Avoiding Group Control...

[Meritz]

Interesting that you talk about laws, but repeatedly want FD to ignore this?

Kickstarter...

Is not legally binding. Despite what they may tell you. It's a risky investment kind of thing. Basically, when you back some project, you gamble that it will be realized but you are given no guarantees beyond the assurances of the people you gave your money to.

So the same laws apply as with investors staking claims in a high-risk fund. People do lose a lot of money on that and nobody goes to jail or is even fined.

Selling a product and then denying its full use on frivolous grounds though... now that would elicit a few frowns.

 

[JosiahD]

The point I was making about "the concept that PvP is secondary, even tertiary to Elite's focus" is that, as designed, PvP is certainly allowable but is and was never envisioned to be the main part, the focus, of the game. Unfortunately, the common strand that runs through all of these threads about guilds and group swopping and PvP in general is that PvP either IS or SHOULD BE the main focus of the game. And it just ain't so.

+1 mate - agree completely here. While PvP is possible in game it is not the main focus. If anything, multiplayer cooperative PvE is more of a focus than PvP in my opinion. Sick of some people trying to twist the focus of the game into a PvP free for all, seemingly as a higher priority that all else.

 

[Joe Spivey]

... Selling a product and then denying its full use on frivolous grounds though... now that would elicit a few frowns.

One person's or one group's view on what is frivolous is simply opinion, and therefore not relevant to the hypothetical legal setting you are trying to put it in.

 

[Meritz]

The point I was making about "the concept that PvP is secondary, even tertiary to Elite's focus" is that, as designed, PvP is certainly allowable but is and was never envisioned to be the main part, the focus, of the game.

You know what the focus of the game is? Whatever we focus on. As I said, if FD want to make it abundantly clear that PvP is a very very bad antisocial behavior, all they need to do is slap a never-sleeping, never-giving-up, never-running-out-of-reinforcements NPC harassment squad on the offending player that hounds them ceaselessly every time they log in, blows up their ship, then blows up their three next ships, then replaces their ship decal with a big "NON-CONFORMIST" graffiti. Permanently.

Now, that would teach them a lesson!

 

[Meritz]

One person's or one group's view on what is frivolous is simply opinion, and therefore not relevant to the hypothetical legal setting you are trying to put it in.

That's why they invented courts and the concept of suing people.

 

[Joe Spivey]

You know what the focus of the game is? Whatever we focus on. As I said, if FD want to make it abundantly clear that PvP is a very very bad antisocial behavior, all they need to do is slap a never-sleeping, never-giving-up, never-running-out-of-reinforcements NPC harassment squad on the offending player that hounds them ceaselessly every time they log in, blows up their ship, then blows up their three next ships, then replaces their ship decal with a big "NON-CONFORMIST" graffiti. Permanently.

Now, that would teach them a lesson!

............ Have you ever seen 'The Caine Mutiny'?

 

[Bromley86]

ED player demographic is mainly made up of 40-something's with a lot more disposable cash than your average GS.

It's been mentioned that this demographic will change, especially on release. What hasn't been mentioned is that FD have already got most of the money that they'll see from those 40-somethings, which somewhat reduces our bargaining power.

 

[Space_Killer69]

Is not legally binding. Despite what they may tell you. It's a risky investment kind of thing. Basically, when you back some project, you gamble that it will be realized but you are given no guarantees beyond the assurances of the people you gave your money to.

So the same laws apply as with investors staking claims in a high-risk fund. People do lose a lot of money on that and nobody goes to jail or is even fined.

Selling a product and then denying its full use on frivolous grounds though... now that would elicit a few frowns.

I'm going to have to search a bit for an English Legal definition of Frivolous. (Na I'm not really going to bother, don't even know if it has legal status in England.)

Kisckstarter:

Is a creator legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their project?

Yes. Kickstarter's Terms of Use require creators to fulfill all rewards of their project or refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill. (This is what creators see before they launch.) This information can serve as a basis for legal recourse if a creator doesn't fulfill their promises. We hope that backers will consider using this provision only in cases where they feel that a creator has not made a good faith effort to complete the project and fulfil.

Could be frivolous to ignore stuff, could not be, dunno not a lawyer, are you?.

To be honest I like this pick and choose approach to legal stuff. I really don't feel like driving on the right side of the road today or paying any tax this year.

 

[JeffRyan]

Doesn't matter. If you create a game with certain rules, anything goes within those rules. I don't care what "the concept" is. Tell me the concept with the ingame rules. Don't want us to shoot each other? Make player ships impossible to fire at.

This is the basic Goon tactic. If it's possible, even if it's mean as hell. We'll do it. And you can't hit back at us because it's mechanically possible ingame. If it wasn't meant to be possible. It wouldn't be.

 

[Meritz]

This is the basic Goon tactic. If it's possible, even if it's mean as hell. We'll do it. And you can't hit back at us because it's mechanically possible ingame. If it wasn't meant to be possible. It wouldn't be.

Which is exactly why it is so effective and pretty much can't be prevented. You think CCP likes everything that players do in null space in Eve? That they like that rumours circulate about their game becoming stagnant and that 0.0 gameplay is so dominated by huge power blocs and their non-aggression pacts, new guys have no chance in hell to stake a claim and stir things up?

Right at the time new, more dynamic and fresh sci-fi MMOs are about to round a corner cracking their beefed up knuckles?

Of course they don't. But they made the game that way and let the players play. That's a sandbox for you. They can't do a thing, just watch and try to tweak things and gently push in a direction they want.

When you're making a sandbox MMO, you need to understand that you're making a very open world which WILL see players trying to find loopholes for fun. You also need to understand that you cannot please everyone ALL the time, and the best you can do is make the game robust enough so that players always have ingame options to push for outcomes they desire.

That's it. You can't dictate playstyles. Might as well get out of the business if you try.

 

[Storagebod]

This is the basic Goon tactic. If it's possible, even if it's mean as hell. We'll do it. And you can't hit back at us because it's mechanically possible ingame. If it wasn't meant to be possible. It wouldn't be.

It's so sad...everything has to be codified and locked down. It's the law as opposed to the spirit of the law.

DB sets out a vision for a game and says what he wants it to be...but it counts for naught in many people's eyes. If FD decide to enforce the vision....'Waaahhhhh, how dare you tell me how to play in your game!'

Unfortunately I think that's where we are these days. There's awful lot of scorpions around on the forums; (google: frog and scorpion if you don't know the fable).

 

[Meritz]

To be honest I like this pick and choose approach to legal stuff. I really don't feel like driving on the right side of the road today or paying any tax this year.

If players could sue crowdfunded developers for "not delivering", everyone would get sued. Treat crowdfunding with caution, is all I am saying. Don't expect things to be written in stone for all eternity.

 

[Meritz]

............ Have you ever seen 'The Caine Mutiny'?

Nope, but I think I saw something like it somewhere... now what was the title... Blunty? Bondy?

 

[JeffRyan]

Which is exactly why it is so effective and pretty much can't be prevented. You think CCP likes everything that players do in null space in Eve? That they like that rumours circulate about their game becoming stagnant and that 0.0 gameplay is so dominated by huge power blocs and their non-aggression pacts, new guys have no chance in hell to stake a claim and stir things up?

Right at the time new, more dynamic and fresh sci-fi MMOs are about to round a corner cracking their beefed up knuckles?

Of course they don't. But they made the game that way and let the players play. That's a sandbox for you. They can't do a thing, just watch and try to tweak things and gently push in a direction they want.

When you're making a sandbox MMO, you need to understand that you're making a very open world which WILL see players trying to find loopholes for fun. You also need to understand that you cannot please everyone ALL the time, and the best you can do is make the game robust enough so that players always have ingame options to push for outcomes they desire.

That's it. You can't dictate playstyles. Might as well get out of the business if you try.

Whilst we can't dictate playstyles, Frontier are doing their best to hard-code into the game a definite push in that direction, making in-lore mechanics such as the police and bounties, that aren't fiction-breaking in the way Concord are (why don't concord ships just dominate Null given they're so damned powerful). Which will go a long way to making border systems being the place to make a career of being a villain. For the individual player. Matchmaking mechanics and the discussion of a hell group which should be decided using data mining rather than reporting will also go a long way.

The question remains. How can you stop a massive group from dominating? What hard coding could be put in place that would limit the power of a mass organisation to influence events or dominate certain areas of space, even if through indirect means like missions and pushing for example, a faction in a local dispute that would further the goals of that faction (ie. Say MG1 (massive group 1) decide to ally with the Empire and push Empire policy in all missions and disputed areas. Would be one way to do this. And not having an MG2 that would counter that, they'd soon start to influence the game).

One way that could disrupt this sort of push would be diminishing returns on player contribution. So player 1 contributes 1 point to the final objective, player 2 0.9999 and so on.

 

[NoirWolf]

Whilst we can't dictate playstyles, Frontier are doing their best to hard-code into the game a definite push in that direction, making in-lore mechanics such as the police and bounties, that aren't fiction-breaking in the way Concord are (why don't concord ships just dominate Null given they're so damned powerful). Which will go a long way to making border systems being the place to make a career of being a villain. For the individual player. Matchmaking mechanics and the discussion of a hell group which should be decided using data mining rather than reporting will also go a long way.

The question remains. How can you stop a massive group from dominating? What hard coding could be put in place that would limit the power of a mass organisation to influence events or dominate certain areas of space, even if through indirect means like missions and pushing for example, a faction in a local dispute that would further the goals of that faction (ie. Say MG1 (massive group 1) decide to ally with the Empire and push Empire policy in all missions and disputed areas. Would be one way to do this. And not having an MG2 that would counter that, they'd soon start to influence the game).

One way that could disrupt this sort of push would be diminishing returns on player contribution. So player 1 contributes 1 point to the final objective, player 2 0.9999 and so on.

The only way to do it fairly is via having guilds...Goons will mostly localize into a few as they are by nature group orientated then you slap diminishing returns after 10 points by a guild or slap diminishing returns on wings and such (so that say 3 players working together will be twice as fast doing stuff as a single one but their contribution will count in the background simulation as one and it scales upward from there maintaing that curve, hell they could even use a parallel to Amdal's law here to do it ).

 

[Space_Killer69]

If players could sue crowdfunded developers for "not delivering", everyone would get sued. Treat crowdfunding with caution, is all I am saying. Don't expect things to be written in stone for all eternity.

I'm sure "Nobody else got sued yet so you can't sue me", is already top of the list when is comes to legal defences, in courts up and down the land.

It's amazing how FD have managed to stay so close to the "vision" outlined so far given all the disparate play styles and individual views around. Where they have deviated from the vision that has been either as a result of technical limitations, or for gameplay reasons which have undeniably benefitted the game and have been well articulated, well reasoned and well thought through.

So far "I want guilds cause everyone else has them and Nerf grouping cause I say so," haven't, to my mind, quite hit those same barriers. Certainly not enough to convince even a sizeable minority, let alone majority judging by the multitude of threads started by new forum members.

It really is quite obvious people have failed to do due diligence and research what they are buying when they call for drastic changes which go against advertised features and functions.

At least there will be one version of Elite Dangerous not polluted. After that who knows.

 

[JeffRyan]

I think one burning question that I tried to get an answer to is whether or David Braben himself has an issue with massive groups like GS trying to dominate the game. Most of us (including myself) assume no. Based on various other ideas and the general 'anti-griefing' mentality and from the get-go trying to ensure that griefing is minimalised.

But as this thread points out various times (myself also included) griefing and massive group domination either of an area or the game itself is an entirely different question. And requires different solutions.

Or even if it is a problem for David. It's a question I tried to get an answer to in the recent Q&A, but I was doing exam practise at the time and probably didn't put it in the best possible way. And it didn't get answered.

I, for one, would back off this whole subject if David answered that he didn't mind and even welcomed the attempt.

 

[Bromley86]

I think one burning question that I tried to get an answer to is whether or David Braben himself has an issue with massive groups like GS trying to dominate the game.

Seeing as the ED thread over on the SA forums seems to have been started and maintained by an FD employee, presumably he doesn't mind as much as I expected.

 

[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.

Hate to quote myself.

I don't see that as any issue, the individual doesn't seek to represent FD, and I'm sure they're sensible enough to separate their professional life from their personal life.

The last thing anyone would want, I believe, is a repeat of the T20 scandal (EvE Online), this time with the Goons playing the role of BoB.

 

[Adept]

Never going to happen. First, no developer is going to appoint themselves a judge in what's griefing and what isn't.

Second, there is kinda no point in enabling players to shoot at each other, then punishing those who do, eh? It would be like giving a bunch of kids water guns, then yelling at them for getting wet.
.

You would have much more credibility if you hadn't just turned up this summer, and if you gave the impression that you actually researched the game and the vision of the Frontier devs & DB.

Instead you come accross as a self righteous Goon envoy from EVE, who somehow knows how the future obviously has to unfold... because obvious, and sandbox.

I'm not buying it.