[Alliances] How to avoid hostile takeover?

[CATPAIN KIRK]

Sorry - I'm sure this has been asked before but a forum search didn't provide any insights and I was admittedly too lazy to go through the entire DDA thread.

According to the DDA post, in an alliance, any player can invite other players to the group

Creating an alliance is handled exactly the same way as creating a private group with the caveat that anyone in the group can invite other players (including non-friend players) into the alliance and no one is the leader
In the all players group any player can be invited into the alliance by any alliance member

Now for preexisting group with a strong out of game backbone that's not recruiting from within the game, that shouldn't be a major problem and if someone misbehaves, you just tell everyone to kickvote the offender on forums/mumble/jabber, revoke all oog access rights and be done with it.

Players can vote to kick an alliance member out of the alliance
After a set time limit the vote is closed and the majority is taken to decide the outcome unless all members have already voted or the required number of votes is reached

However, if there are alliances in open online and I'd be the leader of one of those alliances - lets call it "TEH UNTIED FEDERATION OF PLANTS" with ~2000 members - and would like to take out another alliance - let's call it "Masters of the Universe" with ~100 members - for some reason, I would try to have one of my members infiltrate the alliance I want to harm, have 500 members of my alliance drop membership and have the infiltrator invite them all upon being accepted into "Masters of the Universe" and boom - [MOTU] [edited] are done - absolute authority in votes and 501 players hunting down 100 without even being charged for it, because, players in an alliance:

Can fire upon each other without criminal implications

Of course they could just kick every original member too, if my pilots turn out to be at the receiving end despite their numerical advantage.


So how is that adressed?

(And no - I'm not even planning to form or join an alliance, hence not planning to do the things mentioned above)

Moreover, I wasn't sure if this post should be here, in beta discussion or merged into the DDA thread, so please move if you think there's a more appropriate location for it.

Thanks for reading

 

[Adept]

They are called Wings now

I think the key is in the name. They aren't going to be mega-structures of hundreds of players, they aren't clans or guilds under a different name.

My guess is that a wing will be limited to a maximum of 6 - 12 ppl at a time. Enough for nice co-op play, but not enough for a "clan".

And as such, the problem will not arise.

 

[CATPAIN KIRK]

They are called Wings now

I think the key is in the name. They aren't going to be mega-structures of hundreds of players, they aren't clans or guilds under a different name.

My guess is that a wing will be limited to a maximum of 6 - 12 ppl at a time. Enough for nice co-op play, but not enough for a "clan".

And as such, the problem will not arise.

Thanks - would you mind to share the source?

Of course that solution should largely solve the issue - at least for every wing with >6 members, given the limit was 12.

 

[CATPAIN KIRK]

Apparently not as common as I thought it would be - just one response consisting of wishfull thinking devoid of any citations after >200 views.


Pretty poor, given this is the only remotely valid definition of "griefing" I could currently think of.

 

[Asp Explorer]

Wish I could help - but I can't see how open Alliances/Wings need any form of extensive in-game management at all.

You ask your nearby friends for help, ask nearby Commanders for help, and everyone goes about doing whatever task the Alliance/Wing was required for in the first place.

Job done - you all go your separate ways and do what you want to do, until the next Alliance/Wing opportunity arises with whatever friends and helpful Commanders you have nearby.

The only source really is this one http://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php?t=6300 which I am sure you have seen before.

 

[hydraSlav]

Let the meta-games begin!

Can fire upon each other without criminal implications

Of course they could just kick every original member too, if my pilots turn out to be at the receiving end despite their numerical advantage.

Very good point.

When Dust 514 FPS just introduced corp vs corp matches for territory control, there was a famous incident where a member of opposite team infiltrated the other corporation, and was picked to play in the match. When the match started, he called in a tank, and started team-killing everyone on his own team. The game had (at the time) no mechanic for the corp leader, or even the match players to kick the member from the game.

And for those not in the know, everything you use in Dust comes from your virtual pocket. Needless to say, the corp suffered huge financial loss as a result.

But then again, there is something to be said about disgruntled member of BoB executor corp defecting to Goons and Goons using that to disband BoB alliance and all their sov with a flick of a switch. Meta-gaming at it's peak.

However in all above, it was a fault of the corporation/alliance for gaps in security.

In your example, it's pure numbers that can perform that.



On side topic, how dare you desecrate MOTU

 

[hydraSlav]

Well... shows you how much they all care about MM part of MMO...

 

[Adept]

Thanks - would you mind to share the source?

Of course that solution should largely solve the issue - at least for every wing with >6 members, given the limit was 12.

The name change is from a comment by Mike Evans, I think in a thread where I was suggesting better names than "alliance", due to Alliance being the 3rd power block in the universe.

The size of them is speculation based on a lot of snippets, the DFA thread on Allainces , and the 32 player limit on islands.

 

[Adept]

Well... shows you how much they all care about MM part of MMO...

Sharing the galaxy with hundreds of thousands of other players is pretty massive. No guilds or clans needed for that

 

[CATPAIN KIRK]

Well... shows you how much they all care about MM part of MMO...

They will - believe me .

Adressing the issue now would abort a plethora of threads about griefing in the future, but given there hasn't been any input other than uncited and therefore quite pointless posts except for Asps, it will need to arise at some point in order to be dealt with.

(And no - I wont take part in it, but it will happen...)

 

[hydraSlav]

Sharing the galaxy with hundreds of thousands of other players is pretty massive. No guilds or clans needed for that

When will you get it through your head that NPC are not players, and don't form the MM part. By that definition, GTA I and II are "MM" too, as is pretty much every single game. Go ahead, try to prove to the internetz that GTA I or even Freespace (if you wish) is MM because it's got many NPCs.

I will eat my hat if the active population (not just those that bought and abandoned within a few months) will reach over hundred thousand.

there hasn't been any input

Can you ask a mod to move this to general discussions? Or better yet start a new thread there on the subject.

 

[CATPAIN KIRK]

Can you ask a mod to move this to general discussions? Or better yet start a new thread there on the subject.

I'd rather not - (as a matter of fact I'd expect the least useful input from the general forum - in any games messageboard) - I made my point here and so far, I don't see how the issue is being adressed.

A nice bit of info that fits here is that DB mentions the general topic of clans/guilds in yesterdays EGX talk at 19:40.

He refers to them as Alliances, but apparently, some users seem to *know* more about the game than him. (I wonder why I'm not surprised ?).


Anyhow - it's a problem, it will need to be addressed and group size limitations miss the inherent flaw in the system - you'll get the same issue, just on a smaller scale.


The question if it's fixed now or after a few hostile takeovers have happened once alliances are implemented isn't all that important, imho.

 

[hydraSlav]

Welp, goons will have a field day.

At least try a bug report...

 

[CATPAIN KIRK]

I can hardly file a bug report on something that isn't even implemented yet, can I?

But as I said, I'm not all that worried - if it's possible once alliances are in, someone will use the tactic, tears will be shed on the forums, tickets will be filed and the issue will be fixed.

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

From the same thread you quoted Captain:

By Mike Evans:

Alliances are about shared trust and responsibility. Making one player the leader isn't fair on the other alliance members as the leader has all the power and the others none. At least if everyone has the same power then the alliance becomes self regulating as players that invite bad apples into the alliance will soon be discovered and either a) kicked by vote or b) everyone else would leave and start a new alliance sans the bad apples.

However way you look at it the only way to allow players to fly around as a group and formally inform the game they don't want to get separated based on criminal repercussions or have individuals reacted to differently to the rest of the alliance means there will be griefing opportunities. This is regardless of whether it's one player in control or all players in control. Someone will be able to invite bad apples in.

Players that want to be able to group up with people they're not so trusting of should create a private group and play together in there or just hang around with the players they wish in the all players group. There is nothing preventing anyone from forming a community and playing together in game. All it takes is a little coordination through chat or voice to indicate where to go and what to do in or out of game.

FD have taken your concern into consideration - there's always the chance some bad people will be invited into "your" alliance (even though there isn't a leader / person in charge) and kick you out. If that happens just form another alliance.

 

[CATPAIN KIRK]

FD have taken your concern into consideration - there's always the chance some bad people will be invited into "your" alliance (even though there isn't a leader / person in charge) and kick you out. If that happens just form another alliance.

I've read that, but I don't see any advantage in not having a leader or at least restrictions on who is able to invite.

I've also read this:

At least if everyone has the same power then the alliance becomes self regulating as players that invite bad apples into the alliance will soon be discovered and either a) kicked by vote or b) everyone else would leave and start a new alliance sans the bad apples.

But that clearly shows they haven't taken the scenario described in my OP into consideration - except if you'd perceive b) a desirable solution.

Alliances in open online may last for years, they may build a name, there will be Blogs and Videos attached to that name - and even if they're not famous - people share memories of their alliance and become attached to it on a personal level. Even if it doesn't have a name and logo in the game, I doubt it's fun to be griefed into forming another alliance once a month.

(And as I said - this doesn't really have much impact on established oog communities that don't recruit from within the game, but mostly alliances emerging from within the game).

All it leads to is Paranoia within emerging ingame alliances, driving them into group online, because here they will find a manageable structure.

(If that's the goal, that's valid and I'll rest my case).

 

[Aewarin Jameson]

The advantage in not having a leader is that it emphasises the fact that you're free to do as you please and not bound by any arbitrary rules. The simple fact remains if someone kicks you out then reform a new alliance with your friends.

As Mike said - even with a leader you can invite bad apples, so not having one empowers everyone.

Given that islands can only form up to 32 and the throwaway comment of "alliances are only meant to be temporary" whilst you and a few buddies group up to take on a common objective I really don't see the issue.

An alliance / wing is not a guild .. that's coming (hopefully) in ED#2

 

[Asp Explorer]

I really do think it further reinforces the view that we are all single pilots, free to do as we think best, and not have heirarchy determine our actions other than the fundamental goal of reaching Elite.

So many people want to be special, the stark reality is that we are all very, very ordinary indeed.

 

[CATPAIN KIRK]

So many people want to be special, the stark reality is that we are all very, very ordinary indeed.

Excellent point, and it's among the few essential things I've learned in life so far - "Listen up, maggots. You are not special. You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake. You're the same decaying organic matter as everything else." is something I would sign without second thought.

_________

However, this is a game - it's not about being the leader of anything - I'm personally not interested in forming or even joining an alliance (Yes - I've played eve for nine years, was in corporations, was a director, but I'm the second-row guy, taking care of specific aspects and not interested in ever taking a prominent leadership position, quit a year ago and spent the two years before that as a lone wolf).

It's about functional game mechanics.

This ruleset just renders alliances formed from within game (note: that means not RL friends or associated with an OOG community) completely dysfunctional.

Now Imagine you're the middle-management guy in a company with 20 co-workers - you employ one person and all of a sudden, that person has the right to employ 50 of his friends, smacking everyone around without repercussions.

Does that feel right to you?

 

[Asp Explorer]

Respectfully, I'd disagree. Alliances exist to achieve specific goals given to players to achieve. Those goals are set by the Powers. Players will group up, form an Alliance, which may include players from more than one Power.

If the goal is at odds with other Powers goals, I'd fully expect other Alliances to form to protect interests. When those Alliances meet, there will be further shifting as the various alignments sort themselves out to best gain faction rep, money, kill counts, player reputation, all sorts of things based upon the makeup of the groups. It's all very dynamic, subject to immediate change, and transient in nature.

True emergent gameplay.