Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Rubbernuke]

Yes, as far as PowerPlay is concerned, you're convincing me. I agree that ED should have some kind of PvP feature; PP is a good candidate because it's otherwise little-used and gives justification for direct opposition, and your proposals are well thought out.

The problem is that whenever we get this far, there's a chorus of "It's not enough, the BGS should only be affected in Open too and in fact Solo mode should be abolished". If you could bring your minions to heel I think your proposals for PP would stand more chance. (OK, maybe they're not your minions; I think they attach themselves to your cause while really having different objectives in mind).

Following back the thread, the comments I was replying to might have primarily had PP in mind. The problem is the PvP "side" keep merging the PP and BGS issues in the hope of winning both, which makes me push back against both. Basically, if the proposal on the table is "PP Open Only" I'll vote "yes"; but if it's "PP and BGS Open Only" I vote "no".

And I totally agree with everything you say- to me the BGS is not and never was intended to be Open because it is not designed that way.

Powerplay has very overt and simple ways to determine who is who and what they are doing, features missing from the BGS where its almost impossible to truly know what someone wants to do. The tick of the BGS is another giveaway- in PP its almost instant, but the BGS aggregates all activity over 24 hours, so you can never match up cause to effect 1:1.

Some people want everything Open and I can superficially see why, the problem is a) despite everything I do want the game to have choice for people in the end and b) mechanically you would have to change a giant chunk of the game to do it- which would be a massive upheaval. The BGS is great as it is, because it allows you time to think and do things like a chess game. Powerplay should be an equal yet opposite feature to that.

 

[Brrokk]

And I totally agree with everything you say- to me the BGS is not and never was intended to be Open because it is not designed that way.

Powerplay has very overt and simple ways to determine who is who and what they are doing, features missing from the BGS where its almost impossible to truly know what someone wants to do. The tick of the BGS is another giveaway- in PP its almost instant, but the BGS aggregates all activity over 24 hours, so you can never match up cause to effect 1:1.

Some people want everything Open and I can superficially see why, the problem is a) despite everything I do want the game to have choice for people in the end and b) mechanically you would have to change a giant chunk of the game to do it- which would be a massive upheaval. The BGS is great as it is, because it allows you time to think and do things like a chess game. Powerplay should be an equal yet opposite feature to that.

I'm going to stop disagreeing with you.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

Balance is determined by everyone having the same options. Sorry, but I regard this as obvious.

Whatever options are present would be open to everyone. A bit redundant of a metric.

 

[Cheese Helmet]

I guess if you completely ignore the things I said and the context of the response, sure, that almost makes sense. As long as you don't think too much about that insulting misrepresentation of what I said that you fabricated.

However, there's a fundamental difference between changing your own playstyle, and changing somebody else's to conform to your playstyle. I'm not sure how much I need to break this down to actually get the idea across or if you're just being unobservant in service to the argument you're trying to make.

If you think it's a perceived "unbalance" that other players do some activities in Solo/Private, literally nothing in the game prevents you from doing the same. But if you just don't want to do that, and want to make other players conform to your preference.

It must be "unbalanced" that people on other platforms can also affect the BGS, too.

Without crossplay I would think so yes.

 

[Sky_Dancer]

Yes, let's have nothing but PvP, let's build a hospital station (a bit like the current prison stations) for the innocently attacked to recover and recuperate and at the same time, give them the best ship in the game as compensation for folks that were enjoying their game in their own way before some knuckle-headed idiot decided Gank them and blow them away. BUT, let's also have a 15yr (real life years) sentence for murder. Let's have all assets forfeited by the Ganker, Let's lock the gankers account in to a far-away prison state for those 15yrs, then release them with nothing, other than the last mail bag they were sewing as transport.

All the above UNLESS there is communication and mutual consent to a PvP conflict. Oh, but then, of course, that would spoil the game for those so-called PvPers who only like to kill lower spec'd/skilled players.

 

[Mohrgan]

Whatever options are present would be open to everyone. A bit redundant of a metric.

Only because it doesn't measure out to what you want. Handwavium commence, or continue if you like.

 

[Gully Foyle]

Like the discussion here isn't politics!

Moreover, the point is that this is game politics about some self-centered Jareds who think they know better than everybody else, just like that Jared, not the jewelry store. And if everybody just do what Jareds said, then it will be "balanced." Right?

That's not my understanding of what politics are

 

[Ganogati]

Yes, let's have nothing but PvP, let's build a hospital station (a bit like the current prison stations) for the innocently attacked to recover and recuperate and at the same time, give them the best ship in the game as compensation for folks that were enjoying their game in their own way before some knuckle-headed idiot decided Gank them and blow them away. BUT, let's also have a 15yr (real life years) sentence for murder. Let's have all assets forfeited by the Ganker, Let's lock the gankers account in to a far-away prison state for those 15yrs, then release them with nothing, other than the last mail bag they were sewing as transport.

There' a difference between trying to make open more appealing for everyone, adding incentive for players to play together, and just making the game PvP only. The goal is to add some form of competition to make the galaxy a little more dynamic

With that said, the system definitely lacks for any real punishment for ganking, which is something that I've been complaining about for a while. System police are next to useless when you are attacked; I would expect the Imperials or Federation to take enough offense at you murdering people randomly to make you not want to do it again. At the moment, they barely constitute a nuisance for gankers.

 

[Gully Foyle]

Viva la Jared!

Doge whistle detected

 

[Ganogati]

Balance is determined by everyone having the same options. Sorry, but I regard this as obvious.

I'm not sure I understand how that could be "obvious". For example- everyone has access to combat, trading, mining, missioning, etc. And yet, from the post-beta survey:

10. How would you prefer to earn credits to buy a fleet carrier?

11. How do you actually plan to earn credits to buy a fleet carrier?

Sidenote: Prefered vs Actually Used credit-making methods

How can one look at this graph and say "This is obviously balanced, because everyone has access to every other play choice but just choose to play mining"? That's not balance; that's a flawed system. An imbalanced system.

Right now you have a system such a PowerPlay or the BGS that is a relatively competitive system in that it affects other players with the outcome, and yet the competition has an option for it to take place behind closed doors where no one can actually affect the competitors gameplay. It's like having a basketball game where 1 player is allowed to take the ball to another court with no one else on it and just shoot over and over again, and their points count the same as the remaining players playing against each other on the same court. How is that match "obviously" balanced?

I play almost exclusively in solo and PG, so it's not like I'm some PvP ganker hoping to drag players into Open so that I can kill them; hell a sidewinder could probably blow the poor Scadente up with ease. I play in solo/PG specifically because of those very gankers; but even I accept that this system is inherently flawed, where a competitive gameplay style is being affected equivalently between modes where players can interfere with each other and modes where players cannot. From an design standpoint, that makes little to no sense to me at all.

 

[Robert Maynard]

How can one look at this graph and say "This is obviously balanced, because everyone has access to every other play choice but just choose to play mining"? That's not balance; that's a flawed system. An imbalanced system.

.... or players min/maxing - which will always happen.

PvP is not specifically rewarded simply because players have already demonstrated that they can't be trusted to earn rewards for contested encounters without collusion.

Right now you have a system such a PowerPlay or the BGS that is a relatively competitive system in that it affects other players with the outcome, and yet the competition has an option for it to take place behind closed doors where no one can actually affect the competitors gameplay. It's like having a basketball game where 1 player is allowed to take the ball to another court with no one else on it and just shoot over and over again, and their points count the same as the remaining players playing against each other on the same court. How is that match "obviously" balanced?

I play almost exclusively in solo and PG, so it's not like I'm some PvP ganker hoping to drag players into Open so that I can kill them; hell a sidewinder could probably blow the poor Scadente up with ease. I play in solo/PG specifically because of those very gankers; but even I accept that this system is inherently flawed, where a competitive gameplay style is being affected equivalently between modes where players can interfere with each other and modes where players cannot. From an design standpoint, that makes little to no sense to me at all.

Given that neither feature requires the player to engage in the optional extra that is PvP, the fact that players can't directly affect other players (if those players choose not to play with other players) in a mode-shared feature is "by design".

The BGS and Powerplay are more akin to track and field (with optional wrestling for those so inclined) than basketball.

 

[Quantis Trap]

Tired of seeing this fake debacle thread. Yes, I do know I'm part of the problem if I post on the thread to say that!

 

[Ganogati]

Given that neither feature requires the player to engage in the optional extra that is PvP, the fact that players can't directly affect other players (if those players choose not to play with other players) in a mode-shared feature is "by design".

The BGS and Powerplay are more akin to track and field (with optional wrestling for those so inclined) than basketball.

It may have originally been by design, but per this thread FDev has at least signaled that their original design may be open to improvement.

In the same token, one could consider a "capture the flag" match to be like track and field, but the general idea for these types of gameplay in most online games is to identify your opponent in the midst of them doing something to help their "side" or their "cause" and interfere with them.

The purpose of this is not to simply accept that they once designed it this way and that's how it will always be, but to discuss the merits or detriments of modifying the system. And given that they have already humored such a discussion before, FDev has clearly signaled that they are open to this very discussion.

 

[Robert Maynard]

It may have originally been by design, but per this thread FDev has at least signaled that their original design may be open to improvement.

Only for Powerplay, maybe - Sandro was at pains to remind participants that the Flash Topic was an investigation, not a fait accompli, and that while players could demand what they liked, Powerplay was the only feature considered suited to even being considered for Open only.

In the same token, one could consider a "capture the flag" match to be like track and field, but the general idea for these types of gameplay in most online games is to identify your opponent in the midst of them doing something to help their "side" or their "cause" and interfere with them.

The purpose of this is not to simply accept that they once designed it this way and that's how it will always be, but to discuss the merits or detriments of modifying the system. And given that they have already humored such a discussion before, FDev has clearly signaled that they are open to this very discussion.

While the discussion has been engaged in for over seven years, Frontier have shown no sign whatsoever of changing their stance on the BGS - and reiterated their stance comparatively recently.

While some players no doubt want the game to change to suit them, Frontier would seem to be "well aware" that, while the majority of players play in Open (with Solo and Private Groups enjoying "significant portions" of the player-base), the majority of players don't get involved in PvP - in a game sold to all with multi-player, and therefore PvP, as an optional extra (even if we all share the same galaxy state).

We await their determination of the investigation into Powerplay.

 

[Sysmon]

The BGS and Powerplay are more akin to track and field (with optional wrestling for those so inclined) than basketball.

Due to the mode switch capability, BGS and Powerplay PvP is more like bunfights across fences, I'd think. With the one exception that only one side of the fight has the opportunity to go visit the other.

S

 

[Manticore]

This debate has gone on since launch.

I can't believe it's still going on............... must be a new batch of players.

 

[Ganogati]

Only for Powerplay, maybe - Sandro was at pains to remind participants that the Flash Topic was an investigation, not a fait accompli, and that while players could demand what they liked, Powerplay was the only feature considered suited to even being considered for Open only.

Open only is a single possible solution; Sandro's very post makes mention of alternatives solutions. And while they have not shown any interest publicly to date about the idea of modifying the BGS to use a similar system, I would be highly surprised if any developer anywhere simply hunkered down like a boulder on their current design and said "this is how it is; we're never changing it". Enough discussion on a topic would likely garner their interest.

If we're talking personal opinions here: Personally, I have no desire to see it be Open Only, unless they changed the very function of PP to be something else. I prefer Sandro's own recommendation of a reduction in rewards or progression if done out of Open. I personally would also hope that this comes with a decoupling of the pointless module gates that PP currently provides, where 1 requirement is to wait 4 weeks. That's the opposite of an engaging mechanic, so if we're on the path to "fixing" PP to be more engaging, I'd hope to see that revisited as well.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Open only is a single possible solution; Sandro's very post makes mention of alternatives solutions. And while they have not shown any interest publicly to date about the idea of modifying the BGS to use a similar system, I would be highly surprised if any developer anywhere simply hunkered down like a boulder on their current design and said "this is how it is; we're never changing it". Enough discussion on a topic would likely garner their interest.

True - however some changes are more likely than others. Given what Frontier have said on the topic over the years, the modes and shared BGS seem to be at the "very unlikely to change" end. Powerplay, given the investigation, is another matter.

If we're talking personal opinions here: Personally, I have no desire to see it be Open Only, unless they changed the very function of PP to be something else. I prefer Sandro's own recommendation of a reduction in rewards or progression if done out of Open. I personally would also hope that this comes with a decoupling of the pointless module gates that PP currently provides, where 1 requirement is to wait 4 weeks. That's the opposite of an engaging mechanic, so if we're on the path to "fixing" PP to be more engaging, I'd hope to see that revisited as well.

What Frontier choose to do with Powerplay is, of course, up to them.

 

[Ganogati]

What Frontier choose to do with Powerplay is, of course, up to them.

They will, but it will more likely than not be based upon not only the data they see in game but also the discussions they see here. However small a sample size of the playerbase these forums may be, they are still a sample group none-the-less, and better than no feedback at all.

So, as always, every person is here is more than encouraged to give their personal suggestions on what they'd like to see happen in order to help inform that decision

 

[Mohrgan]

I'm not sure I understand how that could be "obvious". For example- everyone has access to combat, trading, mining, missioning, etc. And yet, from the post-beta survey:



How can one look at this graph and say "This is obviously balanced, because everyone has access to every other play choice but just choose to play mining"? That's not balance; that's a flawed system. An imbalanced system.

Right now you have a system such a PowerPlay or the BGS that is a relatively competitive system in that it affects other players with the outcome, and yet the competition has an option for it to take place behind closed doors where no one can actually affect the competitors gameplay. It's like having a basketball game where 1 player is allowed to take the ball to another court with no one else on it and just shoot over and over again, and their points count the same as the remaining players playing against each other on the same court. How is that match "obviously" balanced?

I play almost exclusively in solo and PG, so it's not like I'm some PvP ganker hoping to drag players into Open so that I can kill them; hell a sidewinder could probably blow the poor Scadente up with ease. I play in solo/PG specifically because of those very gankers; but even I accept that this system is inherently flawed, where a competitive gameplay style is being affected equivalently between modes where players can interfere with each other and modes where players cannot. From an design standpoint, that makes little to no sense to me at all.

It's about access, and balance between players, not professions. Do I have to explain Apples & Oranges?

In order to compete to have the 1st FC, people chose to Mine, because they see an advantage to it. When Passenger mission 1st dropped they were the wind-fall method for riches. Do you think everyone decided they wanted to be bus drivers? The idea is; if you see an advantage in a mode, a ship, a weapon, or a temporary occupation, you and everyone is free to pursue it.

Treat the modes in exactly the same way. If you, or anyone, see(s) an advantage to one mode over another, feel free, no, I invite you to take advantage of it. That is the power of equal access. Equal access is perfect balance. The only difference between Commanders is what they do with their time. That use will determine their success.