Anti-Exploit

Agree that would kill piracy ... I don't know there is good solution against that :(

Let's put things into perspective.

  • There is no auction house
  • There is no player crafting
  • There is, AFAIK, no randomness to items (all similar components are the same)

That removes a major source of power for the gold-farmers as those 3 things are the vehicles of their income. Random items generate desire / need in players, sales via the AH (or via a website) between players generate income and inflation from cheap sources of gold starts a chain off.

I doubt very much that players will be purchasing credits from FD as there isn't really anything to spend it upon - sure, a new ship costs a lot of credits and that might be where they make sales, who knows.

Bottom line:
  • Credits for sale by FD is a waste of time given that players don't really need it and if they do it's limited usage
  • No one needs vanity items but there isn't any stigma attached to the sale of them, plus everyone wants to be unique so a small way to change how you look would be popular.
  • Gold farmers are unlikely to be able to make a profit from ED as it lacks the traditional routes MMOs take.
  • If ED becomes very popular then Gold Farmers will come anyway as money made from automated systems is still free money.
 
I'm more interested in knowing what Frontier's plans are regarding real cheating, rather than just gold farming bots.

IMHO, without a server you have to use some kind of web of trust. So I play with you and don't cheat, you give me +1 rep that I can take to your friends and say "see, I'm a nice guy really". It could be a bit immersion-breaking, but I can't see anything else being particularly robust.
 
IMHO, without a server you have to use some kind of web of trust. So I play with you and don't cheat, you give me +1 rep that I can take to your friends and say "see, I'm a nice guy really". It could be a bit immersion-breaking, but I can't see anything else being particularly robust.
I suggested the idea of in-game repping in a thread I started but it got shot down pretty quickly.
 
In game repping would be horrible... just so gamey and fake. The game systems themselves should handle "bad" players.
 
Its far from an ingenious solution at all and its one of those points we have yet to see any detail about. There is one way you can stop 'gold-farmers' in their tracks.. its like this: you dont allow money trades between players. Therefore, any form of allowing the buying of currency is a means to generate revenue for the company. If running a few servers is going to cost the earth then okay, lets see the detail, otherwise its just an excuse to create a wow style cash cow. Valve runs heaps of online games and I've never had to spend a penny outside of buying the game.

Unfortunately there is some practicality involved with online games. If it turns out revenue is required to pay for the cost of servers etc, I am happy to hear the argument and be presented with facts to support it.

There are a few issues that get me boiled up and this is one of them.
Ugh, I hate talking about wow - but I played it for a long time before it turned into eaze mode:

My point is that in the end everyone and his dog seemed to be buying gold. Several of my friends did on a regular basis. Just on a matter of principle I never did - the idea of doing so represented completely debasing the entire game.

So what was the result of the silent free for all and my living on principle?
Anything on the AH that was worth anything (i.e. purple BoEs) was immediately inflated to a price I couldn't afford - and I played the game A LOT. All my friends who did buy gold had no problem in kitting their character out, even alts, with stuff I had to work for but could barely afford, if at all.

That was just deeply unfair, in the end I stopped playing. I am still waiting to understand how being able to buy currency is not going to result in a system of unfairness whether it is bought from Frontier or not.
+1 to you sir...

Buying gold in game is a horrible horrible way to make a game. It rewards those prepared to sink endless cash into it and debases those who want to play properly.

Blizzard argues with Diablo3 that they were taking the power away from 3rd parties and making it so that blizzard controlled the issue, but it descended into pay to win, it always does.

Surely the solution is to bind equipment? Though it doesn't stop cargo drops and i don't see how you can if someone has made arrangements outside the game to meet up and get cargo for real cash.

The way to prevent ship purchases though is to tie them to ranks and reputation, that way new players cant buy their way to the top tier ships, even though they can buy the wealth.

Online all accounts should be held by frontier, to stop those outside the multiplayer arena bringing in purchased character files. Your offline characters should be forced to stay offline.

Give people cool things to sink money into, custom paints, looks and other paraphernalia, but nothing that is more than just aesthetics.

The issue is balancing it to prevent the bots and pay to win vs allowing casual players the chance to catch up.
 
What if it was done implicitly as part of grouping and ignoring people?

You mean Alliancing, I guess? Like, the more Alliances you're kicked out of the lower rep you had? And the more you're ignored the lower the rep?

It's less rubbish, but again, the game should deal with it properly, without the need for fudges. And it's still open to manipulation and errors - perhaps some people will ignore a crack-shot pirate because they get fed up of him beating them - he's done nothing wrong, he's just too good. Should he get lower rep?
 
I suspect there is no real solution to people finding exploits. FD will do what can be done.

But on the concept of paying to win I always come back to "win what?"

I am not going to be the first to get to Elite or any other crown. But that's ok because I am not racing. Winning for me means enjoying. There will always be a better player in the game than me, regardless of how they achieved that status, so I had better just get along with them or get out of their way. That is the nature of multiplayer games, and life.

I will enjoy playing E: D right up until I don't anymore and, hopefully, that will take a long time and I will, therefore, have won.
 
The point of these exploits is to bypass complicated in game processes or to do what you can't do.

So if you block player to player cash transfer - they jetison cargo to the value.
Same for buying gold it will be buying valuable stocks that a player will meet you in game and drop.

The exploits are by definition miss use of in game systems.


FOr example, a bounty exists on a player X, Player Y takes the job to collect the bounty because it will stop anyone else taking it.. protecting player X.
Fortunately, scanning Player X's ship will allow you to see the bounty and collect it legally. but its not in the spirit of the game.

And it gets murkier, with gangs carrying out crimes, and collecting bounties on each other to raise funds... in cheap ships of course..

Its simple to do and fun... TWO Thumbs up.

I am not an exploiter but for some reason my head works that way in coding to block...

So you need to make money transfer EASY (and monitored).. no point setting limits... just flags... to moderators.

Same for cargo scavenging... if you pick up an unusual amount of cargo in 24 hours then it should be investigated... OR customs involved.

There ways of making it in game so that the punishment are there or all to see.

Keep it fun for the mass and for the rest kick ass A gallery of exploiters ships floating lifeless in the prison sectors to ward off other players.

Lose one ship ? NO lost all of your ships.....
 
The point of these exploits is to bypass complicated in game processes or to do what you can't do.

So if you block player to player cash transfer - they jetison cargo to the value.
Same for buying gold it will be buying valuable stocks that a player will meet you in game and drop.

The exploits are by definition miss use of in game systems.


FOr example, a bounty exists on a player X, Player Y takes the job to collect the bounty because it will stop anyone else taking it.. protecting player X.
Fortunately, scanning Player X's ship will allow you to see the bounty and collect it legally. but its not in the spirit of the game.

And it gets murkier, with gangs carrying out crimes, and collecting bounties on each other to raise funds... in cheap ships of course..

Its simple to do and fun... TWO Thumbs up.

I am not an exploiter but for some reason my head works that way in coding to block...

So you need to make money transfer EASY (and monitored).. no point setting limits... just flags... to moderators.

Same for cargo scavenging... if you pick up an unusual amount of cargo in 24 hours then it should be investigated... OR customs involved.

There ways of making it in game so that the punishment are there or all to see.

Keep it fun for the mass and for the rest kick ass A gallery of exploiters ships floating lifeless in the prison sectors to ward off other players.

Lose one ship ? NO lost all of your ships.....


There are some good idea ... FD have a lot of work to monitor all trade or money transfert. For punishment of abuse or exploit : loose ship, loose money, ban for x weeks etc.
 

Philip Coutts

Volunteer Moderator
Pay to win is a strange thing, particularly in ED where there really is no "win" it's more about the journey. There is already a sort of pay to win in the different starting points that were available during the Kickstarter. Some people could only back the game at the basic level and will be starting with a sidewinder + 100 credits, others who had more money to spare will have choices about starting with upgraded ships. The question is does it matter what other people are doing? Well I guess it does if it's spoiling the game for others but ED is huge, massive and there's room for everyone. There should be a constant stream of new players coming in starting from scratch so FD will need to set up the game to ensure that new players don't just get swamped. If FD do it right they will have a vibrant online community, if they don't a lot of people will play 1 player. I trust FD to get it right, maybe not from the start but they will work on it over time.
 
And it's still open to manipulation and errors - perhaps some people will ignore a crack-shot pirate because they get fed up of him beating them - he's done nothing wrong, he's just too good. Should he get lower rep?

That's a good point - I shouldn't have used the word "rep", as it implies an objective score. A web of trust means literally that - I trust you, you trust psykokow, therefore I (partially) trust psykokow. Imagine an interface like:

[Add Andrew Sayers to your contact list]
[ ] Allow Andrew Sayers to import your contacts
[x] Import contacts from Andrew Sayers
 
That's a good point - I shouldn't have used the word "rep", as it implies an objective score. A web of trust means literally that - I trust you, you trust psykokow, therefore I (partially) trust psykokow. Imagine an interface like:

[Add Andrew Sayers to your contact list]
[ ] Allow Andrew Sayers to import your contacts
[x] Import contacts from Andrew Sayers

Well, I may be alone, but this wouldn't work for me as a player! I intend to play solo (in the Ironman/All group) and only have real life friends on my friends list, if any happen to play the game. So because I choose to be a bit of a loner, I will be untrusted. In role-play, game terms that's okay in a way - who should trust me?! But if it's part of a background matching algorithm then I am being prejudiced for no reason.
 
Well, I may be alone, but this wouldn't work for me as a player! I intend to play solo (in the Ironman/All group) and only have real life friends on my friends list, if any happen to play the game. So because I choose to be a bit of a loner, I will be untrusted. In role-play, game terms that's okay in a way - who should trust me?! But if it's part of a background matching algorithm then I am being prejudiced for no reason.

You're not entirely alone on this aspect (I will be solo for a lot of my playtime, also in IM/All :D)

Any in-game reputation system is far more open to abuse - I am part of an alliance which consists of 2,000 people .. If you don't give me your cargo, your money, boots and motorcycle, than I will instruct each and every member to down-rate you. You call my bluff .. now even the game hates you ! :eek:
 
Last edited:
Pay to win is a strange thing, particularly in ED where there really is no "win" it's more about the journey. There is already a sort of pay to win in the different starting points that were available during the Kickstarter. Some people could only back the game at the basic level and will be starting with a sidewinder + 100 credits, others who had more money to spare will have choices about starting with upgraded ships.

This is barely "pay 2 win". Starting in an updated Cobra Mk3 is going to save you a minor number of game play hours. It's not like you get a years head start.

But people will always cheat, or try to. I've known people who would always enable god mode, back in Doom. I never understood it as a general thing, because it removes all the challange in the game. I can see the fun in running rampaging around, on a temporary basis, but some wouldn't play a game if they didn't have god mode accessible.
 
Any in-game reputation system is far more open to abuse - I am part of an alliance which consists of 2,000 people .. If you don't give me your cargo, your money, boots and motorcycle, than I will instruct each and every member to down-rate you. You call my bluff .. now even the game hates you ! :eek:

Just to make sure we're on the same page:

Alice is friends with Bob
Bob is friends with Carol
Carol is friends with Dan

Erin and Frank have no friends (aww)

Ignoring implementation details for a moment, would you agree that:

If Dan blocks Erin, it would be nice for Carol to automatically block Erin too. It might be nice if Bob had the opportunity to block Erin, but Alice and Frank shouldn't care what these people they've never met think of each other.

In the quoted example, that would translate to all or most of your alliance automatically blocking me on your order, but nobody outside your alliance blocking me.
 
Tell ya the truth, it's threads like this that want to make switch the whole damn multiplayer part off completely. This kack is going on big time over in MWO (MechWarrior Online) at the moment. Saying it will be "dealt" with as it comes up is just not good enough really. :( This is the kack multiplayer games always has put up with, it never ends. :mad:
 
Tell ya the truth, it's threads like this that want to make switch the whole damn multiplayer part off completely. This kack is going on big time over in MWO (MechWarrior Online) at the moment. Saying it will be "dealt" with as it comes up is just not good enough really. :( This is the kack multiplayer games always has put up with, it never ends. :mad:
Which would seem to suggest that there is no real answer to the problem. Perhaps the quote in your sig should apply to multiplayer gaming as well?
 
Which would seem to suggest that there is no real answer to the problem. Perhaps the quote in your sig should apply to multiplayer gaming as well?

There isn't a real answer .. however I believe that FD have taken the right approach with the unique grouping system.

Worst case scenario is that I play online alone or with close friends :)
 
Back
Top Bottom