Tired of the Open vs. Private Debacle

[Robert Maynard]

Have there been any developments from Frontier after Sandro's grenade was thrown and was later backtracked as: it was just an inquiry?

Following the Powerplay Flash Topics we had:
Sandro commented on mode populations (June 2018) in what seems to be his last appearance on the Elite Dangerous project:

Source: https://youtu.be/52kOyADxK5E?t=3110

The Background Simulation & Scenarios stream and recap thread reiterated Frontier's stance on who the BGS is for (October 2018):

Source: https://youtu.be/VCy1ZYjLvdQ?t=850

BGS (Background Simulation) Changes
The Background Simulation (BGS) is a representation of how the actions of all players, no matter on which platform or mode, impact the galaxy. The factions that inhabit these system battle for influence over the population and control of the starports, installations and outposts. Player actions can push these factions into various states; such as economy, security, health and influence. With concerted effort players can help grow a faction's economy, destroy its security status, or help win a war.

Will posted a statement regarding the Powerplay investigation (March 2019):

Powerplay
We hear your concerns and feedback on Powerplay in and outside of this thread. We'll be evaluating and looking into some of the proposed solutions Sandro detailed in his post here. This is an on-going investigation and nothing is confirmed at the moment, but rest assured that we will let you know when we have updates regarding this.

Mind you, the "hand grenade" of March 2016 was later confirmed by Sandro in a stream (December 2016) to not be being developed but "nothing's ever completely off the table, nothing to announce at the moment":

Source: https://youtu.be/uetVzNINdKU?t=1602

A bit over two years later we had the Powerplay Flash Topics.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I bet it won't be ice planets.

Because I want that.

I think New Era will have them, since they were rolled into general surface improvements aimed for that time, and it makes sense with the odds on atmospherics.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The Background Simulation & Scenarios stream and recap thread reiterated Frontier's stance on who the BGS is for (October 2018):

Ah, I remember that one. Especially how it sunk 90s "The devs be agreeing with me, they be gonna make everything Open Only, you'll see" battleship

 

[Robert Maynard]

Ah, I remember that one. Especially how it sunk 90s "The devs be agreeing with me, they be gonna make everything Open Only, you'll see" battleship

It did a bit.

 

[Robert Maynard]

I bet it won't be ice planets.

Because I want that.

I don't just want ice planets - I'd like some of the terrain / flora / atmospherics from PC/PZ&JWE to make an appearance in ED.

 

[Brrokk]

If what people want isn't important, then what other people want isn't a consideration.... Can't have one and not the other

But the issue he's addressing is a matter of balance, because indeed, what each person wants will vary, so rather than look at that, game balance should be the metric instead.

But he's right. All players have access to all the same game options: perfect balance.

The real problem isn't balance. It's that some want to play the game a certain way, but that way is only optimal if everyone is forced to do it.

In other words, they want to control other people's play as well as their own.

 

[Gully Foyle]

I don't just want ice planets - I'd like some of the terrain / flora / atmospherics from PC/PZ&JWE to make an appearance in ED.

Next Next Era: The Melding.
If we could have coasters, flora and fauna, but not this Bleak Horror:

Spoiler

I bet it won't be ice planets.

Because I want that.

We shall make them with our whistles and sticks
Hockey next of course.

 

[Gully Foyle]

snip

 

[Rubbernuke]

But he's right. All players have access to all the same game options: perfect balance.

The real problem isn't balance. It's that some want to play the game a certain way, but that way is only optimal if everyone is forced to do it.

In other words, they want to control other people's play as well as their own.

And as demonstrated, that choice and balance is an illusion- at worst it leads to AFK problems for combat powers and one mode where there is hardly any chance of failure leading to a near 100% delivery rate (so its super easy to defend). You can't rely on a gentlemans agreement for 'fairness' so Powerplay becomes a race to the bottom with 5C tactics floating about in the background. This fuels suspicion and is not condusive to a healthy feature or associated player groups. Its because of that Powerplay needs more imposed rules that define things. What those rules are, is up for debate. Sandros proposed changes were one way of achieving that- players become NPCs.

 

[Han Zulu]

I think New Era will have them, since they were rolled into general surface improvements aimed for that time, and it makes sense with the odds on atmospherics.

I think so too, because they said something about it being too difficult in the engine at that point to make ice planets and how it seems like they're actually reworking things in the engine for NE. I'm pretty sure we'll see ice planets. I hope for atmospheric planets and gas giants as well.

 

[Han Zulu]

I don't just want ice planets - I'd like some of the terrain / flora / atmospherics from PC/PZ&JWE to make an appearance in ED.

They have the assets and mechanics in place, so I don't see why they couldn't. They could put all placer created planets from those games somewhere into the ED galaxy. User created content!

 

[Brrokk]

And as demonstrated, that choice and balance is an illusion- at worst it leads to AFK problems for combat powers and one mode where there is hardly any chance of failure leading to a near 100% delivery rate (so its super easy to defend). You can't rely on a gentlemans agreement for 'fairness' so Powerplay becomes a race to the bottom with 5C tactics floating about in the background. This fuels suspicion and is not condusive to a healthy feature or associated player groups. Its because of that Powerplay needs more imposed rules that define things. What those rules are, is up for debate. Sandros proposed changes were one way of achieving that- players become NPCs.

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".

 

[Cheese Helmet]

But he's right. All players have access to all the same game options: perfect balance.

The real problem isn't balance. It's that some want to play the game a certain way, but that way is only optimal if everyone is forced to do it.

In other words, they want to control other people's play as well as their own.

Balance is not determined by access level. Unless that's the only consideration, and given the scope of the game, it most certainly isnt. False premise.

Is wanting mining and the other careers "wanting to control others gameplay?" No. It's balancing game design and understanding incentive.

 

[Brrokk]

Balance is not determined by access level. Unless that's the only consideration, and given the scope of the game, it most certainly isnt. False premise.

Is wanting mining and the other careers "wanting to control others gameplay?" No. It's balancing game design and understanding incentive.

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

 

[Mohrgan]

Balance is not determined by access level. Unless that's the only consideration, and given the scope of the game, it most certainly isnt. False premise.

Is wanting mining and the other careers "wanting to control others gameplay?" No. It's balancing game design and understanding incentive.

Equal access is the only balance in the game. Does the game restrict 'Vettes from attacking Adders? Does the game restrict Wings to wing fights? Does the game adjust for a difference between the sizes of PMFs in a conflict? All no's. Do we want them to? Again, no. Apparently, access is the only consideration. It's plain in the design and implementation to my eyes.

An armchair developer can't just define how balance is achieved. Especially one with an agenda. Equal access allows any and all Commanders to take advantage of any perceived benefit they see with one mode or another, or any of the other features of the game. Rejecting access as a mechanism for balance is simple hand-waving, in order to go around a hill you can't climb.

 

[Ezren]

If what people want isn't important, then what other people want isn't a consideration.... Can't have one and not the other

But the issue he's addressing is a matter of balance, because indeed, what each person wants will vary, so rather than look at that, game balance should be the metric instead.

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.

 

[Hempstead]

An armchair developer can't just define how balance is achieved. Especially one with an agenda. Equal access allows any and all Commanders to take advantage of any perceived benefit they see with one mode or another, or any of the other features of the game. Rejecting access as a mechanism for balance is simple hand-waving, in order to go around a hill you can't climb.

But most armchair developers think they are right and everybody else is wrong. It's like the POTUS... he just went to Jared. I am sure Jared thought Middle East Peace is easy, all "they" had to do is do whatever "Jared" said. See? Easy!

We got so many Jareds here on this forum!

 

[Mohrgan]

But most armchair developers think they are right and everybody else is wrong. It's like the POTUS... he just went to Jared. I am sure Jared thought Middle East Peace is easy, all "they" had to do is do whatever "Jared" said. See? Easy!

We got so many Jareds here on this forum!

Viva la Jared!

 

[Ezren]

But most armchair developers think they are right and everybody else is wrong. It's like the POTUS... he just went to Jared. I am sure Jared thought Middle East Peace is easy, all "they" had to do is do whatever "Jared" said. See? Easy!

We got so many Jareds here on this forum!

This topic is already gross enough without politics getting involved.

 

[Hempstead]

This topic is already gross enough without politics getting involved.

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?