Avoiding Group Babysitting... A Discussion with Myself in Three Parts...

[Bob_H]

I do agree with your OP Ryan. The two 'problems' are very different aspects of the same issue - or at least closely related issues and should be treated differently.

I've been a fan of the Transponder thing until I saw DBOBE's Norden Game Conference presentation yesterday (Thanks Pecisk and others for linking to it) and have since changed my mind somewhat on that. I saw it mainly as a gameplay feature rather than an anti-griefing feature. Sure the anti-griefing feature was a big bonus but I wanted to see it in as a way of making the PU truely a thing I'm a very small speck in rather than a hide-away-from-the-nasty-people thing. Having heard DB's view on the Pilot's Federation and how the game mechanics differ between resolving PC and NPC engagements I'm much less enamoured of the proposal. I do agree that the main thrust of the DDA posts on the subject are going to severely penalise playing like an at and we should at least see them in-game and working before we start trying to shoot any FD staff for creating such a system. The way I understand it the only people who are going to be severely constricted by the rules are going to be the people who want to PK at will with no consequence and they're the ones railing against it the most. At the moment they can do so but hopefully on 29th July, if not before, we're going to see the bounty system in place for real and we'll have a clearer view on how that is all going to work out then.

With regards to the group thing, there are already a number of safeguards built into the game proper. The primary tools of the large group griefers is the ability to control large groups in game, the game in question needs to be of a fixed and static size and the methods and routes of movement have to be narrowly defined and again, static. With ED, while the core systems are pretty much static, there are over 100,000 of them plus, if FD's plans are to be believed, they will be in continual flux. Also, While hyperspace always takes you to close to the systems primary star there is no absolute point of entry plus you are always in SC when you enter the system. Travel away from the primary star to almost anywhere in the system is quick and convenient. Certainly, there is the possibilty for interdictions but that appears to be a system that has to be carefully planned out and not an Ad-Hoc method of interception. Unfortunately we will need the full mechanics in-game to test out but on current information, I don't see this mechanic as a viable replacement of the jump gate/road crossing chokepoint ambush.

As long as FD keep to their guns and do not allow any kind of guild/group/organisation support nor cave into demands for player owned assets such as stations or even whole systems then I think we're pretty safe from the group based griefers. Their only way of griefing as a group is through control of players or in-game assets/locations in a fixed and walled game environment. As long as those are denied to them then they'll find it extremely difficult to get a foothold. I'm not saying they won't try and take over but I am saying as plans currently stand they can be easily worked around, bypassed or ignored.

 

[Bromley86]

I'm not that convinced it'll be that big a problem with goon groups (new one on me) in the final release.

Firstly you have instances of 32 players, so if they group together they are automatically reducing the amount of fresh meat they can interfere with.

Instances are best thought of, AFAIK, as bubbles around the players' ships that merge subject to a 32 player limit. As long as the goons (or whoever) split into squads of 4-5, they can patrol and only come together when they need to. March divided, fight united.

Secondly if you're keeping yourself clean, then by adding these players to your ignore list then you won't ever see them again. Only if you are wanted does the ignore list get, well, ignored.

Not so, if this DDA post is still current. Only if everyone in the session (=instance) has a player on their ignore list is that player blocked from entering that session. Not sure how they're intending to deal with ignore lists and sessions of 1; I think it's a block, unless there's one neutral who can enter the session he can then open the way for his buddies on your ignore list.

If the news mechanics are implemented as I understand it then the location of these "attacks" will be broadcast to the universe and I'm sure there will be equally as many willing bounty hunters to banish them.

Only if there's an equivalent level of organisation on the bounty hunter's side. Any system that is designed to allow a single player to function as a pirate will likely be tested by 1,000 players coordinating.

 

[JeffRyan]

Whereas i agree there are two different issues whichever way u cut it they still cross into the same issue.

There needs to be a safe and enjoyable starting experience for new players and there must be a persistent universe which is effected by players but which cannot be dominated and controlled by a faction of players.

This should be the remit the devs r working with.

I am more concerned about Goonswarm exploiting the games mechanics in some way to achieve an artificial control. That means beta testing is paramount. And tbh id love to see Goonswarm in the beta to see if they can break it!

I am confident that individual griefing will be easier to combat than most other games out there. As long as FD ensure that the games NPC factions r stronger than ANYONE in the game then its easy.

The starting zone issue is a bit more complex and will need some clever dev to come up with a solution imo. I hope they come up with a system which keeps it pvp friendly and yet doesnt put new players at a gamebreaking disadvantage.

Excellent post and... after two months of arguing with other people and myself, sort of where I arrived at.

 

[Harrimon Hoxx]

Was inevitable, victim or adversary?

Neither.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Jeff, I think you forgot very important detail regarding meta game - and it's background sim.

David on record have said that he is in fact openly interested to see large groups of players trying to break down market for example, or trying to extent some control over something. Of course, you can't control something for real in ED, but he wants to see people trying to influence events.

So it all bodes well for players who area really interested in meta game. If they are interested in dominance trough meta game, then they will be disappointed though, because even large player group in ED will be just a tiny spec of all actors in the game.

Could it mean that some of goons could actually enjoy the game despite being unable to dominate? It easily could be so.

Regarding new players - I think having them in safe systems, with good police force is enough to give some guarantees regarding griefing and attacks. What's needed though is good tutorials - but I am still not sure I want to "force" new players trough them. Biggest bone regarding Elite games has always been self-discovery. However how to manage that people take that route - maybe some specialist can answer that and consult FD.

 

[DD_Crash]

Regarding new players - I think having them in safe systems, with good police force is enough to give some guarantees regarding griefing and attacks. What's needed though is good tutorials - but I am still not sure I want to "force" new players trough them. Biggest bone regarding Elite games has always been self-discovery. However how to manage that people take that route - maybe some specialist can answer that and consult FD.

Option of safe systems to learn interplanetary and interstellar flight, and docking plus the practice combat missions should be enough for people starting out. If they choose not to do the practice and start in an anarchy system then they shouldnt bleat about how hard it is

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Option of safe systems to learn interplanetary and interstellar flight, and docking plus the practice combat missions should be enough for people starting out. If they choose not to do the practice and start in an anarchy system then they shouldnt bleat about how hard it is

I fully understand that. But some will try that and complain. Can we give them hints visible enough to understand they have to "man up" before venturing into dangerous? Question of the century.

Most likely it's not fully possible, still interesting problem to solve.

 

[JeffRyan]

Jeff, I think you forgot very important detail regarding meta game - and it's background sim.

David on record have said that he is in fact openly interested to see large groups of players trying to break down market for example, or trying to extent some control over something. Of course, you can't control something for real in ED, but he wants to see people trying to influence events.

I think there's a difference between a group of us getting together to dominate a market or have a specific objective over a limited area. That is particularly fine and welcome and within 'the spirit of the game' I mentioned in my OP. Another is a large group delibrately through meta-gaming and in-game actions trying to break the game in general and ruin the fun for others. That isn't in the spirit of the game and why I feel that this would have to be monitored through the game's developers. And for the reason you mentioned above why we shouldn't be trying to plug in systems to protect from this. I think the difference wouldn't be that hard to detect through both the forums and also the sheer numbers that would be involved. I imagine a good group of players would be in the 10s or 100s over a short term. A decisive attack on breaking the game would be 100s or 1000s over a longer term. Where do we draw the line? It's why I feel that this sort of problem now falls to FDEV.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I think there's a difference between a group of us getting together to dominate a market or have a specific objective over a limited area. That is particularly fine and welcome and within 'the spirit of the game' I mentioned in my OP. Another is a large group delibrately through meta-gaming and in-game actions trying to break the game in general and ruin the fun for others. That isn't in the spirit of the game and why I feel that this would have to be monitored through the game's developers. And for the reason you mentioned above why we shouldn't be trying to plug in systems to protect from this. I think the difference wouldn't be that hard to detect through both the forums and also the sheer numbers that would be involved. I imagine a good group of players would be in the 10s or 100s over a short term. A decisive attack on breaking the game would be 100s or 1000s over a longer term. Where do we draw the line? It's why I feel that this sort of problem now falls to FDEV.

Well, as far as I know there's good reason FD won't have automatic event generation right at the start, it will slowly introduced as they tweak and test various aspects for background sim (together with DDF). As background sim responses can be tweaked, I really don't see any problem someone *trying* to break something at meta game level. Anything else on micro level should be deemed as bugs and exploitation of them.

 

[KING5TON]

End of the day it's up to FD to manage.
Eve works the way it does because that's how CCP wants the game to work. They have a hands off approach, let the chips fall where they may.
FD appear to have a different approach with systems in place to curtail antisocial behaviour and they have stated that they will control the galaxy in some respects manually.

FD are gods of their game, able to change things at will. Whatever the game becomes it's by their (divine) design.

I want a fun experience for everyone and that's what FD seem to be producing.
If you want MP fun it's there, you want co-op it's there, you want single player it's there and if you want it hardcore you've got ironman.

 

[PacalB]

Eve works the way it does because that's how CCP wants the game to work. They have a hands off approach, let the chips fall where they may.

Conceptually, EVE didn't start out as the pure metagame it is now. It was morphed and twisted into that, the CCP buckled in to this style of play basically. I'm curious, would you suggest that would be okay to do here with respects to FD's story and current position on the game?

 

[KING5TON]

Conceptually, EVE didn't start out as the pure metagame it is now. It was morphed and twisted into that, the CCP buckled in to this style of play basically. I'm curious, would you suggest that would be okay to do here with respects to FD's story and current position on the game?

I think the game should be allowed to evolve naturally to a degree.
I think that if they implement consequences well enough that everything will balance out.

There's nothing really stopping me from going on a killing spree in real life (I wouldn't though as i'm nice! ) other than the consequences and my own choices. I'd like E: D to reflect real life.