Avoiding Group Control...

[ianw]

Must admit i find this Goonery business quite fascinating since I first read about it linked from here sometime early last year I think.

By all accounts they seem to be into tear collecting which I can only assume means they all rend their garments in anger or something! :S

I was lurking on the SA SC thread at about the time they all started signing up for SC en masse - then the forum put that idiot kid video paywall up and I didn't bother after that.

They were openly discussing their tactics on the SC forum as I recall.

One famously stroppy poster over here once declared himself a Goon in a fit of pique - in between forum bans - during one of his periodic FD bashing posts back then - shan't name him - but he tried to go with a doom laden post along the lines of "we are legion" or something - which came across as rather silly really. But it was quite funny - possibly not the sort of representative The Goons would actively promote...



That said there are rather a lot of them and if they become determined to make a nuisance of themselves they probably will one way or another.

Let's hope they remain occupied with SC which actively promotes the guild thing and presumably suits them better...

 

[The Killer Edible Poet]

I share the OPs concerns.

Greifers I can deal with, they are just another bounty to me. But large preexisting groups of players attempting to muscle in and monopolise the game for the sake of it sounds like it could get annoying quickly.

It seems like FD have put allot of thought into this already though, so i guess we'll gave to wait and see what happens.

I was planning on playing in the All group, hopefully I won't have to reconsider.

 

[JeffRyan]

I was planning on playing in the All group, hopefully I won't have to reconsider.

We do have ways of working around them dominating the All Group, but I do sorta see the All Group as The Heart of David's idea of Elite Dangerous. I don't want to see that destroyed.

 

[Alric]

I pointed out before that much of the negative play that people fear is possible within the proposed rules, and that a general refusal to discuss organised group play in an open-minded way was masking that not preventing it. Consensus seemed to be that only evil EVE imperialists want to discuss such things, far better just to leave it as it is

Have been burying my head deeper and deeper in the sand ever since. Am now pretty sure there's no problem.

 

[JeffRyan]

ED has none - no choke points; no player / guild controlling regions of space; instancing limits us to 32 players max (+ NPC); sorry but currently ED does not allow for the same to happen. Yes they can zerg but instancing rules can take care of that. (Or face a whooping and learn)

/2cs.

I'd be curious as to they would and ED will have chokepoints just through emerging traderoutes. The instancing does go a LONG way to prevention.

 

[CR33P]

I think no matter how you slice it, the "capital" systems: Achenar, Lave, Sol etc will be massively populated by PCs compared to the lesser-known ones. Luckily it'd seem that there'll be plenty of other systems to play in. Hopefully just as interesting too.

I remember trading hand and battle weapons between Facece and Vequez and making a killing in FE2 on the Amiga! And visiting reidquat occassionally to test my weapons/shields.

I think the 32 player limit will prevent most of the exploits/griefing everyone seems so concerned about, we'll have to wait and see. Fascinating read all round.

 

[Joe nose]

Still a somewhat open question as we don't know how player interdiction will work. As of now, the only way even a large group of players could blockade a system would be to camp station space close-in. Which will get them blown to bits in the proper release.

I guess certain POIs could be camped, such as extraction sites, but they aren't choke points as such. I'm not too worried.

 

[Phaedra]

I listened to the link he provided - noted that within the game EVE there are mechanics for a singular entity (or collaboration of them) to take control of the galaxy. I also noted that when they talked about MWO they couldn't do that as the game didn't lend them the same features. They could, however, take control of the game outside of the maps by means of brute force due to the map being "owned" by someone, and for selection of map play they could pick good players from a HUGE pool of players - ergo they tended to win.

ED has none - no choke points; no player / guild controlling regions of space; instancing limits us to 32 players max (+ NPC); sorry but currently ED does not allow for the same to happen. Yes they can zerg but instancing rules can take care of that. (Or face a whooping and learn)

FD need to keep their guard up but I have faith in DB.

/2cs.

I agree. The things to watch out for are the implementation of corporations/guilds and moves to allow player control of regions of space and the resources they contain. Whilst I'm not necessarily opposed to some degree of these, it needs to be dome in a way that doesn't undermine the key role of the NPC organisations and the aggregated actions of individual players in the background simulation in shaping the ED universe.

 

[Joe nose]

I agree. The things to watch out for are the implementation if corporations/guilds and moves to allow player control of regions of space and the resources they contain.

Yes. Which is why these things should not be part of elite.

 

[Space_Killer69]

They will come, they're already here. Some members of the DDF are goons, some members of FD's staff will be goons - the demographic of ED Players compared to Something Awful Forum members almost guarantees it.

That and "Mittens" likes the game...

http://themittani.com/news/e3-2014-elite-dangerous-impressions

One thing that the forums do need is a refresher in Forum PVP - Post padding, Necro edits and all the rest

 

[joe_coke]

it seems simple enough to avoid, single player engaged.

 

[Shepard]

The thought has been milling around all day, partially because of the DDF after launch thread, partially because of an interview with EVE Goonswarm's Alliance Leader The Mittani that PacalB linked to in that thread (the interview starts about 9 and half minutes in) and partially because ever since I've played EVE I've hated that 'Win at All Costs' mentality that that particular group prefers. It takes the fun out of playing for the casual gamer where one group dominates the game.

What worries me is what would happen to ED if that happened. And how could a group dominate Elite Dangerous?

Now because of EVE's instancing mechanics it means that the Goons would find it difficult to field large fleets in Elite Dangerous. However listening to the interview the Mittani describes how they work around that sort of thing in MechWarrior Online and World of Tanks, where they also have instancing/battlefield limits. Because Elite Dangerous isn't in the arena format I thought; If I was the Mittani, how would I dominate Elite Dangerous?

Obviously the mechanics would make it difficult, but not impossible to dominate completely the central Core Systems, particularly the hubs like Sol and Achenar, Alioth, Lave and a few others. What I would do there would be to observe traffic control /around/ those systems and position groups in key systems where they could dominate what I'll call 'The Principle Instance'. This is the instance that's primary in most systems and would only lead to a secondary instance if player traffic in that system ever went over 32.

A well planned laying out of forces could lead to a group like Goonswarm dominating certain key systems in a perimeter, either around areas of human space, basically blockading access to the inner core worlds or blockading access to the Frontier.

This may seem like scare-mongering, but the Goons are coming to Elite Dangerous and they WILL try to be the dominating force of the game. Their mindset calls out for it. My methodology above is how I'd do it if I had the numbers that the Goons have at their disposal (they have a LOT of people). Basically locking down key star systems by dominating the Principle Instance of those star systems with groups of players stationed around space stations in those systems or dominating the key hyperspace spot.

As for combatting it, there are a few ideas. A) The hated transponder or non-identificating of player ships. B) Random hyperspace spots, there's no one 'entry point'. C) Not giving corporation mechanics ever. For ever really good reason (like the First Great Expedition) there is another that will abuse the mechanics.

This isn't a post against griefers or PvPers (I'm actually pro-PvPer despite not being one as most people who know the history of my posts knows) it's how would a large group go about dominating the game within the mechanics and how could we stop it.

I think this is a bigger issue than the griefing topic (it's related but not the same) as it could be game and community destroying and it's better we discuss it now BEFORE it becomes an issue. Particularly because we know that it will.

Elite Dangerous is about one man, one ship, perhaps flying with a small group of friends. Small Gang Warfare if PvP is what you want, not EVE's mega-fleets. We already have one EVE, we don't need another.

David actually mentioned that he wants to see players doing what you are concerned about in your post. He is hoping that instead of spreading throughout the universe players will get into groups and try to blockade certain systems to push the market to their desire.

Based on what he said I think he wants to see players fighting over specific key systems or even frontier, but I personally don't see how this is possible since instances can only maintain up to 32 PCs in each. I see how some guilds will actually try to exploit it by creating multiple guilds and try to completely blockade systems with their own members.

It also sounds like the game will be creating new instances as soon as the limit is set. From this perspective I see some guilds entering a few instances to allow minority numbers to still be able to enter and then keep it that way. Because of these limitations IMHO the gamplay in the end will feel more like griefing. But then again we don't yet know how the matchmaking will work . So probably worth to wait until then before making conclusions/decisions about blockades and economy control.

 

[MonochromeChaos]

(1) in Eve Online, you can do what you like pretty much without consequence in nullsec, and K-space. So that's probably half the gamespace, or possibly more. In E: D, you can do what you like in anarchy systems; so, what, maybe 10% of the core worlds? And, of course, uncharted space, which will be so far out you'll be really unlikely to meet anyone.

(2) 32 people in an instance. Assume all the goons are on each other's friends lists - they may need to be, in order to be able to 'play with their friends'. So they'll get grouped together, you'll get a lot of instances all with 32 Goons in, with no-one to shoot but NPCs and each other. And in the other instances, the rest of us will be flying to the same stations, in the same systems, without ever seeing them.

(3) Assuming they manage to get, say, 20 people in the same system across a number of instances, you only need ONE of them to be on your block list and you won't be instanced with them - assuming that works as has been discussed in the DDF. So you don't need all x-thousand of them on your block list, a decent enough selection of them will do.

(4) Assuming you enjoy the interaction that comes with the 'all' group, you're likely to end up with a friends list with a lot of non-Goons on there; so you are more likely to be instanced with them, and less likely to be instanced with a bunch of Goons.

I really don't see it being a problem. You can't 'dominate' anything in E: D - the game just isn't designed that way. You might be able to make a lot of Anarchy systems around the core worlds very dangerous places to visit - well, then you're just doing everyone a service there, Anarchy systems are supposed to be dangerous.

But 'a lot' of systems in the context of x-hundred billion systems amounts to, actually, nil, to a first approximation.

And given all that, the phenomenon that is Goonswarm won't actually happen here. You'll get people who play as part of GS in other games also playing here; they might well concentrate on the small-gang PvP element of the game.

But some kind of GS invasion is highly unlikely to ruin the game for others.

All of which does, of course, rely on the instancing/friends lists/block lists working. I would dearly love to see that be introduced in the beta after this one...just so we know it's going to work. (although testing it is going to be...difficult)

 

[Space_Killer69]

Yep one of the differences between Co-op and Small Gang PVP - how do you ensure good fights if one side pads the instance/s with an unassailable numerical superiority? Should you even bother?

Co-op you can just ramp up the difficulty of the NPC's versus the number of players. Don't work if it's a pvp gang out on the gank.

 

[JeffRyan]

The key would actually NOT be flying around in 32 player instances, but 16-20. In what I called the Principle Instance, the first and for a lot of systems, the only. If you control THAT, you'd effectively dominate the Principle Instance and thus the system. Obviously this doesn't hold for hubs, but it could work for trafficked systems just outside the hubs.

David actually mentioned that he wants to see players doing what you are concerned about in your post.

Single groups and single players, not one group peopled by literally thousands of players

 

[MonochromeChaos]

Yep one of the differences between Co-op and Small Gang PVP - how do you ensure good fights if one side pads the instance/s with an unassailable numerical superiority?

The key would actually NOT be flying around in 32 player instances, but 16-20.

Assuming it's even possible for them to do that?

We don't know how much 'choice' we'll get given if there are a number of possible instances for us to be placed in. From what I've read on the forum and the DDF, it seems likely that you won't get ANY choice, you just hit an instance - if there's one available that contains people on your friends list, it'll be that one. If there are several, and some of those contain people on your block list, then you WON'T get any of those.

End result - if GS want to form squads, they're going to be doing so via their friends list, and simple statistical likelihood. Given that there are so many of them, to function as one large 'entity' they'll need to have extensive, Goony friends lists. End result - loads of instances with 32 members of GS, and no-one else.

Loads of other instances with the rest of us in.

Ensuring gudfights does not seem to be a large part of the game vision. I can't see E: D being used as a match-shooter in the way DayZ is. Small gang PvP will be possible, but it'll likely tie you and a small bunch of friends to an anarchy system and its immediate surrounds, or put you out on the rim where you are unlikely to meet up with too many other players anyway.

-edited to also quote Jeff Ryan -

 

[JeffRyan]

David's made it clear that most systems will have ONE instance, because of traffic being spread out it'd be difficult for certain star systems to go above a population of 32. With a large enough group of players like Goonswarm has you could effectively control a perimeter of these systems blockading traffic too and fro. Second and third instances would only come in if the traffic went over that. Which will be common in high traffic core systems. There would be key unpopulated strategic points though. Dominate those. And you can dominate the game.

 

[Phaedra]

Assuming it's even possible for them to do that?

We don't know how much 'choice' we'll get given if there are a number of possible instances for us to be placed in. From what I've read on the forum and the DDF, it seems likely that you won't get ANY choice, you just hit an instance - if there's one available that contains people on your friends list, it'll be that one. If there are several, and some of those contain people on your block list, then you WON'T get any of those.

End result - if GS want to form squads, they're going to be doing so via their friends list, and simple statistical likelihood. Given that there are so many of them, to function as one large 'entity' they'll need to have extensive, Goony friends lists. End result - loads of instances with 32 members of GS, and no-one else.

Loads of other instances with the rest of us in.

Ensuring gudfights does not seem to be a large part of the game vision. I can't see E: D being used as a match-shooter in the way DayZ is. Small gang PvP will be possible, but it'll likely tie you and a small bunch of friends to an anarchy system and its immediate surrounds, or put you out on the rim where you are unlikely to meet up with too many other players anyway.

-edited to also quote Jeff Ryan -

Allies that slave their drives together will always be placed in the same instance IIRC.

 

[MonochromeChaos]

David's made it clear that most systems will have ONE instance, because of traffic being spread out it'd be difficult for certain star systems to go above a population of 32. With a large enough group of players like Goonswarm has you could effectively control a perimeter of these systems blockading traffic too and fro.

So...assuming you have an E: D equivalent of Jita, which everyone wants to get to - surrounded ONLY by Anarchy systems, with no non-Anarchy systems within jump range of ANY ship - then, yes you might possibly be able to achieve a blockade, at least of people who don't maintain their block list.

If you stage out of a nearby Anarchy system, then yes you could harrass players within non-Anarchy systems...but honestly, there are just going to be too many places to go, and too many instances of each, for this to really be a problem.

We're talking about choke-points... in effectively infinite space. I just can't see it working that way.

I could be wrong, of course, but I'm really not worried. The Mittani has said that their tactic to win is "to make the game so miserable to play for the opposition that they just don't bother logging in any more". Well, sorry, but my block list will just make that impossible.

 

[JeffRyan]

So...assuming you have an E: D equivalent of Jita, which everyone wants to get to - surrounded ONLY by Anarchy systems, with no non-Anarchy systems within jump range of ANY ship - then, yes you might possibly be able to achieve a blockade, at least of people who don't maintain their block list.

If you stage out of a nearby Anarchy system, then yes you could harrass players within non-Anarchy systems...but honestly, there are just going to be too many places to go, and too many instances of each, for this to really be a problem.

We're talking about choke-points... in effectively infinite space. I just can't see it working that way.

I could be wrong, of course, but I'm really not worried. The Mittani has said that their tactic to win is "to make the game so miserable to play for the opposition that they just don't bother logging in any more". Well, sorry, but my block list will just make that impossible.

Trade routes and the like will emerge making it feasible, I mean there's like infinite water in the oceans (sorta) but trade routes emerge anyway...