Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Kira Mikamy]

So you see the problem as one where a player is choosing to play in a different way than you choose to play that could potentially benefit them, and the only solution you see is to make them play the way you think they should play, so that you can play how you want to play.

Or to put it simply: what you want isn't the most important thing in this game, other people want different things, get over yourself.

you argument is invalid. i dont say nothing about that. i simply say in solo my ship can make more merit\hour than open, thats all, a fact. no drama inside, play where you want.

 

[Hempstead]

That's not my understanding of what politics are

Doesn’t make it untrue just because you do not understand, or intentionally denied it.

If you think a topic getting argued over tens of thousands of posts over 5 years is not game politics, then you qualify arguing oral sex is not sex.

Deny all you want, and say you are right!

 

[TiberiusDuval]

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.

Hmm my answer more about wondering those charts and balance of how make money. I do some PVE bounty hunting, and well payout is effectively pitifull. Ok I may not be best shooter, but my typical idea is to go local hazres and start blasting away. When I'm out of ammo I maybe synthetise more if I have mats, or leave area and restock on station. After expenses I typically net about 2-3 millions. Per ammo load. Perhaps about two times that in hour when I take in account my travel time between "workplace" and station. And if I get greedy or careless, rebuy easily will eliminate long time earnings. Not efficient way. Trading, well maybe its better. Long time since I traded. Exploration pay relatively good credits but it takes time to gather massive load of quality data. Mining is still that get cash quick scheme.

Now I'd think little rebalancing would be nice. Buff up combat related pay outs. Buff up trade and passanger mission pay outs. Nerf the mining. Ideally bring scales to about what exploration pays. I find it kind of reasonable payout.

 

[Gully Foyle]

There no parallels with real-life politics is what I mean.
It's a game with arbitrary rules that's it.

Politics are verboten here for obvious reasons.

 

[Gully Foyle]

Doesn’t make it untrue just because you do not understand, or intentionally denied it.

If you think a topic getting argued over tens of thousands of posts over 5 years is not game politics, then you qualify arguing oral sex is not sex.

Deny all you want, and say you are right!

I'd like Power Play to be Open only if only for the combat PvP aspects.
BGS should be all modes, because they kinda sold the game that way.

A don't equal B either. There's different opinions about the direction of the game, but nothing two party like some nations.

 

[Mohrgan]

I'd like Power Play to be Open only if only for the combat PvP aspects.
BGS should be all modes, because they kinda sold the game that way.

A don't equal B either. There's different opinions about the direction of the game, but nothing two party like some nations.

Here's what I see in the OO-PP issue. If FD just flip a switch, and make PP OO, that won;t fix PP. It's still just bucket filling. But now with a threat of added danger, maybe. Useless, right? That'll cause a ruckus for no gain. If they go through the trouble and effort to make PP more engaging, and integral to the game, why wouldn't everyone be interested in a revamped PP? If you make PP more gooder, why wouldn't everyone want a piece? As in, everyone is paying for the development of this, not just those in open.

That answer to this all, of course, is to actually integrate PvP into the game;s mechanics. Give PvP, not just the threat of PvP, some value in the systems within the game. My rough concept for this is included in this thread, so I'm not going to dredge it up again. But I'm convinced, OO isn;t the answer to anything in the game.

 

[Sysmon]

It is unlikely that Powerplay woulds be made available for a single mode only, as people not playing in that mode would complain they were excluded from content. It is not only to avoid PvP that Solo is often chosen, it can be due to internet latency and other factors as well.

Could Powerplay be separated into a series of "jobs"? Some could be Open Only (patrolling, massacres, ...), some could be available across all modes. They could be set up to earn a regular income, but require an "upkeep" in form of performance markers, such as pamphlets delivered or opponents neutralised, per tick.

S