Elite Babysitter...

[JeffRyan]

So we're discussing how we handle cheating and bad behavior in the DDF and it's becoming clear to me that EVE Online is dominating the development of the social side of ED.

Step by step, each of the measures being taken (grouping mechanisms, ignore feature, the on/off PC-NPC transmitter and now the almost universal outcry for policing of bad behavior I'm seeing dominating the DDF discussion) is reasonable and logical. But as a whole it's taking the 'Dangerous' out of Elite Dangerous.

It seems the playerbase wants every possible contingency of having to deal with people they find disagreeable dealt with.

I think this might be a problem with our society in general, we try to protect ourselves and our children too much from hurtful situations that they end up far too sheltered.

Ironically I totally disagree with griefing, I'm a fervant anti-griefer on EVE and I believe that people should strive to be decent human beings all of the time and apologise for it when they fail.

But this continual step by step layer of protection after layer of protection surrounding Elite Dangerous's systems and playerbase just seems ridiculous

This DDF topic is far from over and if policing is instituted I don't necessarily disagree with it, but that isn't the point...

Each step in and of itself isn't necessarily wrong, people decry the British Nanny State, yet that seems to be what we're wanting from Elite 'Dangerous' and Frontier.

Protect us from the bad people out there!

PS. This /isn't/ an attack or a sideswipe at the current DDF proposal either, although I've argued against policing bad behavior I'm not actually that bothered, it's more a problem I have with the mindset I'm seeing dominate as a sociological reaction.

 

[Nagual]

Yarp.

 

[Enride]

I guess its a difficult balance to protect against those wishing only to ruin for others, yet at the same time allow the danger of those playing by all the rules.

I dunno, its gonna be very interesting when social systems start getting patched into the game, to see how it plays out.

 

[wstephenson]

Well said. I don't think indulging in group angst and paranoia at this stage in the development process, based on hearsay about all the baby-eating that goes on at EVE, is going to be very productive.

 

[Benlandia]

After lurking for some time on the forums I decided to begin posting because I've seen (mostly) useful discussions concerning the future of the game.

I look forward to participating in the beta, but I fear that thus far the heavy price tag has deterred a large portion of morons from taking part. When the game becomes affordable to the younger generation (I can't believe I'm saying this at 25) I expect to see a rise in griefers. I foresee popular youtubers attracting them.

In a perfect world, we would let the game release as intended. Yet due to idiocy, changes WILL have to be implemented. People with low self-esteem will always seek to drag others down with them. It's an inevitability.

 

[jhondidfool]

In real life people can't dettach themselves from their acts. In the Internet they can with impunity, that's why extraordinary measures have to be taken in order to promote a sane and healthy environement.

 

[Robert Maynard]

In real life people can't dettach themselves from their acts. In the Internet they can with impunity, that's why extraordinary measures have to be taken in order to promote a sane and healthy environement.

Indeed. A player's character in-game is not, I believe, intended to be short-term disposable and death has a cost. This makes E: D very different from, for example, Call of Duty where getting killed has no real effect on future gameplay. New players will have to arrive at this realisation for themselves.

 

[mattyboy1509]

So we're discussing how we handle cheating and bad behavior in the DDF and it's becoming clear to me that EVE Online is dominating the development of the social side of ED.

Step by step, each of the measures being taken (grouping mechanisms, ignore feature, the on/off PC-NPC transmitter and now the almost universal outcry for policing of bad behavior I'm seeing dominating the DDF discussion) is reasonable and logical. But as a whole it's taking the 'Dangerous' out of Elite Dangerous.

It seems the playerbase wants every possible contingency of having to deal with people they find disagreeable dealt with.

I think this might be a problem with our society in general, we try to protect ourselves and our children too much from hurtful situations that they end up far too sheltered.

Ironically I totally disagree with griefing, I'm a fervant anti-griefer on EVE and I believe that people should strive to be decent human beings all of the time and apologise for it when they fail.

But this continual step by step layer of protection after layer of protection surrounding Elite Dangerous's systems and playerbase just seems ridiculous

This DDF topic is far from over and if policing is instituted I don't necessarily disagree with it, but that isn't the point...

Each step in and of itself isn't necessarily wrong, people decry the British Nanny State, yet that seems to be what we're wanting from Elite 'Dangerous' and Frontier.

Protect us from the bad people out there!

PS. This /isn't/ an attack or a sideswipe at the current DDF proposal either, although I've argued against policing bad behavior I'm not actually that bothered, it's more a problem I have with the mindset I'm seeing dominate as a sociological reaction.

But wasnt that always the elite way bounties for infringements backed up by strong policing in policed systems with the policing steadily dropping until you reach anarchic systems.
Thereby forcing griefers and pirates to outlying lawless systems thereby making them dangerous but highly profitable as goods will be more dangerous to bring in.
I cant see why anybody would have a problem with that !

 

[Viajero]

Im not privy to those discussions but as a relative newcomer I struggle to understand how this can become an issue in the vast universe of ED...

Surely there is room enough in 400 billion stars for all kinds of play style.

Proposal:

The most elegant solution in my mind would be a hybrid system, a mix of what EVE has and what most backers here seem to be pushing for in terms of privacy:

1 - Create a full spectrum of security levels for Star Systems, ranging from complete lawless Systems (no "police") to complete secure ones (with "police" intervening instantly in case of unwarranted aggression etc).

2- Establish an arbitrary low security threshold beyond which there is no way to avoid multiplayer encounters, ignores dont work at all, etc irrespective of grouping and alliances.

3- Viceversa would also be true, i.e. in the other side of the threshold all groups, privacy, ignores etc will work as intended so far as described in the DDF skinny summary. So players looking for the solo or co-op experience can also enjoy the game undisturbed with no griefing around etc.

4- Given a decently varied ranges of "security" or privacy FD could conceive of creating areas of space with gradual changes in between the above 2 extremes.

Commensurate Risk and Reward

One thing to consider in this kind of security range scenario and so to balance those concerns for "easy mode" in high security Star Systems is that risks and rewards in low security systems or wherever there is highly skilled NPC' s (which can also happen in high security Systems) should be both larger, i.e. higher chances to get killed by either PC or NPC but better credits or cargo to be scooped if successful etc.


ED can have its cake and eat it too

400 billion star surely allows for vast areas for all kinds of play styles where players would be free to roam each at will when required or wished for. Asuming risks and rewards are designed accordingly there should not be an issue with this moves.

The beauty of 400 billion stars is that it gives ED an unprecedented opportunity to succeed at allowing all play styles in without cannibalizing each other as it happens in EVE... and possibly in SC unless CIG gets the size of the universe right.

 

[Ixnatifual]

Can't people just form a private group when going into the dangerous areas so the pirates can never see them?

 

[Phaedra]

I think part of the problem is that the discussions are taking part in the context of having cooped up all the alpha players in a single system with no law enforcement (or any other measures such as grouping) for a long time with nothing to do other that shoot NPCs and each other. Now I understand the need to do this to test the network code and to improve its stability, but I think its a poor guide to how the game will play out when players are generally more thinly spread and the mechanism already set out in the DDA are implemented.

Adding more layers of protection may make some obvious forms of anti-social behaviour, like ganking, more difficult, but it will never prevent griefing. In my experience griefers tend to know the necessary game mechanics far better than the average player and are often exceedingly adept a using them to their advantage. Adding more layers of complexity and reducing transparency can catch out innocent players inadvertently as often, if not more often, than punishing or detering griefers.

Whilst I'm not privy to the discussions in the DDF, the propsals being mooted in this forum on the back of DDF discussions seem ill thought out. For example, the suggestion that players should be able to hide that they are players, whilst at the same time the penalties for attacking another player remain almost seems like it could have been devised by a suspect baiting, can-flipping, mission item stealing Eve griefer for fun. To be able to trick a player into attacking you, forcing them into the all player group, where you can attack them when you wish (since you have rights of retribution) and where they can't "ignore" you (which allows for some psychological baiting as well) is like winning the lottery for a griefer. The fact that this is being proposed as an anti-griefing mechanism defies belief.

 

[Robert Maynard]

2- Establish an arbitrary low security threshold beyond which there is no way to avoid multiplayer encounters, ignores dont work at all, etc irrespective of grouping and alliances.

3- Viceversa would also be true, i.e. in the other side of the threshold all groups, ignores etc will work as intended so far as described in the DDF skinny summary. So players looking for the solo or co-op experience can also enjoy the game undisturbed with no griefing around etc.

2- sounds a bit EVEy (nullsec?). Groups either work, or they don't. The idea is to "play the game the way you want to" - if that excludes other the majority of players then so be it.

3- limits groups to specific security level areas. This does not seem to gel with the description of groups in the DDA.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Whilst I'm not privy to the discussions in the DDF, the propsals being mooted in this forum on the back of DDF discussions seem ill thought out. For example, the suggestion that players should be able to hide that they are players, whilst at the same time the penalties for attacking another player remain almost seems like it could have been devised by a suspect baiting, can-flipping, mission item stealing Eve griefer for fun. To be able to trick a player into attacking you, forcing them into the all player group, where you can attack them when you wish (since you have rights of retribution) and where they can't "ignore" you (which allows for some psychological baiting as well) is like winning the lottery for a griefer. The fact that this is being proposed as an anti-griefing mechanism defies belief.

If a player was not broadcasting that they were human, why (reasonably) should the game apply any penalty to another player for attacking the first? Always broadcasting that the pilots of ships are human simply carries out PKers first cast target selection process for them.

 

[Phaedra]

2- sounds a bit EVEy (nullsec?). Groups either work, or they don't. The idea is to "play the game the way you want to" - if that excludes other the majority of players then so be it.

3- limits groups to specific security level areas. This does not seem to gel with the description of groups in the DDA.

I agree and would also add that you can't really have partitions in space in a game that evolves dynamically in response to player actions. Throwing out the background simulation and implementing a Eve type High, Low, Null sec system would pretty kill the game.

 

[Viajero]

Can't people just form a private group when going into the dangerous areas so the pirates can never see them?

Well, my proposal above would deny privacy of all kind beyond an arbitrary low security threshold. So, answer would be... no, they cant.

 

[Viajero]

2- sounds a bit EVEy (nullsec?). Groups either work, or they don't. The idea is to "play the game the way you want to" - if that excludes other the majority of players then so be it.

3- limits groups to specific security level areas. This does not seem to gel with the description of groups in the DDA.

That is why I said it would be a hybrid system between what EVE has and what most backers here want.

Beyond the arbitrary security threshold you could have friends and groups, etc just not private or hidden to other players.

In the other side of the threshold, all privacy, ignores etc would work as intended in the DDF.

Surely 400 billion stars is large enough for all play styles?

 

[Robert Maynard]

That is why I said it would be a hybrid system between what EVE has and what most backers here want.

Beyond the arbitrary security threshold you could have friends and groups, etc just not private or hidden to other players.

Why should E: D emulate EVE in any way regarding security levels? EVE already exists, there's no need for E: D to copy it....

 

[Viajero]

I agree and would also add that you can't really have partitions in space in a game that evolves dynamically in response to player actions. Throwing out the background simulation and implementing a Eve type High, Low, Null sec system would pretty kill the game.

Remember this is a 400 billion star universe.... cant see a reason why some systems cant be arbitrarily dedicated to certain security ranges, or even make them evolve and change if need be, as you say, as long as there is always a good balance between low sec ones and high sec ones.

 

[Viajero]

Why should E: D emulate EVE in any way regarding security levels? EVE already exists, there's no need for E: D to copy it....

Why not if it can inspire a good solution for everyone?

We wouldnt be copying anything, just creating a hybrid system that can actually work for all play styles.

ED has the opportunity to suceed where EVE failed, imho.

 

[Robert Maynard]

Remember this is a 400 billion star universe.... cant see a reason why some systems cant be arbitrarily dedicated to certain security ranges, or even make them evolve and change if need be, as you say, as long as there is always a good balance between low sec ones and high sec ones.

Of course, the galaxy is enormous....

However, that does not mean that the grouping mechanic should be compromised - it's there for a reason.

If a group of players want to hang out in anarchic systems and attack anything that moves (in the All Group), fair enough - in-game mechanics will ensure that they gain bounties for attacking Pilot's Federation players. For them to demand to attack any player at all, including grouped, solo or players that have ignored them does not seem reasonable.