open only had consideration by devs, your donkey mentality of pulling that same plow through that same field in that same pattern like you do is just funny to behold.

But the best part is that your reply to me was exactly the same.

-pvp is optional
-the game is designed panmodal
-you think the first two are entirely dependent on no changes to create incentive in open.
-non commital what about person x

You keep banging the drum about incentivizing players to play in open...
Suggest some

As for PP... useless get rid of it.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Only if one considers that removing features from Solo and Private Groups, i.e. from players who may eschew PvP and therefore not play in Open, and offering a "support role" to players in Solo and Private Groups (that Open players can also participate in) is a fair exchange.

So in your head, you'd like a hard toggle so that Open tasks remain open, and block Solo and PG tasks, for that cycle?

 

[Rubbernuke]

You keep banging the drum about incentivizing players to play in open...
Suggest some

As for PP... useless get rid of it.

Or like....make Powerplay the team based Open part. If you you think its so useless, whats to lose?

 

[Robert Maynard]

So in your head, you'd like a hard toggle so that Open tasks remain open, and block Solo and PG tasks, for that cycle?

If a player completed any task in Open then they could not complete any tasks in Solo/PG and vice-versa - with a one-time participation mode choice made at the time of pledging.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

Or like....make Powerplay the team based Open part. If you you think its so useless, whats to lose?

That's simply shuffling the problem in a different corner

 

[Mohrgan]

Taking an argument in a circle is the opposite of the sign of a strong argument. You take it to it's conclusion, whether that's a compromise, agree to disagree, or agreement, if you cannot, then youre not actually discussing the topic, just repeating yourself, which makes the circle.

People making suggestions are fully aware of the current state of the game, stating it as though it's done sort of revelation is to ignore the actual reason for the suggestion.

And, I suppose you don't see your steerage going in circles either. This circular discussion has to be someone else's fault as you continue to mutter the same unsupported arguments, right? I mean you've just got to be right, why can't others just see it? Am I getting close?

 

[Rubbernuke]

If a player completed any task in Open then they could not complete any tasks in Solo/PG and vice-versa - with a one-time participation mode choice made at the time of pledging.

Thats far too inflexible- I could see a toggle (like voting) for each week where you select your role for that cycle, and that groups could weigh up needs for that week.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

I see no compelling need to seek compromise - given that the change proponents offer nothing in exchange - it's all take and no give in that regard.

That some players bought (or even backed) a game with a design that they don't agree with and thereafter want it changed to suit them (and disregard the fact that such changes may very much not suit existing players happily playing the game as designed) is not a compelling reason for change - it is suggestive of the fact that some players bought a game that does not suit them - and rather than just accept that they demand change.

That they quite often then call the players that enjoy the game for what it is "selfish" when they don't roll over in acceptance of the change proposals is therefore quite ironic....

You see no compelling need to do anything other than repeat yourself. And that includes reading what people are actually saying and understanding it.

The idea that you shouldve fully understood if every design feature is done well or not before you buy the game, that buy purchasing you are no longer entitled to ask it to change for the better, is moronic at best.

Tons is offered in exchange ever single time a suggestion is made regarding this. You liking what is offered is irrelevant to the fact it is offered.

Stating what the game is and not engaging in the discussion as to why change is even suggested, which is because there's a problem with what it is currently is, is not a compelling reason for you to taken seriously, and seen as anything other than a hamster spinning your wheel in a circle.

 

[Rubbernuke]

That's simply shuffling the problem in a different corner

If you hate it that much, and these improvements work, you've lost nothing.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Thats far too inflexible- I could see a toggle (like voting) for each week where you select your role for that cycle, and that groups could weigh up needs for that week.

Which would favour Open players as they would choose either Open or Solo/PG to suit their Power on a weekly basis - whereas Solo/PG players, who don't enjoy PvP would be effectively limited in their "choice".